Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
02-02-2004, 11:05 PM
#81
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
“Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
>
> With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> scoreing, etc.
>
> Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> protection.
>
> how's that?
>
> ;-)
of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
“Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
>
> With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> scoreing, etc.
>
> Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> protection.
>
> how's that?
>
> ;-)
02-02-2004, 11:05 PM
#82
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
“Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
>
> With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> scoreing, etc.
>
> Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> protection.
>
> how's that?
>
> ;-)
of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
“Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
>
> With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> scoreing, etc.
>
> Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> protection.
>
> how's that?
>
> ;-)
02-02-2004, 11:07 PM
#83
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW
02-02-2004, 11:07 PM
#84
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW
02-02-2004, 11:07 PM
#85
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW
02-02-2004, 11:46 PM
#86
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
But when I had my SAE 'ticket' the root source that information was
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.
;-)
In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:
> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.
;-)
In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:
> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)
02-02-2004, 11:46 PM
#87
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
But when I had my SAE 'ticket' the root source that information was
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.
;-)
In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:
> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.
;-)
In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:
> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)
02-02-2004, 11:46 PM
#88
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
But when I had my SAE 'ticket' the root source that information was
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.
;-)
In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:
> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.
;-)
In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:
> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)
02-02-2004, 11:55 PM
#89
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
DougW wrote:
> Skip did pass the time by typing:
>
>>I hear if you put Mobil 1 into a high miles engine it will introduce leaks
>>in the seals...
>>
>>Opinions???
>
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
From a practical standpoint, If your engine is in that condition,
there's no point wasting money on expensive synthetic oil, is there?
You're better off sticking with regular oil until a rebuild is required.
Regards,
DAve
> Skip did pass the time by typing:
>
>>I hear if you put Mobil 1 into a high miles engine it will introduce leaks
>>in the seals...
>>
>>Opinions???
>
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
From a practical standpoint, If your engine is in that condition,
there's no point wasting money on expensive synthetic oil, is there?
You're better off sticking with regular oil until a rebuild is required.
Regards,
DAve
02-02-2004, 11:55 PM
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Opinions on Fram Toughguard oil filters?
DougW wrote:
> Skip did pass the time by typing:
>
>>I hear if you put Mobil 1 into a high miles engine it will introduce leaks
>>in the seals...
>>
>>Opinions???
>
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
From a practical standpoint, If your engine is in that condition,
there's no point wasting money on expensive synthetic oil, is there?
You're better off sticking with regular oil until a rebuild is required.
Regards,
DAve
> Skip did pass the time by typing:
>
>>I hear if you put Mobil 1 into a high miles engine it will introduce leaks
>>in the seals...
>>
>>Opinions???
>
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
From a practical standpoint, If your engine is in that condition,
there's no point wasting money on expensive synthetic oil, is there?
You're better off sticking with regular oil until a rebuild is required.
Regards,
DAve
