![]() |
Originally Posted by SB
(Post 4276967)
Devil's advocate with a note that I like all the information given:
Anybody ever lose a boat motor because the oil filter didn't filter fine enough ? |
Originally Posted by the deep
(Post 4276973)
Oil pan after 300 hrs of use using the Wix Racing filter . Looks pretty clean and all bearings were in great shape .
http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/...t/100_0941.jpg |
Originally Posted by buck35
(Post 4276983)
Good question. But how would you know?
|
Originally Posted by buck35
(Post 4276983)
Good question. But how would you know?
Bearings would tell a good story. |
Originally Posted by the deep
(Post 4276990)
When I tore my engine down and the internals still looked great it certainly didn't tell me my oil filter sucked . I've always used the Wix Racing filter . That don't mean it's the best , just means it didn't suck .
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4276989)
Uh you do realize that we are talking in terms of particles that the human eye can't see right?!
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4276995)
In all fairness, I don't think anyone said it sucked, I said 60um filtration is pretty lousy, and it is. Were the bearings measured or just visually inspected upon teardown? Better filtration is never a bad thing, as it's been proven by GM, FORD, CAT, John Deer, Allison.... Essentially companies who have invested millions of R&D hours into the benefits of increased filtration efficiency. IMO a filter providing around 60um efficiency would only go on a "racing engine", one that sees frequent tear downs. That's just me.
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4276995)
In all fairness, I don't think anyone said it sucked, I said 60um filtration is pretty lousy, and it is. Were the bearings measured or just visually inspected upon teardown? Better filtration is never a bad thing, as it's been proven by GM, FORD, CAT, John Deer, Allison.... Essentially companies who have invested millions of R&D hours into the benefits of increased filtration efficiency. IMO a filter providing around 60um efficiency would only go on a "racing engine", one that sees frequent tear downs. That's just me.
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4276995)
In all fairness, I don't think anyone said it sucked, I said 60um filtration is pretty lousy, and it is. Were the bearings measured or just visually inspected upon teardown? Better filtration is never a bad thing, as it's been proven by GM, FORD, CAT, John Deer, Allison.... Essentially companies who have invested millions of R&D hours into the benefits of increased filtration efficiency. IMO a filter providing around 60um efficiency would only go on a "racing engine", one that sees frequent tear downs. That's just me.
|
Originally Posted by buck35
(Post 4277003)
point taken , what filter does an excellent job without being overly restrictive?
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4277024)
Either the K&N part number HP3002 or Royal Purple 1218. Both have very high flow and excellent micron ratings.
|
Originally Posted by onesickpantera
(Post 4277014)
I read somewhere that the majority of engine wear comes from particles in your oil that were smaller than 5 microns. No clue if it was true but it made sense.
Many of the bypass filtration companies throw around micron ratings and "test results". Bypass filtration works when implemented properly, with proven products. Many of the well known bypass products filter down around 2-3 microns absolute. Sub micronic material is of little detriment, so the manufacturers focus on the range of particle that show the most harm in whatever machinery they are protecting. So I tried to access the SAE file but it's locked(have to pay to view it). At any rate this article includes part of that study. Keep in mind that GM tested different micron sizes and this is only part of the complete study performed. http://www.machinerylubrication.com/...ass-filtration |
I run the K&N HP6002. It's the longer version of the HP3002. Figure more filter area and flow. Filters down to 10 microns and has the highest burst pressures. chrisf695, These advertise as not having a bypass valve.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/knn-hp-6002/overview/ |
Originally Posted by picklenjim
(Post 4277034)
I run the K&N HP6002. It's the longer version of the HP3002. Figure more filter area and flow. Filters down to 10 microns and has the highest burst pressures. chrisf695, These advertise as not having a bypass valve.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/knn-hp-6002/overview/ ***For anyone with the GM oil bypass valves build into your block, an oil filter without a built in bypass is the proper one to purchase. IF your block is plugged, select a filter WITH a bypass valve built in. |
im a big believer in bypass filters. for dirty ass diesels going a long time between changes.. as much as we change our oil and as efficient as our engine run (blow by) i dont see a need for it,
just what ive learned at class for work (cummins). |
[QUOTE=
***For anyone with the GM oil bypass valves build into your block, an oil filter without a built in bypass is the proper one to purchase. IF your block is plugged, select a filter WITH a bypass valve built in.[/QUOTE] I run the filter with no bypass valve and my block is plugged. I change my oil and filter often. I watch my oil pressure close always! I feel it is less risk than the chance of unfiltered oil going straight to the bearings. |
A good buddy of mine has a toilet paper filter in his truck (400k miles) oil always looks clean.You can wipe the dipstick on a white paper towel anytime and its always clean oil.When he changes the oil its cleaner coming out than going in. :D
http://www.kc-synthetic-oil.com/toil...il-filter.html. |
Originally Posted by picklenjim
(Post 4277047)
I run the filter with no bypass valve and my block is plugged. I change my oil and filter often. I watch my oil pressure close always! I feel it is less risk than the chance of unfiltered oil going straight to the bearings.
|
The two collapsed filters I dealt with both had bypasses. Didn't help. They both came in because of having almost no oil pressure when driving.
Just my very small experience in this regard. |
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4277024)
Either the K&N part number HP3002 or Royal Purple 1218. Both have very high flow and excellent micron ratings.
|
Originally Posted by the deep
(Post 4276973)
Oil pan after 300 hrs of use using the Wix Racing filter . Looks pretty clean and all bearings were in great shape .
|
Originally Posted by onesickpantera
(Post 4277424)
Looks like you are using cheap oil! :party-smiley-004:
|
Originally Posted by Baja Rooster
(Post 4277322)
Just ordered the K&N. $12 on Amazon. Also now that I've ditched the manifolds there's room for the tall filter.
|
Originally Posted by picklenjim
(Post 4277471)
Hey Rooster, looks like you got the short HP 3002 filter, $12 and change. The larger HP 6002 is a few bucks more.
|
Just to kick the can around, why wouldn't more volume be a good thing?
|
Originally Posted by Baja Rooster
(Post 4277493)
Just to kick the can around, why wouldn't more volume be a good thing?
And what do the experts recommend for minimum flow for an oil filter? To get better filtration you have to give up flow. |
Originally Posted by 14 apache
(Post 4276273)
That's why I made my own housing for these. The hp6 on the dyno started to do that.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]538219[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]538220[/ATTACH] Big too :food-smiley-007: |
Filtration and flow has a fine balance to it especially depending on the engine app - you can not have 100 % filtration to maintain 100 % flow just as you can not have 100 % unrestricted flow to maintain 100 % filtration. A happy balance point is between the 2. You can not have the complete best of one without hurting the other.
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4277474)
The taller filter will provide zero benefit. The K&N 3002 is a huge upgrade and designed (pleat count and height wise) for a V-8. Larger filter just adds oil volume, which isn't always a good thing. A longer filter does not equate to better filtration for those following this.
|
Originally Posted by BUP
(Post 4277505)
Filtration and flow has a fine balance to it especially depending on the engine app - you can not have 100 % filtration to maintain 100 % flow just as you can not have 100 % unrestricted flow to maintain 100 % filtration. A happy balance point is between the 2. You can not have the complete best of one without hurting the other.
|
There are always sacrifices, however dealing with glass media, donaldson was able to match the great flow of poor performing cellulose while trapping quite a bit more dirt/contaminants. So the rule of improved filtration equals more restriction is true, however the impact when using glass media is minimal. In some cases these glass filters still outflow higher flowing traditional cellulose.
Regarding a larger filter flowing more, I think we are focusing too much on the media and not the in/out port size of the filter itself. This cannot be changed. So the only thing gained is for an engine that is going longer between oil changes (more surface area that's not plugged over time) untilizing a longer filter with deeper media). My point with oil volume is that GM spent millions designing the oiling system on these engines. When looking at turnover rate regarding engine oil cooling, a larger volume of oil takes longer to heat, it also takes longer to cool. It won't kill your engine, however it's not gaining you anything either. And the K&N filter is NOT 10um (micron) absolute. Remember these manufacturers list absolute numbers and nominal, absolute being the filters ability at full efficiency to capture a given size, ie 99.8 efficient @ 18 microns etc etc... I will post a flow chart showing a synthetic glass filter vs other high flow cellulose filters later today. |
I run the Amsoil / Donaldson P550832-EA, it uses a higher quality synthetic element with a more uniform and finer structure which allows for more open space per square inch. It's been a few years, but last I checked K&N was still using a cellulose element. The Donaldson element will give you more flow with finer filtration. The model I use is the tall version and holds over 1 1/2 quarts
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4277474)
The taller filter will provide zero benefit. The K&N 3002 is a huge upgrade and designed (pleat count and height wise) for a V-8. Larger filter just adds oil volume, which isn't always a good thing. A longer filter does not equate to better filtration for those following this.
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4276989)
Uh you do realize that we are talking in terms of particles that the human eye can't see right?!
|
Originally Posted by apollard
(Post 4278156)
Not necessarily. A person with normal 20/20 vision can see particles as small as 25 microns. Pretty much everybody can see 40 microns. So a nominal 20 micron filter will in fact allow lots of particles the naked eye can see - especially shiny metal particles. Since most filters are 20 micron or larger, you should see particles if they are present.
Might want to double check your source. The human eye cannot see 25um.... Great link showing improved flow is possible even when filtering down to 15um. These are diesel filters, however the information from donaldson is relavent to this topic. The filters we have are obviously sized for thd engine in question. http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/s...ary/084768.pdf |
The amsoil and Royal purple both use nano fiber (100% glass media) and K&N/Mobil 1 use a polyester/glass mix. The hybrid flows better than a conventional cellulose filter fwiw.
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4278181)
http://www.nilfiskcfm.com/vacuum-fil...m-filters.aspx
Might want to double check your source. The human eye cannot see 25um.... |
The fact is he stated the human eye can see a 20-25um particle and that is completely FALSE, regardless of your discrediting the source. It's science... The human eye will never be able to perform a particle count.
|
Originally Posted by chrisf695
(Post 4278222)
The fact is he stated the human eye can see a 20-25um particle and that is completely FALSE, regardless of your discrediting the source. It's science... The human eye will never be able to perform a particle count.
|
Deep,
Re reading my post, I kinda sounded like a dik. No disrespect intended, and I'm glad you made the jump to much improved filtration. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:48 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.