Studies on Oil filters...

Second one../wwwthreads_images/icons/smile.gif

SAE Document Number: J1858

Date Published: June, 1988

Title: Full Flow Lubricating Oil Filters

Multipass Method for evaluating filtration Performance

Issuing Committee: Filter Test Methods Standards Committee

Scope:

This standard establishes a multipass filtration performance test with continuous contaminant injection for lubricating oil filter elements. It also includes a procedure for determining the contaminant capacity, particulate removal characteristics, and pressure loss. It also includes a test currently applicable to lubricating oil filter elements which exhibit a 10 um filtration ratio of less than 75 and a rated flow between 4 and 600 L/min. This standard provides a test procedure which yields reproducible test data for evaluating the filtration performance of a lubricating oil filter element.

Here are the filters results:

Mobil 1: Single pass efficiency (SAE J806) of 98% vs. an 85% average for conventional filters. * Multiple pass efficiency (SAE J806) of 95% vs. an 80% average for conventional filters.

Pure One: Single Pass Test efficiency for the PureONE filter is 99.7%. Pure One captures 96% of all contaminants as measured by the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) #J806 Multiple Pass Test. *

An article that I read in Grassroots Motorsports several years ago stated that the Wix filter had ~495 sq. in. of filter media, the regular Purolator had ~ 450 sq. in. and the Fram had ~200 sq. in. Needless to say, I haven't used a Fram on anything since. They're cheap, but you get what you pay for. I used Wix and Purolator for a long time but now use Pure One filters on all my vehicles. The filter number on my 1500 is PL10017, if you're interested

Here's an update on filter numbers for the Spit that was posted on 7/23/99 by Peter S

AC-Delco PF-53 (will work on all models of Spit.), PF-13 - requires an adapter
Carquest 85084 (said to be a Wix product)
Castrol PH922A (all Fram numbers should be same on Castrol filters)
Champion D102 (though not recommended)
Crossland 573, 595
Fram PH2825, PH922A, PH966B, PH16 -may be too large for later 1500's w/air pump
Fram PH8A (large can) using the oil filter adapter from MkI 1147 engines, (or non airpump 1500's?)
Motorcraft FL-2005, FL-1 (large- non-Air pump Spits only)
NAPA 551312 , Gold-1521, Gold 1374
Purolator #L10017, PER-1
UNIPART GFE150, GFE119
WIX 51084

A Jeep is a Jeep..

A piece I caught on FRAM filters..

"Russell,
I obtained great satisfaction from reading your oil filter survey.

I worked for two years as the oil-filter production line engineer in
an Allied-Signal FRAM facility and I can confirm every bad thing you
have said about FRAM automotive filters. That's from the horse's
mouth, as it were.

I'm also a quality engineer and can confirm that FRAM applies no
quality control whatsoever to any of the characteristics for which we
buy oil filters. I frequently saw filter designs which were barely
capable of meeting J806. Many of FRAM's designs will block and go to
bypass after trying to filter very little contamination. There were
often leakage paths at the paper end discs when these were not
properly centered on the elements. Some designs had the pleats so
tightly packed against the center tube that they would block off in no
time. I had discovered that the FRAM HP1 that I had been buying for
about $20 Cdn was EXACTLY the same as a PH8 inside - the only
difference being a heavier can - no advantages in flow capacity. The
paper filtration media was of apparently poor quality and the process
of curing the paper resin was very inconsistent - elements would range
from visibly burnt to white. FRAM's marketers admitted that there was
just about no way the public could ever prove that an oil filter
contributed, or did not prevent, engine damage. The only thing FRAM
tested for was can burst strength. Another problem that they have from
time to time is in threading the filter base - often there are strands
of metal left behind on a poorly formed thread.

I have not used a FRAM filter since I started working there. Their
claims are entirely and completely marketing bull****.

If people really want to protect their engines, a good air filter is
vital (which excludes FRAM from that list as well) and a combination
of one depth and one full-flow hydraulic filter, together in parallel,
will do the job of filtration to perfection.

Thanks for doing a great job in trying to get the truth out! You can
quote me anytime. "


A Jeep is a Jeep..

Filters are another topic I'm somewhat well versed on. LEVE has it.

It basically works out to some sensible service interval. Short interval ..absolutely no sense in buying a fine filter. You're refreshing the sump often enough to prevent too many larger (missed) particles from becoming too numerous.

If you're into longer service intervals, then you can take advantage of upper tier filters. There the oil is left in service longer, the sump matures longer, therefore you can make a difference.

Loading: This is mostly a product of warm up miles to non-fuel enrichment miles. If your 3k miles is shorter trips, you've got a high ratio of loading miles. This is why some OEM recommendations state every other oil change for the filter change interval. That driver is filling the odometer with "hollow" filter miles.

This is not to say that filters don't filter out random metal particle ejecta from the engine. Some will be bigger (30um-100um) and will be caught by the filter in most cases, it's just that metal trappings aren't the biggest fatigue factor on the filter.

Finer filters do a better job, but the scale of impact is hard to quantify. For most, it will make the difference of a 300k engine going to the junkyard in good condition vs. a 375k engine going to the junkyard in good condition.

The standard "orange can" Fram is junk. It works fine ..but typically costs more than the cheapest offerings of other filter manufacturers. They all use metal endcaps ..Fram uses cardboard. Again, they work, but I don't reward the cheapest offering with any premium in price. They just aren't worth it. Puro Classic (formerly Puro Premium), ST (the Ecore design is great) and other Champ Lab offerings in the $2.xx-$3.xx are great. MotorCraft (Purolator) are a great deal at WM for $3.47 and are 100% assured to meet the OEM AFTERMARKET requirements of any Ford product (there's a difference between assembly line filters and OEM aftermarket filters - one is built to a price point in the cost of the car - the other has more revenue to work with= ROI).

The upper offerings from Fram are well constructed ..even to overkill ..but they extract a premium over the already too expensive "orange can". If you can get the Extended Guard (iirc) on sale, it's a very solid filter.

WIX are a great filter. Top notch in construction. Silicon ADBV's ..etc..etc. Filtration appears to conform more toward OEM spec's as opposed to Puro/M1/Champ where they appear to offer a more generic level of filtration (either high or common).

There is only ONE Wix offering. It's the same as NapaGold and CarQuest Blue. Wix makes many other filters for NAPA and others, but they are not WIX filters. They are NAPA (or whomever's) built by WIX to the vendor's specifications.

Champ Labs makes just about all OEM ASSEMBLY LINE filters. They make (currently) AC Delco AFTERMARKET filters. Mobil1 filters are Champ ..as are Royal Purple's filter.


Essentially, with the exception of the orange can of doom -due to cost, buy a filter based on how long you're going to use it in service. If the service requires the oil to be changed on a time weighted basis, then go cheap. If the service requires the oil to be changed on a mileage basis (we're talking OEM recommendations) ..then the filter can be changed every other time. This would economically support a more expensive filter.

Keep in mind that all that is termed severe service is not so. Taxi service isn't hard on engines or oil at all. There are few warm up cycles. Very little fuel dilution. What you're seeing is the mismatch between an odometer and the fuel processed through the engine. A taxi getting 9-12mpg would probably get 22-24 in normal usage. That makes their 3k-4k oil and filter changes more akin to 7k-8k.

A GM Oil Life Monitor works well for this type of service. It automatically factors the severity of service in a sensible manner. I've seen up to 13k and it's set for conventional oil and the minimum OEM spec'd filter.

GeeAea said:

...

It basically works out to some sensible service interval. ....

..... but the scale of impact is hard to quantify.

Click to expand...

Interesting topic. Perhaps one of the most debated, or least gets lots of posts on many auto-related sites.

I've used Fram filters for over 40 years. I think I've tried just about every popular name brand made. There are several problems I see when I read about oil filter tests or oil tests:

1) All the data is not quantitative or qualitative enough for me.

2) There is insufficient data, at least that I can find, that conclusively determines the *amount* of engine wear directly attributed to particle or chemical contaminants in the oil.

3) Common engine failure directly caused by the properties of crankcase oil lubrication is almost non-existent.

Will *dirty* crankcase oil cause internal engine components to wear more than *clean* oil? YES. How much is the question.

If you change your oil and filter as prescribed/recommended by the maintenance manual for your vehicle, the percentage of owners that will experience engine failure directly attributed to the oil and filter, whatever brand you use, will be most likely non-existent.

I think the oil filter tests are similar to the argument for synthetic oil vs. petroleum-based oil...... even the top UOA (Used Oil Analysis) companies that test the oils say "it doesn't matter"....

Here's two questions and answers right off of Blackstone's website in their FAQ section.....

****
What's the best oil to use?
Ah, the million dollar question. We are an independent lab, so we don't make recommendations. It has been our experience that oil is oil, and either petroleum or synthetic-based oil will work well for just about any engine.

****

Come on, you're holding out on me. I should use synthetic, right?
Buddy, you should use whatever you want. Synthetic oil won't guarantee a longer engine life any more than my eating organic food will guarantee I'll live until I'm 90. We here at Blackstone generally use regular petroleum-based oil because honestly, it works just as well for us.

****

And, of course there is the infamous 1996 Consumer Reports oil tests performed on New York taxi cabs.

The anti-drain back valve spec is a joke. I have tested several oil filters on my Toy truck (I'm on my 4th Toyota truck), and after parking the truck overnight, not one filter had any oil in it in the morning. In fact, if I park the truck after it's at normal operating temp, and wait for an hour before changing oil, the oil filters are always empty. So, how long does the "anti-drain back valve" work? If one filter has a "better" anti-drain back valve, does that make it a "better" filter?

I'm sure there are oil filters that filter "better" than another, but how much better is necessary to avoid engine failure due to the oil filter capability?

I'm sure I don't know very much about oil or filter technology, so I'd appreciate anyone out there that does to enlighten me?? :grin:

That's just my worthless opinion.

1) All the data is not quantitive or qualitative enough for me.

Click to expand...

Most of the valid testing on filters by SAE publications are done on diesels. There everything naturally routes to the most sensible conclusion in terms of economics. There measured wear was statistically altered by filtering below 10um. That's not to say that 10um filtration will lower your wear in a gasoline engine. Much wear in a diesel is due to soot agglomerating into larger particles ..and causing abrasive wear. That's why they have bypass filters.

In those "the wear is what the wear is".

2) There is insufficient data, at least that I can find, that conclusively determines the *amount* of engine wear directly attributed to particle or chemical contaminents in the oil

Click to expand...

As far as particulate? Agreed. At least not to the point where we can make much sense if it in terms of the typical engine's life.

Paraphrased, doe it really matter if your heart was that of an 18 year old ..if your kidneys and liver are failing you at 85+ years of age?? It may to the transplant recipient ...so to speak. That is, the chassis retirement is what ends the useful life of most engines.

Chemical issues can surely be more damaging. For every gallon of gas you burn at sea level, you produce 1.4 gallons of water. That's in zero humidity air. If you have moisture in the atmosphere, it lowers its density ..and you need to gulp more air. In any event, that water production, if not vented/vaporized, will form acids. Oil have buffers to resist acid formation ..but they have their limits.

These are typically non-factors since most people change their oil way too often. Oil is "apparently" cheap here. There are only so many things you can do with the leftovers/fractions/coproducts from fuel production. You can make plastics ..which we see people carting out of Wally's by the ton ..and you can make lubricants. Just consider them a value added co-product that you can't store or just throw away either. You'll pay $30liter for M1 in Europe and it's not due to the tax structure.

f you change your oil and filter as prescribes by the maintenance manual for your vehicle, the percentage of owners that will experience engine failure directly attribute to the oil and filter, whatever brand you use, will be mostly like be non-existent.

Click to expand...

Much more true than not.

There is no magic oil. It doesn't exist. That's why you either have to justify any added cost with longevity in service or due to the severity of the service. A top tier synthetic has to carry itself in avoided costs or added service (like being in Frostbite Falls, ND @ -40) ..or it's just a waste of money.

That is, it's only when you're outside of the prescribed envelope where anything other than standard is required.

That all said, we're creatures that require distinction in all things. We hate just lining up and conforming. We have to "do it our way" and always have a love affair with our machinery. We like the notion of building better mousetraps.

GeeAea said:

Most of the valid testing on filters by SAE publications are done on diesels. There everything naturally routes to the most sensible conclusion in terms of economics. There measured wear was statistically altered by filtering below 10um. That's not to say that 10um filtration will lower your wear in a gasoline engine. Much wear in a diesel is due to soot agglomerating into larger particles ..and causing abrasive wear. That's why they have bypass filters.

In those "the wear is what the wear is".

As far as particulate? Agreed. At least not to the point where we can make much sense if it in terms of the typical engine's life.

Paraphrased, doe it really matter if your heart was that of an 18 year old ..if your kidneys and liver are failing you at 85+ years of age?? It may to the transplant recipient ...so to speak. That is, the chassis retirement is what ends the useful life of most engines.

Chemical issues can surely be more damaging. For every gallon of gas you burn at sea level, you produce 1.4 gallons of water. That's in zero humidity air. If you have moisture in the atmosphere, it lowers its density ..and you need to gulp more air. In any event, that water production, if not vented/vaporized, will form acids. Oil have buffers to resist acid formation ..but they have their limits.

These are typically non-factors since most people change their oil way too often. Oil is "apparently" cheap here. There are only so many things you can do with the leftovers/fractions/coproducts from fuel production. You can make plastics ..which we see people carting out of Wally's by the ton ..and you can make lubricants. Just consider them a value added co-product that you can't store or just throw away either. You'll pay $30liter for M1 in Europe and it's not due to the tax structure.

Much more true than not.

There is no magic oil. It doesn't exist. That's why you either have to justify any added cost with longevity in service or due to the severity of the service. A top tier synthetic has to carry itself in avoided costs or added service (like being in Frostbite Falls, ND @ -40) ..or it's just a waste of money.

That is, it's only when you're outside of the prescribed envelope where anything other than standard is required.

That all said, we're creatures that require distinction in all things. We hate just lining up and conforming. We have to "do it our way" and always have a love affair with our machinery. We like the notion of building better mousetraps.

Click to expand...

I will agree that "when you're outside of the prescribed envelope where anything other than standard is required.", other factors should be considered.

For example, depending on the air quality (like Iceland's lava dust), I might want to buy a better oil filter than that dreaded FRAM filter.

Or... if I were living in very cold climate, I would be running nothing but synthetic oils and lubricants. Why? Simply because synthetic oil seems to work better (flows easier) at very temperatures than petroleum-based oils. Would I be reducing my "wear" factor? I don't know, but I know I'd "feel" better about using synthetics.

With that said, I'd love to see valid testing comparisons performed on the daily drivers in South Dakota vs Southern California to determine if, in fact, synthetic oil produces greater longevity in engine life because of its flow charactistics in very low ambient temperatures.

But, I don't think I'll see any test data.... mostly just the typical marketing hype. :smirk:

With that said, I'd love to see valid testing comparisons performed on the daily drivers in South Dakota vs Southern California to determine if, in fact, synthetic oil produces greater longevity in engine life because of its flow charactistics in very low ambient temperatures.

Click to expand...

You'll experience (probably) no life extension of the engine ..assuming "normal" operations.

There is no magic oil. It doesn't exist at any price.

An internet friend in Oz (Australia) was a fleet operator. He also had a OTR service center that his competitors used. He was no yahoo ..working with OEM's and Shell and XOM in testing as well over the years.

They used conventional and bypass filters ..he used synthetic and centrifuges . All oils were OEM approved and all maintenance was monitored/dictated according to UOA.

The results were no SIGNIFICANT increases in time between engine overhaul rates using synthetic over convention.

What he did experience was 1/4 the downtime of his competitors due to mandated service intervals. ( sidenote: Now in transmissions/overdrives/differentials ..there synthetics paid off in spade in avoided downtime for repair/overhaul. )

That's why I say that, all other things being equal ..the use of a more expensive lubricant has to "carry itself" in added utility in either longevity or ability to endure some severity of service ..which can mean the same thing to some people.

For example, towing in a contemporary SBC chassis doesn't spec a higher visc ..even though oil temps will be peaked. It recommends a shortening of the service interval to offset the more rapid oxidation (aging) of the oil. Trumping that with something that can endure the service better can pay off in avoided costs.

The biggest influence on wear is your air filter. Sucking in abrasive particles sand blasts your throttle body ..intake ..valves and pistons.

So, I don't think you can find an argument here ...if that's what you're looking for

Don't buy it if it doesn't pay. Never pay any more than you have to for something ...but make sure you check your economy of scale. Using a synthetic and still dwelling in the 3k/3m prison is usually a waste of money ..but if using a synthetic allows you to do 6k/6m (still a waste by some) then you've gotten VALUE in avoided costs in time/material.

It's simple once you step back and evaluate it in absolute terms.

Marketing and hype are what sell most products.

Castrol: 90% of all wear occurs at startup! :shocked:

Not mentioning that "startup" is the bona fide condition for about the first 20 minutes of operation. It's accepted SAE nomenclature for "warm up" or anything other than steady state (oil temp leveling off - which takes about 20 minutes).

Thinking with your dipstick, Jimmie? :shocked:


Adaptive molecules and a paper engine going through a shredder and reforming itself? :shocked:

Sitting in a drive thru and being bathed in liquid sludge? :shocked:

Sure. Lots of hype. Now you take a product like Amsoil...and get some stooge of an idiot that actually believes (or not) the stuff he can spew from his mouth? Sure. You're going to get the same garbage that someone who uses Mobil 1 for no other reason than it has the label on it. That person "believes" that they're using magic oil ..even if they're not using it magically.

P.F. Flyers, anyone? With the "ACTION WEDGE" that makes you run faster ..and jump higher!!

I am an Amsoil dealer. You'll hear no hype from me. There is no such thing as magic oil.