 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / September 2006Oil filter - what size particles??
Hi, What is the typical particle size that an oil filter filters out?? I am looking at filtration better than 25 micron. TVMIA > Hi, > What is the typical particle size that an oil filter filters out?? I > am looking at filtration better than 25 micron. > TVMIA I believe that a Canton/Mecca filter is rated for something like 8 or 9 microns; I don't think a regular oil filter will get you the 25 micron filtration you are looking for. nate colinstone@hotmail.com Wrote: > Hi, > What is the typical particle size that an oil filter filters out?? I > am looking at filtration better than 25 micron. > TVMIA http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilters.html  SignatureMT-2500 http://www.automotiveforums.com >What is the typical particle size that an oil filter filters out?? I >am looking at filtration better than 25 micron. They don't work quite like that. Reputable filter manufacturers will specify the *beta ratio* for a particular filter, which relates to the percentage of a certain size particle that will be removed on either a single pass or mutiple passes. Google the term for the full story. Some manufacturers (eg Fleetguard) offer filters for various applications. An hydraulic oil oil filter (prefixed HF in the fleetguard system) will remove a higher percentage of smaller particles than an engine oil filter will. Nor are they all the same. You'd probably find the Fleetguard Master Catalogue helpful. SignatureJohn H Frantz still makes the old toilet-paper canister bypass filter that catches particles down to 0.1 microns. I had one in a '91 S-10 pickup, and that oil stayed really clean for a long time. The bypass system relies on the fact that the oil pump normally pumps twice (or maybe more) as much oil as the engine might require, with most of it relief-valved back into the sump, so a small amount is taken off at a tee at the pressure switch or transducer, run through the paper roll endwise, and then put back in the sump. Biggest hassles: a) drilling a hole in the pan for a return fitting (could maybe dump it into a rocker cover), and b) finding decently tightly-wound toilet paper with the older-style small core that fits these things. Supermarket TP just won't work anymore, with its "nice soft feel" for your wimpy, tender bum, and a huge core and loose wind to cut into the amount you get. Institutional-grade TP sometimes fits. See http://www.frantzfilters.com.au/ Dan Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com wrote in article <1158521871.131530.83350@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>... > Frantz still makes the old toilet-paper canister bypass filter > that catches particles down to 0.1 microns. I had one in a '91 S-10 > pickup, and that oil stayed really clean for a long time. Any oil that "....stays really clean", isn't doing its job. Detergents are designed to hold contaminants in suspension, so they can be removed with the oil when it is drained. >The bypass > system relies on the fact that the oil pump normally pumps twice (or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Dan Yup! The International Association Of Toilet Paper Stanfards & Tolerances makes sure that industrial T.P. ALWAYS has the same micron-sized filtering capacity. They certainly put an extra effort into making sure their T.P. is up to the chore of oil filtration in today's modern engines, too! And, I'm sure they keep the old small inner tube around just because of the demand they see for oil filter usage of their product. > Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com wrote in article > <1158521871.131530.83350@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > designed to hold contaminants in suspension, so they can be removed with > the oil when it is drained. Are you saying that dirty oil is good for the engine? Detergent oils will keep the really small stuff in suspension, and even some larger particles, but some of those particles are hard and abrasive (like silica or coked carbon) and will chew things up. I have seen oil filters, supposedly "quality" oil filters, cut apart and in some the filter paper is thin and has holes big enough to pass a needle through. A lot of marketing hype these days convinces us that we're getting decent filters when often we're not. I have found a lot of big, hard stuff embedded in bearing shells, stuff that got past the full-flow filter. And the cylinder scoring that goes with that. > The International Association Of Toilet Paper Stanfards & Tolerances makes > sure that industrial T.P. ALWAYS has the same micron-sized filtering > capacity. The oil, like I said, runs endways through the roll, and has to pass through a fantastic thickness of media. Very little junk gets through, so little that the oil doesn't get very dark unless it's run too hot. Even the cheapest TP would filter better than most any spin-on filter. As a bypass filter, a Frantz gradually removes the abrasive stuff from the oil. If it plugs up, the flow just stops and there's no big deal as there is when a full-flow filter clogs and its bypass opens and allows unfiltered oil through. The full-flow filter will last longer if a Frantz is in the system. Oil, on the other hand, won't last much longer with a Frantz; it still breaks down and loses its lighter elements to the heat, and condensation still accumulates in engines that run for short periods and seldom heat up to proper temps. (Some of the old guys years ago used to mix a bit of baking soda with a little oil and dump it into their engines occasionally. The soda neutralized the acids formed when condensation mixed with the sulfur and chlorine compounds in the oil, and the engines would last a lot longer. Modern engines are a lot tighter and run hotter, so condensation is a smaller problem than it used to be. But it's still a problem.) Just because TP was never intended as a filter doesn't mean it doesn't work. A lot of diseases are being treated with drugs that were intended for other purposes. Dan Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com wrote in article <1158879809.706516.27690@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>... > > Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com wrote in article > > <1158521871.131530.83350@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > hard stuff embedded in bearing shells, stuff that got past the > full-flow filter. And the cylinder scoring that goes with that. Funny..... I consistently get 200,000 and more miles from my engines without the benefit of toilet paper filters....... What in the world is wrong with me? A LOT of marketing hype goes into trying to convince people that toilet paper is a better filtering medium than the treated paper that has been engineered to do the job. > > The International Association Of Toilet Paper Stanfards & Tolerances makes > > sure that industrial T.P. ALWAYS has the same micron-sized filtering [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > too hot. Even the cheapest TP would filter better than most any spin-on > filter. ......releasing into the oiling system an unbelieveable amount of lint-like, paper dust - not to mention chemicals used to process the T.P. and perfume it. > As a bypass filter, a Frantz gradually removes the abrasive > stuff from the oil. If it plugs up, the flow just stops and there's no > big deal as there is when a full-flow filter clogs and its bypass opens > and allows unfiltered oil through. Did you re-read what you actually wrote? You're saying that a filter that stops flow is better than one that bypasses itself in order to preserve flow. I realize that the T.P. filter is simply a passive filter, but your statement is ludicrous. Of course, once the T.P. filter stops, the REAL oil filter continues to filter. > The full-flow filter will last > longer if a Frantz is in the system. Oil, on the other hand, won't last > much longer with a Frantz; You're actually saying that there is little - if any - advantage to using a T.P. filter. And you believe, somehow, that this factoid will convince people to BUY a T.P. filter? > it still breaks down and loses its lighter > elements to the heat, and condensation still accumulates in engines [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > engines are a lot tighter and run hotter, so condensation is a smaller > problem than it used to be. But it's still a problem.) Geez....I'm what many would consider one of the "older guys" - on the leading edge of the Post-War Baby Boom - and I've never heard of giving an engine a "Bi-Carb." If baking soda worked so well, imagine what Tums or Rolaids might do? Most cars today are driven a LOT longer once started than in the "old days" That alone would account for engines burning off condensation more efficiently. Condensation comes from heating and cooling. Closer engine tolerances do nothing to counteract condensation. A cold glass of water will condense on its outside in a hot, humid environment - whether it is capped tightly or not. > Just because TP was never intended as a filter doesn't mean it > doesn't work. A lot of diseases are being treated with drugs that were > intended for other purposes. WTF do drugs have to do with toilet paper filters? Unless, of course, the use of curbside pharmaceuticals is what makes you think there is some sort of analogy there......LOL! Thank God there was baking soda in the "old days". What do they use these days, Pepcid AC? It is really sad that with all the wonder drugs out there today, no cure has been found for your "Frantz Fever". What are you, an Amway-trained Frantz distributor? > Most cars today are driven a LOT longer once started than in the "old days" > That alone would account for engines burning off condensation more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A cold glass of water will condense on its outside in a hot, humid > environment - whether it is capped tightly or not. Condensation in an engine due to heating and cooling happens while it's not being driven, and the condenstion formed by that is very minimal. Most water in a crankcase comes from blowby gases, and since combustion byproducts include water, water enters the case as vapour and condenses after shutdown. If the vehicle is driven on many short trips and the oil doesn't reach at least 180 degrees F. to get that water driven out, the water mixes with the oil and forms acids that ruin the engine from the inside. Didn't you study that sort of thing when you learned all about internal combustion engines? Standard stuff in any decent tech school, and covered in textbooks. Newer oils have anti-corrosion additives to help deal with the acid-forming issue, additives that weren't around in the bicarb days. Dan Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com wrote in article <1159297885.884313.266490@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>... > Didn't you study that sort of thing when you learned all about > internal combustion engines? Standard stuff in any decent tech school, > and covered in textbooks. Actually, I TAUGHT that sort of stuff when I taught Voactional Automotive Technology for ten years...... > It is really sad that with all the wonder drugs out there today, no cure > has been found for your "Frantz Fever". > > What are you, an Amway-trained Frantz distributor? I'm not a Frantz distributor. Nor an Amway guy. I don't even have the old Frantz from my S-10 on anything anymore. It's in the junkbox. It's too much hassle finding the paper to fit, and I'm no longer worried about making my engines last 500,000 miles. Nor did I ever worry about "lint" getting into my oil system; the full-flow filter would catch any of that, since anything leaving the Frantz went back into the sump, not the pressure system, and in any case I'd rather have a bit of lint in the oil instead of abrasive junk. And the institutional paper wasn't perfumed or anything else, either. I just liked the way the oil stayed so clean and the way the used roll that came out of the Frantz was so loaded with trash. Your comments are cynical and unfounded. I'm an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer and teach Aircraft Systems in a College. The Frantz has been STC'd for several models of aircraft, something not easily accomplished. A Fram filter, on the other hand, would never be approved for use on ANY airplane. The standards are much too stringent, one reason an aircraft spin-on filter starts at around $17 for a Tempest, or $22 for a Champion. Dan >> It is really sad that with all the wonder drugs out there today, no cure >> has been found for your "Frantz Fever". [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dan I've never taught anything to anyone, except how -not- to do things. Nevertheless, this is all interesting to me. My idea is there is a small skin of oil on moving parts, that actually separates metal from metal when an engine is running, and it is this small skin that provides the lubrication. And my idea is, anything that is smaller than this small skin remains in suspension and doesn't come into contact with metal to metal, at which point it would become highly abrasive. So say the oil skin is 1/1000th of an inch thick when the engine is running. Anything smaller than that would stay in the fluid skin, and not cause abrasion. So going for smaller particles than that with a filter would be a waste of money and time. So my idea, is it is OK for your oil to become dark with some blowby contaminants, as long as they are non-corrosive and as long as they are smaller than the skin thickness between moving parts. I don't know if I'm right or wrong about this, but if I'm right, then the toilet paper filter is redundant. It might be nice to have, but it really isn't doing anything for the engine except to keep the oil aesthetically and cosmetically appealing. The engine doesn't know the difference, just the human eyes. This is just my idea, and maybe incorrect. Now regarding the ph issue, I would be concerned about that. You know 7.0 is ph neutral. You know anything lower than that is acidic, and anything higher than that is caustic. So you can measure that with a ph meter if you have the money for one. Or perhaps you can measure it with those test strips of litmus paper. Anyhow, you can take the time to measure your antifreeze for galvanic activity. That will corrode an engine also. IOW, take a voltmeter, put the black wire on engine ground, and put the red + wire into the degas bottle, and see what you read in millivolts. If it is more than just a little, you have galvanic activity going on between your antifreeze mix and your dissimilar engine metals, and I bet that will be something to watch also. Although, I will admit that the oil ph and particle contamination is the larger issue here. These days I use a Mobil 1 filter, paying $12+ for the thing, although I have a small pile of Motorcraft FL-400S filters that I bought for the same amount of money. I believe the Mobil 1 will go the distance and last longer than a paper filter, as it is made out of synthetics, instead of paper, and clogging notwithstanding, will last longer. I've had mine in for 9 months straight, and don't plan to replace it until December, which will be the 1 YEAR MARK. Same with the oil. This december it will have been in there for 1 YEAR. My next *batch* is going to be "Hi mileage" Mobil 1. Doing frequent oil changes gets rid of contaminants, but it is my contention that contaminants smaller than a certain size remain in suspension and with my hydraulic instead of mechanical lifters, have no damaging effect on the engine. Enough from me for now. I'm not licensed or certified to do anything. What do I know that is worth a nickel. Lg > I've never taught anything to anyone, except how -not- to do things. > Nevertheless, this is all interesting to me. My idea is there is a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > difference, just the human eyes. This is just my idea, and maybe > incorrect. The gap between moving parts is far less that .001". The clearance between the bearing shells and journals is among the largest, with new clearances being around .0005", or half of your 1/1000". Piston-to-cylinder wall clearances are no more than .004" cold. and can run under .001" hot. Piston/pin clearances are around .0001", 1/10 of your 1/1000". Cam/lifter contact clearances are so small as to be unmeasurable since the loaded are is tiny, the pressures are rather large, and the oil supply can be inadequate. In some aircraft engines the cam goes first, as did many of the old Chevy small-block cams. ANY amount of abrasive at this point accelerates the wear and any amount of junk entering the hydraulic lifter can cause sticking or enough wear that it leaks down too fast. The toilet-paper filter helps, but it's a saw-off as to whether it's worth it. Most newer engines run so tight that there is little blowby and much less carbon gets into the oil, and the modern oils don't carbonize nearly as quickly. PCV systems extract much of the water vapour from the crankcase. Most of us drive on paved roads almost all the time, so air filters don't fail as often nor does much dust get past them into the engine. Dust through the intake is one of the fastest ways to lunch an engine; Ramsey (piston ring manufacturers) ran some tests years ago, and found that less than a teaspoonful of fine silica dust ingested into the intake over a ten-minute period was enough to completely destroy the compression and leave the engine rattling. The Frantz would be of little help here. And under the hood of most cars now you'd have a hard time finding a place to hang a Frantz. It's not small. Dan >> I've never taught anything to anyone, except how -not- to do things. >> Nevertheless, this is all interesting to me. My idea is there is a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> difference, just the human eyes. This is just my idea, and maybe >> incorrect. ================================================================== > The gap between moving parts is far less that .001". The >clearance between the bearing shells and journals is among the largest, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Dan Interesting. And yes, I can't even find a place for anything under my hood except maybe just over the transmission there is a little space, where you could install something with a home made bracket of sorts. I can show you a photo of my engine where it looks like part of it is missing. That is the area that I can use for something. Other than that, everything is pretty well squashed together. Well let's hear it for the mighty air filter, which looks like it is just as important if not moreso than the OIL filter. I keep a close eye on my air filter. It is easy to get at, easy to check, and every so often I clean out the air filter box and air filter itself with compressed air. It seems to be pretty clean. And when I pull the filter, the MAF is looking right at me so I give it a squirt of carb cleaner and blow that off with compressed air. And then, once a year I reach into my throttle body looking for deposits on or around the butterfly valve. This year, I found next to nothing since last year's cleaning. WHICH LEADS ME TO BELIEVE...that when I bought my car with 6,500 miles on it, it really had a sh.t load MORE on it than the odometer said, because of the carbon deposits _behind_ the throttle body valve. So now, since I did a carfax check on the bugger, I have to get the ENGINE number from somewhere and compare that to the VIN. To see if that engine belongs in that chassis. At this point, because of the large discrepancy between deposits behind the throttle body butterfly valve in my 18 thousand miles vs their 6,500 miles, I am thinking I've got a different engine in the car than the one installed at the factory. You see, I drove the vehicle for a year, and there was no appreciable deposit of carbon in or around the butterfly. When they had it, in the first 6,500, they built up a virtual mount everest that caused the ENGINE TO SURGE when stopped at a stop light. That's how I found the carbonized deposits, and why I removed them. This is all noted in my logbook. Anyhow, If that isn't the orgiginal engine, that isn't the original tranny. What could this mean? It means I don't know how many REAL miles are on that engine, that's what it means. That engine, based on the throttle body deposits, could already have 60,000 miles on it and I wouldn't know it, as it's a 3.0 L Vulcan U code, which is the same that goes into any Taurus. It could have come from anywhere, and any vehicle...even a rear-ended wreck. The car business, is a shady one at best. I wouldn't put it past these people to have sold me a *dealer demo* that was put together from a number of vehicles. I'm going looking for an engine number later today. There were too many NEW CHALK MARKS on the hoses and cables for my liking when I bought it. Seems that after the first 6,500 miles and an engine clean, the marks wouldn't be pristine anymore, like they were in the showroom when I first saw the car. Anyhow, back to the oil. OK on the tolerances. I was guessing off the top of my head. My Mobil 1 filter M1-209 filters down to 10-20 MICRONS at 95% efficiency on _one_ pass. Now, does that exceed the skin thickness of ANY of the tolerances you mentioned above? It is noted that *conventional* filters average 80% efficiency on a single pass through the filter media. With 20 microns being the largest size particle to get through this thing, wouldn't that remain within the lubricating skin of everything you mentioned above? I'm not a mathematician, nor am I inclined to look up what 20 microns is in thousandths of an inch...but I suspect it is pretty dang small. Maybe smaller than your .0001 inch. Lg > Anyhow, back to the oil. > OK on the tolerances. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > look up what 20 microns is in thousandths of an inch...but I suspect > it is pretty dang small. Maybe smaller than your .0001 inch. A micron is a millionth of a metre, or 1/1000 or a millimetre. A micron is equal to .00003937", so 20 microns is .000787", three-quarters of .001". Pretty big, actually. (A sheet of typing paper is .003" thick, a human hair about .0025".) The oil film between something like a cam and lifter, or between the rings and cylinder wall, for that matter, is much less than that, only a few molecules thick. A 20 micron object in there, if it's hard enough, is going to have some effect on wear. Dan >> Anyhow, back to the oil. >> OK on the tolerances. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Dan Thanks for doing the math. I was trying to figure out where to get a conversion table ;-\ Ok then. I am going to think about all of this while I mow the back yard. My broken left arm and wrist are *good enough* so I can do that now, but I'm going to be thinking all the time, what that means in terms of changing my *high mileage Mobil 1* oil. I know the lubricant is _good_. What I don't know is how adverse an effect having contamination of .000787" is in the Real World where my engine lives. IOW, what is the point in having a high-mileage oil, if in fact, it can't be filtered -enough- by the filtering system, to prevent engine wear from abrasive _particles_ held in suspension? But they're not in suspension, they're in the oil filter ;-| "Some effect on wear" Yes, turning on the engine is going to do that, on any and every vehicle, including, I'm sure, Air Force One, which is the President's *ride.* A few molecules between the rings and cylinder wall. But you know, the ring will move out ( expand ) to take up any slack as it wears, otherwise why do they have *ring compressors* for when you do a ring job on your pistons and are reinserting them into the bores. So even if there is some wear, which is inevitable, the ring will still keep a tight fit. We just don't want scoring. Well then we have to figure out a way to keep carbon off the pistons. It would be nice if we could keep carbon out of the combustion chamber all together. Why make a hi mileage oil that doesn't need changing for 7,500 miles, if the abrasives in suspension are going to chew up the engine to pieces? That's where the filter comes in, right? 10 to 20 microns...and I can buy one that does BETTER than that, but don't know if it is necessary. anyhow, I'm beginning to think that we're approaching paranoia here. Lg > Ok then. I am going to think about all of this while I mow the back > yard. My broken left arm and wrist are *good enough* so I can do that > now, but I'm going to be thinking all the time, what that means in > terms of changing my *high mileage Mobil 1* oil. I know the lubricant > is _good_. What I don't know is how adverse an effect having > contamination of .000787" is in the Real World where my engine lives. I think you're over thinking it... let's assume $5000 for a new engine, and $25 an oil change. If you changed your oil weekly, the engine would probably last forever, but you'd spend $1300 a year on oil changes. If you changed your oil yearly, the engine would probably last two years, but you'd spend $25 a year on oil changes. For car companies, they want the engine to last the warranty period, and maybe make it to about 200,000 miles or about 10 years. After that, they don't care. To make your car look cheap to maintain, they stretch out the intervals. Oil & Filter companies would have you believe the exact opposite, that your engine will fail if you get one speck of dirt in there, so you need super duper oil filters and they should be changed every three months or else. Somewhere inbetween these two extremes is where the right combination is, and a lot of it depends on your driving conditions. I change the oil in my truck about every 3-5 months, but in my race car I change it after virtually every race. (I also change the air and fuel filters too.) It's like changing rear end fluid or power steering fluid - there are no specified change intervals on my cars for those fluids, but it can't hurt to change them once in a while anyway, other than costing a few bucks. that said, I may be throwing money away by changing fluids that are still good. -- Ray >> Ok then. I am going to think about all of this while I mow the back >> yard. My broken left arm and wrist are *good enough* so I can do that [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >bucks. that said, I may be throwing money away by changing fluids that >are still good. Ray, My new and modified protocol is 12 months or 12,000 miles, whichever comes first...changing only the oil filter at the 5 to 6 thousand mile interval, and topping up with the fraction of a quart that the filter takes to saturate. Now, the way things have been going, I am going to be at the 1 YEAR mark this December 4th. With about 5,000 miles on the oil and the single filter that went on at the same time the oil went in. I am going to eat crow pie, if my engine only lasts 2 years using this procedure. Since I've put Mobil 1 in my automobile, I've been using it in my snowthrower, lawnmower, and for 2 cycle I have a Special 2 cycle Mobil 1 oil. IOW, I've got Mobil 1 up the Yin Yang, in about everything with an oil port. Including my Chainsaw! They start very easily, reliably, and SCREEM with power when I go WOT. I know it is a *tad expensive,* but considering the reduced service intervals, still price competitive, and I do believe, that my engines are going to last a Long Time using this full synthetic. My car loves the stuff. On any sub-zero day it starts instantly, has lots of power, and I might be getting slightly better gas mileage, which would help offset the high initial price of this liquid miracle. I think they even run this stuff in turbine engines, of the aircraft variety it is so good. So, if any of my engines take a dump, I highly doubt it will be on account of the oil failing to provide superb lubrication. In fact, I am using it to help insure my engines don't take a dump. IOW, living from hand to mouth here, I can't afford NOT to use it, as I couldn't afford to go out and buy new equipment. So I'm counting on this mix to give my machinery a certain level of immortality. I'm betting a lot on it. Just about everything I own that has a motor has Mobil 1 in it now. In fact, I can't think of anything that doesn't. I am aware that some of my engines run unfiltered, and don't worry about those either. They're made to be run that way. If they needed a filter, one would have been provided. I don't know what else to say about this subject. I'll never go back to dino. I'm born again. As far as particle sizes are concerned, I've seen engines running Mobil 1 that have been torn down, and they mike out to original specs. IOW, little to NO detectable ware. Go figure. Lg > So, if any of my engines take a dump, I highly doubt it will be on > account of the oil failing to provide superb lubrication. In fact, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lot on it. Just about everything I own that has a motor has Mobil 1 > in it now. In fact, I can't think of anything that doesn't. fwiw, I've only had one street car ever have major internal issues. And it was running Mobil 1. Coincidence? Probably. Would it have failed sooner with dino oil? Possibly. But it was the last time I ran Mobil 1 in anything. The car was an 84 Fiero with the 2.5L 4cyl and the problem was the nylon cam timing gear had it's teeth removed by the metal crank gear. Probably from running 200rpm short of redline for 300 miles across Montana back when there was no daytime speed limit... The wife's Beretta has been fed a steady diet of Pennzoil 5w30 and ACDelco or Wix or Hastings filters since 97. It now has 237,000km on it and has normal oil pressure and uses no oil between changes, which is usually every 3-4 months. Ray >> So, if any of my engines take a dump, I highly doubt it will be on >> account of the oil failing to provide superb lubrication. In fact, I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The car was an 84 Fiero with the 2.5L 4cyl and the problem was the nylon >cam timing gear had it's teeth removed by the metal crank gear. There it is. Nylon gears are not a good idea, from a consumer POV. Their chief attribute is they and Teflon are self-lubricating. OTOH, they haven't a fraction of the wear resistance that a well-lubricated -metal- gear has. I highly doubt that Mobil 1 had anything to do with that failure. It was the sh.t plastic the gear was made out of to begin with. Plastic is no good for use as gears. Not in anything that has a heavy duty cycle, or is load-bearing. I've seen and proved this for myself too many times. >Probably from running 200rpm short of redline for 300 miles across >Montana back when there was no daytime speed limit... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Ray There are at least 2 camps: synthetic dino synthetic blend mix so...3 camps. I belong to the synthetic tribe. We will see how it goes. I've used dino all my life, and will say it does crud up an engine. Really cruds it up if it isn't changed often enough. Now looking into my engine through the oil filler port, it has been -cleaned- by the synthetic. All the varnish from the previous dino seems to have been removed. That's why this first *batch* of synthetic is dirty. It cleaned up the crap left behind by the dino. The next batch of synthetic should stay sparkling clean, since the inside of the engine has been washed by the synthetic. Talk about crap floating around in your oil? You will have more shite than you can scrape off in any dino engine. Not so with synthetic. Synthetic lubed engines look like new. They're clean...and still in tolerances. I've never seen nor heard otherwise. Certainly the failure above was caused by that plastic gear, and all plastic gears are going to fail quickly. There isn't any way around it. They always self-destruct. Next time buy a metal vehicle? Lg >>> So, if any of my engines take a dump, I highly doubt it will be on >>> account of the oil failing to provide superb lubrication. In fact, I [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Lg I use synthetic and change it often in my good cars. I use the cheap stuff and change it often in my cheaper cars. that's worked for me for the last 15 years with the exception of the Fiero. >I use synthetic and change it often in my good cars. ray, how often is *often* when you change synthetic in your good cars? just curious. do you go by mileage/time, or both. >I use the cheap stuff and change it often in my cheaper cars. >that's worked for me for the last 15 years with the exception of the Fiero. Since I only own one car, whether it is cheap or expensive, it's my only car, and has to go when I push the buttons. Lg >>I use synthetic and change it often in my good cars. > > ray, how often is *often* when you change synthetic in your good cars? > just curious. do you go by mileage/time, or both. > > Lg I go by the 3 month, 3000 mile rule in all my street cars, regardless of age or mileage. My driving has a tendancy to be a bit... um... hard on the car... :) so I go by the severe duty schedule. I've been doing that since I got my first car and many consider it overkill, but it's my car and my money... I feel guilty if I'm one month late on oil changes. In my race car, I'll change it after almost every race. and all oil changes include a filter change. Can't believe people, they spend $30,000 on a car and want to skimp on a $6 oil filter. I treated my $60 Volare better than that. Ray >>>I use synthetic and change it often in my good cars. >> >> ray, how often is *often* when you change synthetic in your good cars? >> just curious. do you go by mileage/time, or both. >> >> Lg ======================================================== >I go by the 3 month, 3000 mile rule in all my street cars, regardless of >age or mileage. My driving has a tendancy to be a bit... um... hard on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ray Yep. penny wise and dollar foolish. It's a common problem. Right now I'm running within the design parameters of my lubricant, oil filter, and engine, according to "the literature." And I'm not hard on my car, nor do I baby it either. I drive it like...*normal* or something like that, thinking conservation of fuel is a good idea, I even obey the speed limits. IIRC, I paid around $12 for my oil filter, a Mobil 1 M1-209, and -around- $5/quart for the oil. That in no way implies that they will last forever...nothing does. Just that I can't afford to toss this stuff every 3 months or 3,000 miles, whichever comes first. First of all, in my vehicle, it isn't necessary. 2nd of all, I don't have that kind of $ available. So long story short, I'm getting ready for a filter and oil swap this December 4th, which as I mentioned earlier, is 12 months since my last filter and oil change. That _might_ be pushing things. Time will tell. Lg >>>>I use synthetic and change it often in my good cars. >>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Lg Which is why for a regular car (wife's Beretta) I'd rather spend $6 on a filter and around $2/quart x 3 per year for $48 per year, which is about $12 more per year than what you'd spend. And I never have to worry about possibly damaging the engine. Overkill? probably. But, we're talking $48 per year. Some people spend that on Starbucks in a week. We won't even discuss the amount of money poured into my race car. Ray > A few molecules between the rings and cylinder wall. But you know, > the ring will move out ( expand ) to take up any slack as it wears, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nice if we could keep carbon out of the combustion chamber all > together. The rings are under constant pressure against the cylinder wall, and that pressure rises as compression and combustion pressures get behind them and push outward on the ring. The contact, therefore, is metal-to-metal until the engine starts and some oil is thrown onto the cylinder wall. The oil scraper rings will clean off almost all of it, leaving a layer only a few molecules thick upon which all the rings ride. This layer is cooled by the cylinder wall enough that it doesn't burn much, so that oil consumption is minimal. Too much oil on the walls will cause ring hydroplaning, and oil consumption will go way up. Oil that's too heavy, or worn rod bearings that throw too much oil and flood the cylinder walls, will do that. Abrasives or other contaminants under the rings accelerate wear, even if scoring (which is wear caused by *big* pieces) doesn't occur. We want those rings to last as long as possible; worn rings might still seal around their circumference but their end gaps get big and leakage will happen at that point. If we lose .010" off the ring face, the end gaps increase by 3.14 times that, or by more than .031". That's a much bigger gap on a ring that might have started with .006". You lose compression through that gap (lower performance, and gasoline in the crankcase), combustion gases (more performance lost and burned junk into the case), and oil comes up through the gap on intake (oil consumption goes up and the car might not pass the smog tests). So the cleaner the oil, the better. The cleaner the oil, the longer things like rings will last, and the longer the rings last, the cleaner the oil will stay. Dan Dan Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com wrote in article <1159313321.783317.118440@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... > Nor did I > ever worry about "lint" getting into my oil system; the full-flow > filter would catch any of that, You seem to be saying that you need a filter to filter out what the Frantz introduces into the oiling system...... > ........and in any case I'd rather > have a bit of lint in the oil instead of abrasive junk. Uh, the "lint" is a microscopic piece of wood fiber..... > Your comments are > cynical and unfounded. The statement on the Frantz website saying it is capable of "re-refining" oil seems just a bit unfounded to me... > I'm an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer and teach > Aircraft Systems in a College. The Frantz has been STC'd for several > models of aircraft, something not easily accomplished. I love it when someone uses trade jargon and abbreviations as if anyone who doesn't understand it is, obviously, a simpleton......or as an attempt to impress others...... WTF is STC'd? I'm sure you are correct in assuming that the other non A&E license holders ALL know what it means but me, so I guess that "proves" you're smarter than me.... > Dan_Thomas_nospam@yahoo.com wrote in article > <1159313321.783317.118440@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You seem to be saying that you need a filter to filter out what the Frantz > introduces into the oiling system...... The Frantz assumes that the full-flow is already there and functioning. What's wrong with that? > > ........and in any case I'd rather > > have a bit of lint in the oil instead of abrasive junk. > Uh, the "lint" is a microscopic piece of wood fiber..... And a lot less abrasive than a bit of metal or carbon. Wood fiber is cellulose, a form of sugar. Softer than silica dust any day. Older ships, in pre-roller bearing days, used propeller shaft bearing blocks made of lignum vitae, a heavy hardwood. Better than any metal, and if they were oiled occasionally thay ran fine and lasted a long time. > > Your comments are > > cynical and unfounded. > > The statement on the Frantz website saying it is capable of "re-refining" > oil seems just a bit unfounded to me... Sure is. An over-the-top bit of merketing hype that will fool a few. > > I'm an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer and teach > > Aircraft Systems in a College. The Frantz has been STC'd for several [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > WTF is STC'd? Sorry. Should have remembered that I wasn't on an aircraft group. Every aircraft and engine, other than a homebuilt or ultralight, has been issued a Type Certificate after it has undergone extensive, expensive and time-consuming tests to prove that it meets government standards. After that, nobody can make any except the most minor changes to that airplane or engine unless that modification has been tested and approved and issued a Supplemental Type Certificate, or STC. The idea is to prevent changes that introduce a risk. In their ignorance, some people will modify something without having the whole story, and the airplane will turn and bite them. It happens. There are some non-aviation items that have been approved via STC for use on certified airplanes, and the Frantz is one. Fram would never make it, and I suspect most of the other automotive types wouldn't either. Aircraft engine oil pressures can be rather high, and the light cans on auto filters might rupture. A collapsed filter media could introduce dangerous amounts of paper into the system and plug it; the Frantz has a fine screen to catch anything like that. Dan The mark of a true scammer.....Claiming the impossible. From the Frantz web page. "The Frantz filter re-refines the oil. " So, toilet paper is now capable of "re-refining" oil. Interesting! If only we had enough Frantz filters fiollowing Katrina........ >The mark of a true scammer.....Claiming the impossible. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >If only we had enough Frantz filters fiollowing Katrina........ I'll grant you that "re-refining" is an overstatement. And I don't use Frantz or any other oddball filter system. But, assuming the toilet paper doesn't come unglued and it stays where it's supposed to, doesn't it seem like a filter that removes the dirt to the point where the oil stays clear is doing a better job of filtering then a system that doesn't keep the oil clear? > What is the typical particle size that an oil filter filters out?? I > am looking at filtration better than 25 micron. All automotive pleated oil filters do that, and 20-25um may be the largest particle size commonly used for test dirt. I believe they typically remove 75-98% of such particles in a single-pass test. The premium line filters with filter material made primarily of synthetic material rather than paper are usually at the upper end: Pure One, Mobil 1, and Fram Toughguard (white, not orange or black). Bypass filters remove the smaller particles, 5-10um better than pleated filters do, but that doesn't necessarily mean they remove as much dirt because they actually let a higher percentage of larger particles pass through. If you look inside one you'll notice it's full of openings much larger than any found in sieve filters, and bypass filters have been found to remove only about 50% of the 20-25u particles. Ignore judgments of filters based only on their internal appearances and that don't show test results.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.