B50 Particle Count Results!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
302
Location
Idaho
I finally got around to doing it!

I've been wanting to do a particle count for a long time now on the B50 bypass filter. There has been hours and hours of debate, and probably thousands of posts on the subject.

This particle count was done on my 2001 Dodge diesel (cummins B series). I wanted to really put this filter to the test, so this is the hardest driving condition of the year for me. SEVERAL Sub 0 starts without being able to plug in. Extensive (45 mins +) idle. Towing snowmachines up and down the mountains.. etc. etc.

My truck also has several after-market parts, including 2 stacked fuel chips. Like I said, I put this thing to the test.
smile.gif



The actual oil analysis can be view here:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...ge=0#Post827272

Here are the numbers:

ISO Code (2) ... 14/11
NAS 1638 Class ... 0
ISO Code (3) ... 15/14/11
>= 2 Micron ... 378
>= 5 Micron ... 140
>= 10 Micron ... 38
>= 15 Micron ... 15
>= 25 Micron ... 3
>= 50 Micron ... 0
>= 100 Micron ... 0

5,789 Miles on oil, 79,775 miles on engine.

This is the only comparison I could really find..
frown.gif


http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post775255


Not like this is going to be ending any debates, but is that lil ole $6.99 B50 filter worth it?
smile.gif


feedtroll.gif
hide.gif
feedtroll.gif
 
So help educate a new guy who can't see the comparison test and doesn't reall know what those numbers mean other than the actual particle and counts. THose number look good to me but I have a very untrained eye. I am considering installing the B164 (same filter just bigger) on my 97 ford powerstroke. Give me your interpretation with predjudice
 
Quote:


So help educate a new guy who can't see the comparison test




Well, this is a LONG, on-going debate about bypass filtration. There are basically 3 camps: Toilet Paper, After-Market (amsoil, oilguard, etc), and DIY (Do It Yourself).

Without bringing back too much information and debate, I can boil my argument down to this (which is 100% unbiased, no opinion what-so-over, never argued my point before this very moment..
smirk.gif
smirk.gif
smirk.gif
)

I feel that the toilet paper and amsoil systems are not cost effective. Toilet paper elements DO A BETTER JOB at cleaning oil then any other option. However.. I say (and this is where the debate will NEVER end) that the submicronic filtration is pointless. A human red blood cell is 8um (8 micron) in size. Wear metals are around 15um. You really don't want particles bigger then 15um floating around in your oil. Most full flow filters are 15-25um. This particular B50 bypass filter is 2um nominal and 8um absolute (or so the ratings say).

If, for example, I was using a toilet paper element.. I had 7,000 miles on a highly fueled and modified diesel engine. I imagine I would be replacing my toilet paper every 3,000 miles.. Maybe 3,500. That means, I would have had to replace the toilet paper 2 times and add 2 quarts of make-up oil. A quart of synthetic 5/40 is about.. what.. $5? That means to have nearly no effect on engine wear, I would have spent an extra $4 (give or take) on this oil change interval alone....

Isn't that much dough, no doubt. But, lets say I owned a fleet of vehicles.. Then it starts to add up.

I'm fond of amsoil products, just not their price. Amsoil would probably also product marginally better numbers then the B50 on the particle count. But, their elements are $30 a pop!! No where near cost effective. Most other after-market filters that require a pre-made element are going to do the exact same.

The cost benefit just isn't there with the other filter options, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. Toilet Paper is the best bypass filter you can purchase, but the cost to operate for what little difference you get in engine oil cleanness is a mute point.

To prove my point.... Here is a HUGE compilation of particle counts using various other bypass filtration methods. The smaller the number in any of these, the better the job the bypass filter is doing. As you will see, there are a few filters that will do better then the B50 (or B164). But, we can discuss how much installing a B164 and the upkeep for it is worth compared to any of these options listed.

Am I being provocative? You bet. There are a lot of highly intelligent people on this board that I fully hope come in here and pick everything I have posted apart... That is the beauty of this whole site. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you will learn more here then you could anywhere else.... Plus, it's a cold, wet, miserable day at work.
smile.gif


Quoted from MSPARKS:

This three-part number is an International Standards Organization Code to illustrate the level of cleanliness of the hydraulic fluid in the unit. The numbers are logarithmic representations of the total number of particles greater than two (2) microns (first number), greater than five (5) microns (second number), and greater than 15 microns (third number) in a one milliliter sample. The larger the ISO Code, the more contaminants, the more potential for wear.

IN ORDER TO INSURE PEAK PERFORMANCE AND EXTENDED OPERATING LIFE OF THE MACHINES, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT AN ISO CODE CLEANLINESS CODE OF 16/14/11, OR BETTER, BE MAINTAINED REGARDLESS OF SYSTEM PRESSURE. THE OIL CANNOT BE TOO CLEAN.

added in edit: Note the above statement is for hydraulic sytems which are about 100 times cleaner than combustion engine. Hence the reason my ISO code is higher than the recommended. I feel that my ISO code is very good as it's pretty darned close to the "standard" for a hydraulic system.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post601371


04 CRV 20k
ISO Code (2): 18/14
NAS 1638 Class: 3
ISO Code (3): 18/17/15
>=2 Microns: 3535
>=5 Microns: 1309
>=10 Microns: 362
>=15 Microns: 140
>=25 Microns: 33
>=50 Microns: 3
>=100 Microns: 0

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post775255



Gary K7GLD has this one available:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/7489/particle1va4.jpg

Frantz bypass filter. Amsoil full flow filter on the left, fleetguard filter on the right. Says both runs are approximately 5,000 miles.


Frantz Bypass Filter, 15/40, 9000 miles:

ISO Particle Count: 17/16/13,
Particles were:
>2 micron = 1,666,
>5 mu = 617 mu,
>10mu = 170,
>15 mu = 66,
>25 mu = 15,
>50 mu = 1,
>100 mu = 0.

”This is from my full flow PureOne that was in service 9k/13m”

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post605115


Frantz Bypass Filter, 5,000 Miles:
http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/6025/particle6nm.jpg

“I had a particle count done analysis done and the results are as follows:

>=2 microns - 6413
>=5 microns - 2376
>=10 microns - 657
>=15 microns - 254
>=25 microns - 60
>=50 microns - 5
>=100 microns - 0

The oil used was Amsoil Series 2000 0w30, miles on oil 5012, Amsoil bypass filtration.”

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post602099


That is most of the particle counts and information I could find on the site. I HIGHLY encourage people with particle counts to post a comparison.

-Mike
approved.gif
 
I'm only going to add that while the cost of the Amsoil unit is pricey at $35, you can also run them at least 30k before changing them. I have 20k on mine right now and still get good flow through the filter. Going to change this weekend and run it another 10k. I was told by an Amsoil tech that as long as the filter still flows oil, it is still filtering as they have no internal bypass typically found in a oil filter. I might run this one until it actually plugs...it is an EaBP100...before my "prefered customer" status expires, I got to get a couple more...

And one other thing to remember is that sampling methods can and do vary. The only way you can compare multiple UOAs is if the sample was collected by the same person using the same method. I see the variance in environmental samples everyday...if the same person samples the same well (talking ground water), they get consistant results; but if you have multiple people sampling the same well, the results will be all over the place.

In our instance, you might have one person sampling from the bypass filter's return, another sampling from the oil pan's plug after it ran a while (both the car and the oil), and yet another that collected the oil from the pan as soon as the plug was loose after the car sat for a week...and maybe someone just got unlucky and had a bunch of dirt fall into their container...

While they are nice to look at, there can be a lot of difference in UOA just by the way the sample was collected...

steved
 
MD, I am not impressed with the effort to justify your B50 bypass system by comparing particle results with some selective absolutely unrelated historical data, as sdeeter suggests. If you are happy with those numbers in the 2 to 10 micron range, then fine. It's better than nothing, but not much. Just don't try to make out like it is something it isn't. A good bypass filter it is not.
 
Then, please, by all means, present some numbers from these "good bypass" filters that are so far above and beyond this little B50 that actually JUSTIFY their cost.

These are not selective, and they are not unrelated. These are all the particle counts I found available in the bypass section over the past 5 years.

With all the data available, please help me out here. If I'm trying to make this bypass filter out to be something that it isn't... Then what exactly are we looking at here?
 
Show us YOUR numbers from BEFORE installing the Baldwin, or remove it and do a run without it to show YOUR comparison numbers, then we'll talk.

Let's talk science here, not speculation.
 
I see.

So mass producted, highly marketed bypass filters designed to work on a variety of vehicles have no place being compared .... on different... vehicles?

You lost me.
 
I think what he is trying to say is that all engines produce different numbers. An engine just like yours could produce very different particle counts, so comparison with them is not as useful. He is asking for history on your unit to compare...I think.
 
The new Amsoil EaO Bypass filters claim "AMSOIL EaBP Filters have an efficiency of 98.7 percent at two microns." And "When used in conjunction with AMSOIL motor oil and an AMSOIL EaO or Donaldson Endurance™ filter, the EaBP should be changed every other full-flow filter change up to 60,000 miles."
 
Don't get me wrong. I get exactly what he is saying. However, I'm not trying to make an isolated, single case/statement that MY b50 works well on MY truck.

I'm saying plain as day: the B50 is the most cost efficient bypass filter that a DYI person can get.

If you are only concerned about isolated, single vehicle numbers.. Then dump the hype about amsoil. Dump the hype about toilet paper bypass filters.

The goal of a bypass filter is pretty freaking simple.. Clean the oil. Here is the argument:

I don't care what vehicle is in consideration. The alternatives to the B50 are not cost effective since they do not give any SIGNIFICANT number improvements over the B50. We are talking about filters designed to work on nearly any make/model of vehicle or engine... If you want to claim that a toilet paper or amsoil bypass filter does anything, then you should be comfortable presenting numbers from ANY vehicle that it is installed on... And those numbers will be marginally better then the B50.


Simply put:
Are bypass filters effective?

If they are effective, how do we know that?

Do we need test, re-test to confirm the results?

You talk science.. This is a simple validity test. You want the highest validity, so your trying to isolate down to a single vehicle.. Which is fine. High validity. With all numbers, you could easily say "on a single 2001 dodge diesel the numbers improve/did not improve X amount.."

But that proves nothing on the broad scheme of things.

Answer me this.. If we cannot compare vehicles with different engines/driving styles/oil/sample methods.. Why do we even have ISO codes then?
 
You can can compare anything you want. But you have to narrow down the control variables if you actually want to measure effectiveness. How do you really know how well it is working on your Dodge? Those numbers don't look like anything to brag about to me.

Those engines are very easy on oil and the full flow filter should be around a 20 micron or less nominal anyway. I believe the Wix spec'd for that application is rated at 17. You might not be catching much of anything with that Baldwin for all you know.
 
Last edited:
Quote:


Then, please, by all means, present some numbers from these "good bypass" filters that are so far above and beyond this little B50 that actually JUSTIFY their cost.






How can I provide comparison when my oil analysis will be on my truck, and not yours??? Before and after on YOUR truck would be a comparison. Comparing the results of my CRD emissions nightmare to those of your non-emissions non-CRD would prove what?

steved
 
I really don't care whether two engines are used or two different filters. It's the cut off level that makes it for me.

When talking particle counts ..read the sticky at the top of the forum.

One filter

.
..
....
.....
...........

another

.
.
.
.
........................

Which one is better? In this situation ..you have no idea what the application was ..and what the duration was. Now there are holes in this view ..but I'd say that, at least at some point, the lower filter was far superior to the upper filter.
 
And I stand by my original statement, the sampling method makes or breaks the results.

steved
 
Quote:


And I stand by my original statement, the sampling method makes or breaks the results.

steved




NP here, pal
grin.gif
Whatever works for you. Sure, it's best to do stuff on in a comparative way with as few as possible variables. But I needed no such validation when I viewed msparks PC for his BE filter results.

(from memory pulling it out of my behind)

0 >100
0 > 50
0 > 25
0 > 15
0 > 10
12k >5
30k >2

Now what more do I need to know about this filter? To get that many lower end particles, the thing had to be in service awhile (I think it was 25k).

Now if it was

0
0
0
0
0
230
400

I would still tend to regard this as a good filter ..I just wouldn't have a clue of how long it would last in service since 5 minutes after this sample was drawn, it could have plugged solid and no filtration could be taking place ..but it's level of filtration would be established as extremely fine with a closely grouped Beta ..where 50, 75, and 200 would not have that much spread in micron size ..or rather would start at a very small micron level (obviously 10um and lower).
dunno.gif
 
"How can I provide comparison when my oil analysis will be on my truck, and not yours??? Before and after on YOUR truck would be a comparison. Comparing the results of my CRD emissions nightmare to those of your non-emissions non-CRD would prove what?"

Because filter efficiency is rated REGARDLESS of application. Particle counts are made REGARDLESS of application. That is why we have ISO codes. Either you are right, and everyone else in the filter industry is wrong.. or...


"How do you really know how well it is working on your Dodge? Those numbers don't look like anything to brag about to me."

Because, once again, it doesn't matter the application for internal combustion engine. That is why we have ISO standards to compare.

I quote again:

"This three-part number is an International Standards Organization Code to illustrate the level of cleanliness of the hydraulic fluid in the unit. The numbers are logarithmic representations of the total number of particles greater than two (2) microns (first number), greater than five (5) microns (second number), and greater than 15 microns (third number) in a one milliliter sample. The larger the ISO Code, the more contaminants, the more potential for wear."

Application is a mute point. That is why Amsoil, oil-guard, Frantz, FS2000, ... Whatever ... MARKET to so many different makes and models. They know that, regardless of the application, their by-pass filter should perform the same. That is why it is a BY-PASS filter and not a FULL-FLOW filter. If it works for them, why doesn't it work for a B50?



Gary not only hit the nail right on the head, he smacked it all the way through the wall.
smile.gif
 
Quote:



NP here, pal
grin.gif






And why not? Let's just say the other reports were taken from the pan drain and he took his from the return from his bypass...how would those be compareable? You could have UOAs from the same oil sample that are completely different because they were analyzed by two different labs.

I am not arguing the fact his filter isn't doing, what appears to be, an excellent job. But comparing analysis reports of samples from different samplers and laboratories proves nothing unless there are trends to compare.

His lab tech could have simply had a bad day and those numbers "could" be way off too (for better or for worse).

You guys act like a $20 UOA is high quality, when in fact it isn't compared to other analysis. It is nothing more than a guideline or rough estimate and we act like they are set in stone, final. Does this lab have a QA/QC program? Was data validation done on the sample results? What was the PQL/MDL?? With only one analysis, you can't tell much, let alone compare results to someone else.

Sorry if I sound like a pesimest, but I have seen lab samples costing nearly $1000/each come back useless because the equipment wasn't calibrated or cleaned from the previous sample. It doesn't take much...

steved
 
NP= no problem. I have no problem with your view on it. Sure, as I said, you want to limit variables as much as possible.

I just don't see the lack of value to different PC sample assuming that they're done under the same ISO protocol.

This isn't elemental PPM analysis. It's particle size analysis.

Now I do concede that it's not always going to be a "head to head" equal.

For example:

George drives 1500 miles on one filter ..samples ..uses the same oil with a superior filter (assumed superior) ..samples. Even with double the mileage I can still clearly see if there is a reduction in particles in the upper size range (and perhaps lower ranges as well). This data should validate the presence of better filtration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top