Recent Topics
16 Kia Sorento defender ltx?
by Torro - 10/19/19 07:38 AM
Oil for BMW B58 Engine in Toyota Supra
by Ch2289 - 10/19/19 07:36 AM
Hyundai Engine Oil Selection
by STIcandy - 10/19/19 07:17 AM
2015 Forester XT oil catch can recommendation
by jbutch - 10/19/19 07:00 AM
Brake Cap - Lost It
by coopns - 10/19/19 05:00 AM
Toyota Corolla 2020 CVT
by georgemiller - 10/19/19 03:55 AM
Illinois football fans
by mjk - 10/18/19 11:52 PM
Multi oscillating tool?
by xfactor9 - 10/18/19 11:24 PM
Titan oil filter mount
by AZjeff - 10/18/19 10:49 PM
Racor gas vs diesel fuel filters
by Meridian28 - 10/18/19 10:20 PM
Just curious, why no polls here?
by blupupher - 10/18/19 09:39 PM
0w-30 over 5w-30?
by SDGolden - 10/18/19 09:33 PM
Motorcraft FL-820S Cut Open - 4k Miles
by ThirdeYe - 10/18/19 08:19 PM
Mopar OAT alternatives?
by WillB - 10/18/19 06:57 PM
Honda GS190?
by Astro_Guy - 10/18/19 05:28 PM
Autozone Clearance and G-05 Sale
by Warstud - 10/18/19 05:18 PM
Toyota Oil Loss (3.3L)
by MaximaGuy - 10/18/19 03:46 PM
Newest Members
SkipCam, Ch2289, Paul_Nieminen, CanRex13, Pickles
69606 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
74 registered members (53' Stude, AandPDan, Astro14, 97Astro, AndyB, atikovi, 7 invisible), 1,440 guests, and 24 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics296,164
Posts5,092,621
Members69,606
Most Online3,532
Jul 30th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 #5144137 06/25/19 10:12 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 960
newtoncd8 Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 960
After seeing DuckRyders ISO code 24/23/15 for both the Fram Ultra and the HAMP filter, I sent in for a UOA from our RX330 -- I got back the same ISO code.

Oil had 5,659 miles, RX330 has 245,000+, Oil was PPHM 5W30, Filter was (oversized) 90915-YZZD3.

Intend to get a TG and try it at some point.

For those interested, full UOA posted to the UOA section.

[Linked Image]




12 Jeep GC, 04 Lexus RX330, 77 MG-B
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5144141 06/25/19 10:15 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5144152 06/25/19 10:33 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,075
G
geeman789 Offline
Offline
G
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,075
Remarkably consistent ... or not.

The small particle ranges are pretty wide though. 24 equals 80 000 to 160 000 , 23 equals 40 000 to 80 000 ...

So MAYBE they are accurate ?


2011 SUBARU Impreza 5-door manual / 2016 HONDA Pilot / 2011 MAZDA 2 auto
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: ZeeOSix] #5144865 06/26/19 04:27 PM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,293
D
DuckRyder Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.


Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?


Robert
  • 2019 Volkswagen Jetta R-Line
  • 2005 Honda Civic Sedan
  • 1972 F100 Ranger XLT (390/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)
  • 2002 Ford Ranger XLT 4D Supercab 3.0L
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: DuckRyder] #5145136 06/26/19 09:27 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?


It's a bit perplexing, because some of the PCs posted by members here seem to follow the rated ISO filter efficiency pretty well as you've seen by some of my plots of that data. To me, that doesn't seem to just be a coincidence. Something is going on, but hard to know what at this point.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: DuckRyder] #5145196 06/26/19 11:17 PM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,950
B
bbhero Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,950
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.


Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?



I suspect that you may well be correct here...


Nissan Altima 3.5 Coupe
Cam2 Dexos1 Gen 2 5w30 Wix 57356 Oil filter
"Treat your family like your friends and treat your friends like your family."
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: bbhero] #5145203 06/26/19 11:44 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?

I suspect that you may well be correct here...


There's no reason beyond somw anomaly that a PC shouldn't be better with a more efficient filter. All the SAE papers that study filtration show a very good correlation between PC oil cleanliness and filter efficiency.

Some of the PC data off this site that I've plotted shows that expected correlation - even the Microguard showed better PC below the 15μ point like you'd expect. When filters rated at 50% @ 20μ or 99% @ 40μ have the same PC as filters rated at 99% @ 20μ then something is skewing the correlation. Maybe something is amiss at Blackstone. How is that test equipment calibrated, and how often?

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: ZeeOSix] #5145323 06/27/19 07:12 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,293
D
DuckRyder Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Blackstone's PC test machine seems to be broken, lol.

Or might it be that things don’t work the way we suspect they do... ?

I suspect that you may well be correct here...


There's no reason beyond somw anomaly that a PC shouldn't be better with a more efficient filter. All the SAE papers that study filtration show a very good correlation between PC oil cleanliness and filter efficiency.

Some of the PC data off this site that I've plotted shows that expected correlation - even the Microguard showed better PC below the 15μ point like you'd expect. When filters rated at 50% @ 20μ or 99% @ 40μ have the same PC as filters rated at 99% @ 20μ then something is skewing the correlation. Maybe something is amiss at Blackstone. How is that test equipment calibrated, and how often?


Call them or e-mail them and ask they will tell you.

I don’t think Blackstone is what is askew... I agree that something might be askew and if so it would be interesting to figure out what it is. It also could be that a lab created correlation does not necessarily translate into a real world correlation.


Robert
  • 2019 Volkswagen Jetta R-Line
  • 2005 Honda Civic Sedan
  • 1972 F100 Ranger XLT (390/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)
  • 2002 Ford Ranger XLT 4D Supercab 3.0L
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: DuckRyder] #5145658 06/27/19 03:02 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
I don’t think Blackstone is what is askew... I agree that something might be askew and if so it would be interesting to figure out what it is. It also could be that a lab created correlation does not necessarily translate into a real world correlation.


I see no reason why it wouldn't. It doesn't make sense that two filters on opposite ends of the filtering efficiency spectrum would give the same oil PC/cleanliness measurement. You've seen the SAE study plots in controlled tests I've posted before, and the oil PC data followed the filter rated efficiency very well. We may never know what the real reason is.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145879 06/27/19 07:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 960
newtoncd8 Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 960
I am new to this PC and don't see very much to compare the results to, but what are the chances that the 2011 Amsoil filter test is not accurate (or no longer accurate) and the Toyota OEM filter is better than most people report? Or am I not tracking correctly on the ISO code I got?

Last edited by newtoncd8; 06/27/19 07:40 PM.

12 Jeep GC, 04 Lexus RX330, 77 MG-B
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145905 06/27/19 08:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 569
P
Pinoak Offline
Offline
P
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 569

I've seen plenty of pc that show filters rated highly effective bay SAE not look better than a typical cellulose filter. It's probably got to do with multiple passes.
I no longer believe there is much benefit to spending extra on so called highly efficient filters.
High capacity filters can, ofcourse, be worth the extra cost but only if they are used for extended hours or miles. If I buy a M1 oil filter rated for 20k miles and I keep it in use for 20k mile or the equivalent in hours then that's money well spent. If a guy has an application that doesn't allow him to safely go the full distance or he just don't want to then to then it was a bad purchase and benefits him nothing.

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145943 06/27/19 08:56 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Originally Posted by newtoncd8
I am new to this PC and don't see very much to compare the results to, but what are the chances that the 2011 Amsoil filter test is not accurate (or no longer accurate) and the Toyota OEM filter is better than most people report? Or am I not tracking correctly on the ISO code I got?


It's possible the Toyota Denso filter is better than 51% @ 20u per the independent ISO 4548-12 testing Amsoil published back in 2011.

But here is some PC data I posted from the UOA forum on BITOG, and this is how I'd expect the data to plot out showing a good correlation between the ISO 4548-12 rated efficiency and the PC data.

My theory on why some filters show a bad PC (DuckRyder's XG7317) vs their efficiency rating is because they are probably leaking somewhere past the media due to manufacturing issues (not design), or the methodology of the oil collection and/or test accuracy and repeatability is bad - that's the only things that makes sense. Other Ultras and similar high efficiency filters have shown good PC correlation with their rated efficiency. Open the uploaded PDF file for a better view of the plots.

Oil Filter ISO Particle Count Data Plots-3.JPG
Attached PDF document
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145948 06/27/19 09:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 960
newtoncd8 Offline OP
OP Offline
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 960
If I were to take a sample from the current YZZD3 filter I have on our RX330 at 2,500 miles, swap to a Tough Guard and run it for 2,500 miles, send in a sample and get a PC on each, that should be a good apples-to-apples comparison?

The other option is to remove the current filter (it only has about 500 miles on it), install a TG and run it for about 5,000 miles (to make an apples-to-apples for the test I posted above) and then get a PC.

Trying to decide which to implement.



12 Jeep GC, 04 Lexus RX330, 77 MG-B
Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5145972 06/27/19 09:52 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Z
ZeeOSix Offline
Offline
Z
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 21,775
Originally Posted by newtoncd8
If I were to take a sample from the current YZZD3 filter I have on our RX330 at 2,500 miles, swap to a Tough Guard and run it for 2,500 miles, send in a sample and get a PC on each, that should be a good apples-to-apples comparison?

The other option is to remove the current filter (it only has about 500 miles on it), install a TG and run it for about 5,000 miles (to make an apples-to-apples for the test I posted above) and then get a PC.

Trying to decide which to implement.


I would think running the TG for the whole 5000 miles on the same engine would be a better comparison. Swapping to a TG now with only 500 miles on the oil and running it to 5000 miles shouldn't skew the results.

How are you taking the UOA samples?

Re: 90915-YZZD3 particle count - ISO code 24/23/15 [Re: newtoncd8] #5146138 06/28/19 05:53 AM
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,293
D
DuckRyder Offline
Offline
D
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by newtoncd8
I am new to this PC and don't see very much to compare the results to, but what are the chances that the 2011 Amsoil filter test is not accurate (or no longer accurate) and the Toyota OEM filter is better than most people report? Or am I not tracking correctly on the ISO code I got?


It's possible the Toyota Denso filter is better than 51% @ 20u per the independent ISO 4548-12 testing Amsoil published back in 2011.


Unless the filter design has changed since the test I sort of doubt it.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
But here is some PC data I posted from the UOA forum on BITOG, and this is how I'd expect the data to plot out showing a good correlation between the ISO 4548-12 rated efficiency and the PC data.


My problem with this (which you well know) is that if you only plot the data that supports your hypothesis the data will always support your hypothesis.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
My theory on why some filters show a bad PC (DuckRyder's XG7317) vs their efficiency rating is because they are probably leaking somewhere past the media due to manufacturing issues (not design), or the methodology of the oil collection and/or test accuracy and repeatability is bad - that's the only things that makes sense. Other Ultras and similar high efficiency filters have shown good PC correlation with their rated efficiency. Open the uploaded PDF file for a better view of the plots.


We’ve been over all this as well. There were no signs of defects in the filter. No one mentioned seeing any either when it was posted. I believe it would be MUCH more likely that sampling methodology would create a low PC vs high. I did confirming follow up PC on both the Ultra and Hamp. My data is clean, it is at least as good as any other data here. Still, it is only 2 filters on one car, so it only tells us how those particular filters performed on that car.

In order to prove or disprove any correlation we would need much more data collected using a consistent procedure.


Originally Posted by newtoncd8
If I were to take a sample from the current YZZD3 filter I have on our RX330 at 2,500 miles, swap to a Tough Guard and run it for 2,500 miles, send in a sample and get a PC on each, that should be a good apples-to-apples comparison?

The other option is to remove the current filter (it only has about 500 miles on it), install a TG and run it for about 5,000 miles (to make an apples-to-apples for the test I posted above) and then get a PC.

Trying to decide which to implement.



When I originally embarked on the PC counts part of what I wanted to try to figure out was if filters really do get more efficient as miles pass, which seems to be a common belief. You could actually do both, run your Toyota filter for 2500 miles take a sample, change the filter to a TG and sample it at 2500 then again at 5000. The oil should have no problem going 7500.



After going back and looking at your UOA, I notice the Lexus has high mileage, as does the Civic. This is another thing thats been in the back of my head,,, The filter can’t catch what the engine doesn’t produce. It may be that PC counts from newer engines are going to be inherently lower than those from higher mileage engines... All variable that need to be considered.


Robert
  • 2019 Volkswagen Jetta R-Line
  • 2005 Honda Civic Sedan
  • 1972 F100 Ranger XLT (390/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)
  • 2002 Ford Ranger XLT 4D Supercab 3.0L
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™