Filtration Efficiency vs Pressure Delta

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Ahh I think new oil though has much greater lubricity... Which would counteract any stripping of any AW/EP layer there... Not that that does not take place... The stripping happening could well be the circumstance. But the lubricity of new oil does counteract that.. to a large degree. Though it does make me think that the friction modifier may well be such that new oil may actually increase friction aka in a similar fashion like CVT oil... Though that does not necessarily mean a lot more wear... Then over a fairly short amount of miles the oils friction modifiers start to actually lessen any friction in combination with new AW/EP species form from heat exposure and use.

I think the Ceratec phenomenon sort of verifies what my theory is...


I don't think that would explain the tick instantly disappearing (literally within a couple minutes) after adding 2~3% volume of Ceratec to the new oil, and the engine staying tick free for the duration of the oil change.

 

[bbhero]

In the red part there... I was making that in reference to a regular oil with nothing else... Added...


And again... It is interesting that the Ceratec additive makes a difference... Is it friction modifier that actually lessens new oils friction ?? And what specifically?? Organic compounds?? Inorganic compounds ?? Elements in that additive ??

Has to be something... No doubt.

Just like my lady's Camry... Super S and Cam2 oil mixed together caused that car to run sound very loud... Drained that our and put in Federated Auto semi synthetic blend oil and Hy-perlube additive... Car ran loud for about 1/2 second... Then way, way, way quieter once that new oil and Hy-perlube got up in the motor... Was it the new oil and additive Hy-perlube additive that had just the right base oils, inorganic compounds or organic compounds or right elements or maybe a combination of all these factors that made such a difference in terms of sound if the car running ?? Hard to know without serious big money testing... But it was definitely very different.

And that car with a good oil that is quiet in the beginning.. it will get louder with miles and time.... And the exact same oil in new.... Quieter again...

 

[RDY4WAR]

Well, this thread took a detour and made an unplanned stop at Disneyworld. I've enjoyed reading the discussion though.

I get that a particle larger than the clearance won't pass through. I'm thinking more of the areas that rely on splash lubrication. Say in an engine with roller lifters gets a piece of debris splashed up on the cam lobe and then the lifter's roller rolls over it while riding the lobe or it gets in the links of the timing chain.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I get that a particle larger than the clearance won't pass through. I'm thinking more of the areas that rely on splash lubrication. Say in an engine with roller lifters gets a piece of debris splashed up on the cam lobe and then the lifter's roller rolls over it while riding the lobe or it gets in the links of the timing chain.


If you're worried about wear from particles in the oil, then:

1) Use a high efficiency oil filter.
2) Don't run the oil filter way past its rating.
3) Do regular (but not over extended) oil changes.
4) Use a high efficiency air filter.
5) Change the air filter on a regular basis.
6) Ensure the air filter fits well and seals 100% around the gasket.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Just like my lady's Camry... Super S and Cam2 oil mixed together caused that car to run sound very loud... Drained that out and put in Federated Auto semi synthetic blend oil and Hy-perlube additive... Car ran loud for about 1/2 second... Then way, way, way quieter once that new oil and Hy-perlube got up in the motor... Was it the new oil and additive Hy-perlube additive that had just the right base oils, inorganic compounds or organic compounds or right elements or maybe a combination of all these factors that made such a difference in terms of sound if the car running ?? Hard to know without serious big money testing... But it was definitely very different.


Easy test. Run just the new oil change without the additive for a bit (5-10 miles), then add the Hy-perlube to see if it makes a noticable noise change in short order. Do it some place quiet (like in the garage) to get a good noise level listen before and after Hy-perlube.

If the engine is pretty quiet on just oil, then you probably won't hear a big change with the additive. But if the motor is relatively noisy on just oil, then the additive might show a noticable difference, like Ceratec does on a ticking Coyote, for example.

 

[4WD]

DB meter is not that expensive … they don't have to be professional grade for shade tree observers

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by 4WD
DB meter is not that expensive … they don't have to be professional grade for shade tree observers


Could download a free sound meter phone App.

 

[4WD]

Then put foam on your iPhone

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I get that a particle larger than the clearance won't pass through. I'm thinking more of the areas that rely on splash lubrication. Say in an engine with roller lifters gets a piece of debris splashed up on the cam lobe and then the lifter's roller rolls over it while riding the lobe or it gets in the links of the timing chain.


If you're worried about wear from particles in the oil, then:

1) Use a high efficiency oil filter.
2) Don't run the oil filter way past its rating.
3) Do regular (but not over extended) oil changes.
4) Use a high efficiency air filter.
5) Change the air filter on a regular basis.
6) Ensure the air filter fits well and seals 100% around the gasket.

Three of those 6 are intake air related, and for good reason. It has often been said that the best oil filter is a good air filter. Donaldson and Baldwin/Hastings have some good info in that regard. I will note that overly frequent air filter changes are considered contributors to higher wear. Whereas we debate the merit of oil filter changes, the data for air filter changes does not waiver. Jim Allen even noted from Parker that the bulk of particulate passed with an air filter happens at the front end of the FCI; approximately 90% of the total particulate that a filter will pass will happen in the first 10% of it's lifespan. In this regard, it truly can be said that air filters become more efficient as they get their initial maturity.
https://www.trailerlife.com/tech/diy/the-truth-about-engine-air-filtration/

And this from Donaldson:
"Air Filter Change Interval - As previously stated, one of the largest single influences on the amount of air intake ingested particles is the air filter itself. As its efficiency improves with particulate loading, the air filter becomes substantially more efficient and thus reduces the rate of engine wear. ... Servicing too frequenlty results in reduced efficiency and hence increased wear."
And this ...
"Typically, engine wear rates are more sensitive to air filter (as opposed to lube oil filter) efficiency changes. While the air filter's function is the prevention of airborne particles from entering the engine, the lube oil filter can only scavenge these potential wear causing panicles once they are already present."
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/952557/
The Donaldson study in particular noted that the majority of wear came from ingested air particles in the 3-4um range of size. No "normal" oil filter is going to stop that type of stuff. A BP oil filter can, but then it only samples about 10% of the total from for any given pass of a particle. Eventually a BP oil filter will catch a 3-4um particle, but it only will happen after the particle (on average) has gone around through the engine 9 previous times. The BEST way to stop these particles is to stop them from entering the engine in the first place; not try and catch them after-the-fact.
They go on to state this:
"Also, in order to reduce the total wear rate by a factor of 6 (i.e., from 1 to 0. 16), the air filter system efficiency must be increased by the same magnitude (i.e., from 99.97% to 99.995% by ratio of penetrations). On the other hand, for the same wear reduction effect, the oil filter efficiency must be increased from a rating of 40 μm to 5 μm (a factor of >70 difference in efficiency on 10 μm particles).

What is clear here? A good air filter is paramount to reducing engine wear. And once it's in place, for goodness sake leave it there and don't change it often; let it load up and do it's job!


It is my belief based on these air filter studies and comments from qualified sources that air filtration exceeds oil filtration in importance and sensitivity regarding engine wear. This is why I often state that the oil filter selection choices (ranging from 50% to 99% at 20um) are moot; it doesn't matter to engine wear that much because ALL "normal" full-flow filters are passing particulate that does the most damage (3-5um as a generalization). Your 99% rated efficient Fram Ultra is not really reducing the greatest contributors to wear any more than an 85% rated MC filter or 50% performing Toyota filter.

I now use Wix air filter gauges on my truck, cars and tractor. (not figured out yet how to reasonably get one on my motorcycles ....) It is my approach to now let the air filters load up, and only be changed as the dP approaches a parabolic rise in differential, indicating that the filter is approaching a saturation point. As near as I can tell, that is a MUCH longer FCI than most people think it would be.



Side note comment: often people state that ICP UOAs are not good tools to track wear. I do agree they are not perfect. But given that many studies (including the "Total Filtration" one by Donaldson) indicate that the majority of wear comes from particles in the 3-5um range, it's reasonable to consider that any offensive Si or Soot particle is going to be able to generate a similar-sized particle of wear. It's not likely that a 4um Si particle will create a 15um Fe or Cu particle. Generally things induce change on other things the same size or smaller; not bigger. Hence, if the bulk of wear causing particles are 3-5um, then it's reasonable to assume that the bulk of wear elements are also going to be of similar or smaller size. Hence, the majority of "normal" wear (not acute catastrophic wear) will actually be seen in a UOA. Not ALL wear, but the typical "normal" wear. That's my take on this, anyway.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I agree that a good air filter is the best oil filter. It pains me when I see people put those little breather filters on the valve covers of their old hot rods combined with a foam style filter right on top of the carb, which is running rich because they just bolted it on out of the box without tuning it. Then they complain "Pennzoil sludged up my engine!"

So, dnewton3, would you consider it a waste of time and money to go to dual large remote filters and/or bypass filtration if you already have the most efficient air filtration you can get?

This is moot for my track car which has ram air from the bumper straight into the throttle body with just a wire mesh screen in their to make sure I don't suck a bird or something in there.

 

[dnewton3]

My answer would be "it depends".

I firmly believe that BP filtration (or some other type of significantly enhanced lube filtration) is of great benefit in really long OCIs; that is their best (and only) traditional use that makes sense. They are a fiscal savings tool that helps extend the OCI. This can be very rewarding in large sump systems that can afford really long OCIs.

However ... Normal OCIs never see any decent beneficial effects from BP filters for two reasons:
- the ingested amount of Si is reasonably low in a "moderate" OCI duration
- the amount of soot amalgamation is low in a "moderate" OCI duration
because the contamination concentration in the most concerning range (3-5um) is fairly low, the effect of BP filters is also quite low in terms of wear control.


In terms of a dual FF filter element set-up, I would not be able to comment other than to speculate that having 100% more capacity (2 filters instead of one) would make for a longer FCI change, but it won't improve the efficiency of the capture ratio. Having two FL1-A filters does not mean the system will filter "better", but it would certainly have the capacity to filter "longer". However, as you would use the filters "longer", don't confuse that FCI with the OCI. Because the FF filters are going to miss all the small stuff, your OCI is still going to be important (presuming the lack of a BP system). Let's assume that a FF filter can hold 30 grams of load until is is compromised. Hence two of them could hold 60 grams. That would be 2x "more" capacity, but ONLY in the particle range they are efficient at. If you tried to double your OCI by doubling your filter capacity, you'd still be missing all the smaller particulate that now has doubled in quantity due to the doubled OCI.


My .$.02 anyway.

 

[ZeeOSix]

To clarify, when I said: "Change the air filter on a regular basis."

I didn't mean more often than what the service manual calls for. And I agree that even the service manual recommendation can most likely be extended depending on where the car is driven. I didn't change the factory air filter on my Tacoma until it has 50K miles on it because it doesn't get driven in dusty conditions.

Originally Posted by dnewton3
It is my belief based on these air filter studies and comments from qualified sources that air filtration exceeds oil filtration in importance and sensitivity regarding engine wear. This is why I often state that the oil filter selection choices (ranging from 50% to 99% at 20um) are moot; it doesn't matter to engine wear that much because ALL "normal" full-flow filters are passing particulate that does the most damage (3-5um as a generalization). Your 99% rated efficient Fram Ultra is not really reducing the greatest contributors to wear any more than an 85% rated MC filter or 50% performing Toyota filter.


From looking at UOA particle count data, it seems that there is cleaner oil in the 4-6um range when running a high efficiency oil filter. Look at the PC data at the 4um and 6um points between Filter B (Purolator Boss, 99% @ 40um) and Filter D (Fram Ultra, 99% @ 20um).

 

[dnewton3]

Is there UOA wear data to correlate with the PC data, Zee?
The problem with pure PC counts is there's no ability to discern what's metals versus other elements.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by dnewton3
Is there UOA wear data to correlate with the PC data, Zee?
The problem with pure PC counts is there's no ability to discern what's metals versus other elements.


Purolator Boss UOA w/PC. Iron = 12 ppm
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4817800/

Fram Ultra UOA w/PC. Iron = 4 ppm.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4753215/

I know it's only 2 data points, but IMO if more data could be gathered there would probably be a similar correlation. I think a cross correlation of oil PC vs Iron ppm might support that higher efficiency filters means cleaner oil, which gives lower wear. Like I've mentioned before, every study I've seen shows that cleaner oil results in less wear.

 

[dnewton3]

thanks Zee!

I have a few comments, and then I'm off for a three day weekend.

- this data is interesting, but not really of sufficient quantity to prove anything. These are a few UOAs paired with a couple PCs. There not nearly enough data to do Anova and find trustworthy standard deviations. While intriguing, it's by no means convincing.

- however ... it may illuminate that both you and I are right. The Boss filter being so much more "open" does allow more particulate in the lube stream, and therefore more wear; that supports your assertions. But the MASSIVE disparity in the two efficiencies just proves my point; there is a minimum threshold of "good enough", and apparently the Boss isn't.

If you look at what I stated, I was speaking to efficiency differences between 50% and 99% ALL at 20um. The example data you show is not at those limits; it uses contrast of two hugely different filters. It is quite possible that 20um, 25um, or 30um might be the "threshold" where "good enough" is established; I don't know because I done have any data exhibiting the differences using that as the criteria. I do understand that you'll probably assume that 99% at 40um might be roughly equal to 50% at 20um; I'm not convinced of that. You are using the variable of um rating and holding the efficiency as the control. I am stating to use the um size as the control and the efficiency as the variable. Those are two very different ways to measure things. I've read you state many times that using a tighter filter cannot be a bad thing; with that I cannot argue; it certainly does not hurt to use the highest performing filter you can afford. But I'm not convinced there's a great return for that investment.

My data shows "normal" filters don't really matter in wear control in a "normal" OFCI. The Donaldson study does also state that lube filters are not the greatest controlling factor in wear control. (The first being ambient dust presence; the second being air filtration).

Have a great weekend Zee!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by dnewton3
thanks Zee!

I have a few comments, and then I'm off for a three day weekend.

- this data is interesting, but not really of sufficient quantity to prove anything. These are a few UOAs paired with a couple PCs. There not nearly enough data to do Anova and find trustworthy standard deviations. While intriguing, it's by no means convincing.

- however ... it may illuminate that both you and I are right. The Boss filter being so much more "open" does allow more particulate in the lube stream, and therefore more wear; that supports your assertions. But the MASSIVE disparity in the two efficiencies just proves my point; there is a minimum threshold of "good enough", and apparently the Boss isn't.

If you look at what I stated, I was speaking to efficiency differences between 50% and 99% ALL at 20um. The example data you show is not at those limits; it uses contrast of two hugely different filters. It is quite possible that 20um, 25um, or 30um might be the "threshold" where "good enough" is established; I don't know because I done have any data exhibiting the differences using that as the criteria. I do understand that you'll probably assume that 99% at 40um might be roughly equal to 50% at 20um; I'm not convinced of that. You are using the variable of um rating and holding the efficiency as the control. I am stating to use the um size as the control and the efficiency as the variable. Those are two very different ways to measure things. I've read you state many times that using a tighter filter cannot be a bad thing; with that I cannot argue; it certainly does not hurt to use the highest performing filter you can afford. But I'm not convinced there's a great return for that investment.

My data shows "normal" filters don't really matter in wear control in a "normal" OFCI. The Donaldson study does also state that lube filters are not the greatest controlling factor in wear control. (The first being ambient dust presence; the second being air filtration).

Have a great weekend Zee!


Yes, I do believe that most filters rated at 99% @ 40um will come in close to 50% @ 20um.

You and I both know that WIX use to show on their website that the beta ratio of their XP was 50% @ 20um. And I even called WIX Tech Line and got the same 50% @ 20um answer. Then WIX removed the beta ratio all together from their website.

Now WIX claims the XP is 99% @ 35um (see link below) ... which is pretty close to 40um. So it's not a stretch to say a filter rated at 99% @ 40um is most likely going to come close to 50% @ 20um. I think most of us here know why WIX went with the "99%" rating format - looks better to consumers to see "99%" instead of "50%"..

See the "Detailed Description" section:
https://www.oreillyauto.com/detail/...ilter/57356xp/4847784?q=wix+xp&pos=0

You can email WIX and ask them, and what you'll get back is an email from WIX with the same text as what's shown on the O'Reilly Auto website link above.

The bottom line is we all know that the Ultra has a higher ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating than the Boss. The PC data also shows that. Like I said before a data base of controlled ISO efficiency rating vs PC and wear data needs to be developed. I've done a small sample of that from UOA reports here on BITOG, but much more data needs to be collected. I know this is one data point, but it also coincides with the Bus Study where they clearly showed that more efficient oil filters resulted in cleaner oil and less wear. I think that it can never be disputed or proved wrong that cleaner oil results in less wear.

Yes, I understand your viewpoint of "any filter is good enough" to make your engine last and run fine until the car goes to the junk yard. But from a more purist viewpoint for those who want to keep their cars a very long time (I do) and want to ensure the engine wear is reduced as much as possible, then using high efficiency filters (one of many factors involved) surely isn't going to hurt as you reflect in the blue text in your post.

Enjoy your 3 day weekend Dave.

 

[bulwnkl]

I'll post my PCs here for additional info:
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...otorcycle-oil-particle-count#Post4109205

That's the new-in-the-bottle PC. The post has a link to the same fluid from the same bottle after a ~5,000 mile run in my motorcycle in tough conditions. The Fram automotive (not mc) filter cut the 4 micron particle count in half, and reduced 6 micron particles by about 2 orders of magnitude, despite the transmission and clutch debris and riding WOT in severe blowing dust.

I have said and continue to say that AIR filter efficiency needs to be published, but it never, _ever_ is for automotive applications. I appreciated the independent testing of the Duramax air filters, but sadly that's about all there is, and it isn't enough to give confidence that the brand differences would hold across a wide range of applications.