View Full Version : Air Filter Testing paper, gauze and foam
LanduytG
06-23-2002, 12:25
For those that are interested I am involved in a thread on the TDI forum and doing some air filter testing. We do not have lab grade equipment but we are doing our best to make everything work like it is. This is some fum stuff and it is not a thread where we are trying to sell something. Just trying to get facts and more information out so others can be informed.
Here in the link to the thread.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=17&t=004875&p=
Greg
Haven't visited the link yet, but let me guess... if Greg's posting it, I'll bet the "best" filter is... ;)
Scott
LanduytG
06-23-2002, 15:28
Well of course Scott why else would I post it? ;)
We have been having some air filter wars big time over there and I figured it was time for show and tell.
Greg
george morrison
06-23-2002, 20:05
And as I posted on the TDI site, I was the lube engineer for a major mining company and recommended the company try re-usable/cleanable filters on our mining equipment. That story is posted on the TDI site and it is a long one but the bottom line of it was that I set up a lab test for the various non-paper elements and selected several that appeared to perform as well as paper, in the lab, and were re-usable. At the time we were spending $30,000 a month on paper air filter element replacement.
However, when the non-paper elements were used in the field, all elements failed to perform as well as paper; one front end loader's paper air filter elements would last one week normally. The oiled foam caused the secondary (smaller inner filter) to clog before getting through the first half day!
A replacement oiled foam filter did the same a week later. We tried every known aftermarket and none were acceptable in their filtering capabilities..
I do NOT sell air filters and I have no affiliation with any air filter company. My only interest in air filters is to use components which I *know* will perform optimally under "real" conditions.
My "lab" checks failed to account for the extremely high air velocities which turbo-charged engines create; the particle speeds that are encountered are well over 100 mph. At that speed, there is no tackifier made that will 'reach out' and capture a particle.. It gets down to simple 'screen door' affect. A 3 micron hole will not let anything larger than a 3 micron particle through it.
The off-highway industry would switch to re-usable filters immediately if indeed a re-usable air filter existed that also equalled paper in dirt capture. The amount of money spent on air filters is staggering and if a better mousetrap existed, believe me, they would be using it.
All off-highway equipment comes standard equipment with paper elements. There are no aftermarket air filters, either gauze or foam, made for these industries, the largest users of paper air filter elements in the world.......
Why???
George
LanduytG
06-23-2002, 21:07
George
Lets not bring the TDI crap here too. As I said there lets compare engine to engine not heavy equipment 12 or 16 cylinder stuff to a V8. As I could see from you roil analysis on your 6.5TD you should get a better air filter.
Greg
George,
On what timeline was this test done? IIRC, it was several/a few years back???
More Power can also verify that the EARLY Amsoil foam filters (pre-2 stage) performed rather poorly on filtration. This is what spawned the 2 stage as I understand.
I am not an Amsoil historian, nor do I have Amsoil tatood on my a**. On the contrary, (and Greg can attest to this) I have issues with the company, and I MAY be driving to Superior to have a few words with some management there (no customer service dept in existence) if things aren't resolved this week.
All that aside, I run the Amsoil filter because I have found it to be the BEST available for flow/filtration! I think we will have to put one in George's 6.5l and let him see for himself!
george morrison
06-24-2002, 08:22
The air filter testing was performed 10 years ago. The foam filters were single stage and I have not done any testing with the newer 2 stage Amsoil filters. I have some applications that I would very much like to pursue, however. I think my test program was the reason for the development of the 2 stage..
Again, my only goal is to achieve the highest level of filtration possible. If the dual stage Amsoil exceeds paper/oem filtration performance, I will one happy lube engineer in that I have some applications where cost savings in terms of increased engine life would be significant.
George Morrison
deerhunter7
06-24-2002, 09:33
I pulled out my Amzoil Airfilter after 5000 miles
to see if any oil or dust film could be found in the intake tube or sensor. The white rag test was
still white ,no trace of dust or oil. Bottom of boxhad oil and dust in it, a good place to end up.
I also cut out the bottom front third of the air
box under the filter. This mod and filter gave me
1 mile a gal. better . Now at 18 mpg at 70 to 80
mph freeway. Very pleased with filter.. :D
MNBowTie
06-24-2002, 21:55
DeerHunter7
Where did you get your TS123? I would like to purchase locally.
Thanks in advance
Well George, i guess it wasn't very fair to make that long statement putting down anything but stock paper when your testing was done with 10 year old technology. You never mentioned in your post that it was done ten years ago. Imagine if we tested computers and put up the results but didn't state the "era" of the test.
Your statement on the air particles traveling 100 mph and the screen door effect.....
I understand what you are saying with just a flat sheet with holes but that is not what happens in a piece of thick foam. The particles must traverse a maze of mis-aligned "bubbles" in the foam, continuously changing direction and bouncing off "sticky" walls. That makes a little difference I believe.
There may be other factors as to why heavy off-raod uses disposable filters. Maybe it isn't so expensive to simply throw out the old filter and replace with a new one. Isn't that what we do with toilet paper?
gardnerteam
06-25-2002, 06:43
Kennedy - while you're taking up issues about customer service with Amsoil management, as them about their larcenous heart as well. Greg advised me upon my return from Central America to return the remainder of my Amsoil/Hastings filters to Amsoil due to a low temp failure problem. I paid the freight back on 7 filters in April requesting replacement or credit towards a case of new filters (since had to buy elsewhere) and have never heard a word from them. They also do not respond to inquiries. Greg has been an excellent and honest dealer and I have no qualm with him, but the company leaves a lot to be desired. I also run the Amsoil air filter, have done the wipe test, and am very pleased with it. I also owned a Wix warehouse in Nevada in the late 70's - early 80's and furnished filters to a large operation manufacturing sheetrock (talk about dust)who experimented with various filtration types then. Technology has greatly changed since that time and both K&N and Amsoil filter technologies are greatly advanced from those days. We need to compare current technology apples to apples when comparing products today.
deerhunter7
06-25-2002, 06:48
MnBowTie I ordered it from www.lubespecialist.com
Greg had the best price. Also bought my Espar heater from him. Hundreds less than I could get
it locally. smile.gif
There is a company in Tucson, AZ called Filter Products that washes and dries heavy equipement paper filters. They will do this approx. 3 times per filter. If the filter is returned a 4th time they trash them and sell a new filter to the customer.
By doing this it allows the mines to save a lot of money on filters. If you want more info on this call them. Their number is 1/800/266-5781 and ask them how they do it and how efficient is it?
LanduytG
06-26-2002, 05:21
BigO
I had a family member that lived in Phoenix back in the early 80's. He worked for an outfit that did what you are talking about. He delivered them all over the state and into New Mexico. I saw the operation and there was not much to it. The ran them through a washer then a dryer and then put them on a test light to look for pin holes, finily intop a new box. This is probly ok but you have the human factor to deal with. But the did a great business.
Greg
More Power
06-26-2002, 13:30
We'll be doing another product discussion piece on the Amsoil air filters before long. I've been running an Amsoil in our Dmax for about 5,000 miles, and we'll be installing the newest 6.5 filter in a few days.
We've analyzed enough oil samples to know that the Stage II Amsoil filters provide the very best dirt capturing capability, but their design (airbox fit) could be improved on. Still, I think it's worth the effort.
In our Duramax, a new factory air filter would cause the airbox restriction gauge to set about 1/8-1/4" during a hard pull, but the Amsoil filter doesn't move the restriction gauge - even after adding the EZ Amp.
What I'd like to see is an air filter with the dirt capturing and airflow capability of an Amsoil Stage II, but installs and fits just like OEM.
MP
More Power
You're looking for the same thing I am, a perfect world! Seems like anything that's not stock don't fit right.
By the way, spent a wonderful year in your great state in 1969 at Great Falls, if I could make a living up there I would still be there!
WOW, a lot of speculation and no independent, objective research comparing filter media and filter effectiveness. I did a search on this site to learn more about air filters. I have the AMSOIL 2 stage(the older version) and when I bought it I was convinced from the propoganda that I was making a wise investment. My goal has never been performance, only protecting my stock engine for years of service.
The reason I am now second-guessing my decision is a recent oil analysis. It showed above average silicon and wear metals in the tin and lead. I was advised to closely inspect my air intake system and filter. My Amsoil filter was installed correctly and all other connections appeared tight. I was on bobistheoilguy.com to read more about the oil analysis and saw a link to an unscientific but objective air filter comparison. The ultimate conclusion....better air flow is directly associated with poorer filtration in every instance. The tester says he expected the Amsoil to perform the best but discovered it to be indistinguishable from the K&N in letting dirt past. These 2 filters were the worst. The paper filters were the best. My Amsoil is now clean and drying, unoiled and available to the highest sucker/bidder. I'm puting my OE filter back in and am bitter at the propoganda. If your filter is the best....PROVE IT!!!!! No more "It seems logical that oil and a thicker filter yada yada yada!!!!" I'm hearing about the UNI but will remain skeptical until I see facts. SPICER
SoMnDMAX
11-28-2003, 21:40
Originally posted by SPICER:
The reason I am now second-guessing my decision is a recent oil analysis. It showed above average silicon and wear metals in the tin and lead. I was advised to closely inspect my air intake system and filter. How many miles on the truck???
My '01s oil analysis didn't achieve "normal" wear metals and silicon content until it had 7-8,000 miles on it. The '03s analysis is tracking almost the same way. In the end before I sold it @ 40k, my '01s silicon content was 4-5 , and wear metals were 7 or less for all of them. I was using the Amsoil filter on the truck.
How many miles on your '03? Do you have any prior oil analysis results to compare to or was this the first OA?
Not to mention that this topic was last posted to over a year ago?
My '03 has 17,000 at the time of the oil analysis. The reason I decided to post on this thread, though old, included some well respected members of this forum with vastly differing opinions. The argument for paper filters is discussed on bobistheoilguy.com. George Morrison echoes this same argument but admits it is old data. However, the piece on bobistheoilguy tested the newer 2-stage Amsoil(not the newest one with the rubber edge). Ironically I ordered one of these newest Amsoil filters from a vendor on TDP for a friend and sent it back because the quality of it was laughable. It was one of the production-flawed filters with unattached corners and black caulk/glue globbed on in an attempt to seal it. I would like to see something objective. If you look at the bar graphs on the Amsoil website regarding filter efficiency it is somewhat insulting to one's intelligence. The bar graph doesn't use true numbers or values, only a rating of excellent to poor. Any gradeschool science student would understand that there is not quantifiable merit to this. SPICER
Seems weird compared to my results. I've cleaned mine 1 time in the very long time that it's been in and I drive a lot of dirt and gravel roads. My last OA at @65,000 mi has my silicon at 6ppm. At 15,000 I was at 10ppm but I changed oil more than a few times in between 0 and 15,000. How long did you run that oil for? Maybe you could post your results?
This oil change was in for 5,200 miles and I have been using Delvac1 since 2,700 miles. This was my first analysis, oil changed every 5k so far, my levels were 15 ppm Silicon, 5 Tin, 14 lead.
SoMnDMAX
11-28-2003, 22:53
Did some checking back in my OA results. My '01 didn't stabilize until the change at 13,044 miles. At that point the Iron went to 5, copper @ 9, lead @ 4, and silicon @ 6. All other wear metals @ 0. At 16,845 miles the results were- iron @ 5, copper @ 7, lead @ 5, and silicon @ 5. These numbers stayed the virtually the same until I sold the truck, at most the variance was +/- 1 PPM. Oil change interval was 3500-4,000 miles on Delo 400, and at 25,000 miles I changed to Rotella 5w-40 synthetic @ a 5-6,000 interval. All test results were with the Amsoil* foam "old style" filter.
I don't have the '03 OA results here at home to reference.
I realize there's so many variables to these tests. My results and your results may vary, but it would be interesting to see what the difference between your truck and my old truck is.
* Disclaimer- I am not promoting or undercutting the performance of the Amsoil filter. It's what I ran and what I did my testing with. Your results may vary, batteries not included. Contents may be hot. ;) :D ;)
15,000 was my 4th change out. Almost every Duramax has a good bit of silicon in it from the factory that needs to be flushed out. I'm not sure how you can draw any conclusion that your air filtration is the problem from a single oil analysis. Maybe if your intake showed dust in it then you would have a gripe but with a single analysis and low number of change outs it seems far more likely that you're still flushing the mfg junk from the engine. A single analysis will show you extremes but is significantly more useful when used for trend analysis. Your call on the air filtration but I really don't see what you're saying can be tied directly to an air filter since it is your first OA in the life of your engine. I can tell you that they don't start at 0ppm of silicon at the factory :eek:
To further what SoMn said, my silicon didn't stabilize in the single digits until the 21,000 mile mark.
[ 11-28-2003, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Hound ]
SoMnDMAX
11-28-2003, 23:15
Ditto to what Hound has said.
FWIW, the 16k change on the '01 was the sixth change.
All that I am calling for is some unbiased, objective data. I have never seen anything in data form that says one is better than the other for filtration. Flow is easy. Anyone with a gauge can see that one filter is less restrictive than another, but you can't have the best of both worlds. Less restriction....more dirt. And if this isn't the case, prove it! And by the way, my air induction tube was oily AND dirty on the inside and I spent a considerable amount of time wiping it out. I would be happy to put my 2-stage back in if I could be shown it is better. SPICER
SoMnDMAX
11-28-2003, 23:40
Spicer, was the intake tube fully connected to the filter housing? Is the flow restriction gauge installed? Is (was) the filter properly installed? Is the intake tube damaged in any way? Something has to be going on there for the intake tube to be getting as dirty as you say.
My '03 hasn't seen the Amsoil filter yet and it won't. I've been using the OEM paper filter now for 6200 miles (except for a certain dyno day), but my next filter purchase will be the new Uni Filter. It's a very nice piece- much cleaner than the Amsoil filter, and should filter better than the K&N.
I haven't seen what you're looking for either. If you find a way to run an objective test then put the results and testing methods out for us all to see. It would be greatly appreciated. I'm not big on Amsoil marketing crap so what they say in their brochures really doesn't matter to me in the least. I personally am not a big fan of their oils based on what I saw in the short time I used them. I am not really too worried about the flow thru the AF either as the turbo has a big hand in solving that issue. Your levels seem to fall in close with what I have for mine but I did an OA on every change out and have a track of how high the levels were to begin with. Like I said, I haven't been over single digit silicon for about 45,000 miles now and I'm sure not big on servicing that oily couch cushion, as I've only done it once. I do look at it occasionally to make sure it hasn't turned into a solid mass but other than that :rolleyes: Good luck for your quest for objective testing, but to be honest I do not think you'll see it as hobiests don't typically have the facilities to perform strictly controlled testing. If you do find a way to strictly control all aspects of testing I'm sure the world will scream that it wasn't the same as real world use. smile.gif
BTW, who did you have do your OA?
SoMnDMAX
11-28-2003, 23:50
Boy, busy topic for 2:00 AM... :D
The lives of the braindead at 3 am???? LOL Too much shufflin thru papers for me tonight :D BTW, You runnin that awsome antenna mount on your new truck?
SoMnDMAX
11-29-2003, 00:09
Brain dead because I should be in bed... Need to get up at 7:00. Too much caffeine today.. :( Headbangers Ball on MTV is fairly good tonight, so all is not lost.
Haven't put the mount on the new truck yet. Haven't figured out what I'll be doing with the Edge Attitude controller when I get it, and exactly where I'll need to mount my CB. It will be on before the snowmobiling season starts though... :cool:
SoMnDMAX, Everything appeared tight. The dirt in the tube was mostly just past the filter up to i2 inches away. The whole inside had a film of sticky oil and could not be easily wiped out. I used spray silicone lube on a rag to wipe it out and it was not a clean color(dark).
Hound, AVLube did my analysis.
I am not looking for one of us to do the testing, though I would love it if someone did. On bobistheoilguy.com someone did do it with a smaller car but used a 2-stage Amsoil, K&N, and a few others. Check it out, You'll see the title "air filter test" on the menu bar. His results showed the Amsoil and K&N filtering the worst even to his surprise! My contention is if an aftermarket filter does a better job FILTERING DIRT, show me the money!!!!! Amsoils cartoon bar graph compares the 2-stage, K&N, and 2 "paper filters" unnamed. The bar ranges from EXCELLENT to POOR with no numeric value placed on the graph. This graph ranks the paper and Amsoil as both "Excellent" at filtering dirt. This graph also claims some SAE standard for conducting the test. BUT, Don't you think if their filter REALLY did outperform all others in every category it would want to BRAG THE NUMBERS? As I said before, even this cartoon bar graph ranks the Amsoil and paper as being EQUAL at filtering dirt. Keep this coming, this is an interesting topic.
Note: Even FRAM claims superior filtering in their cheesy bar graphs and we all know how "SUPERIOR" they are. :rolleyes: Regards...SPICER
You will get a consistent 7-9 ppm silicon from many NEW engine oils.
I've seen Greg's demonstration, and while not laboratory grade equipment, it DOES make a good case for foam filters!
I know what George is running in his trucks. It's red, it's foam, and starts with a U..
He uses this, she uses that and Al Unser Senior says he has seen nothing as impressive as PROLONG Super Lubricant. If we are going to believe the claims of every after market manufacturer than we had better hurry up and switch all of our oil filters back to the superior filtering capability of FRAM! It is all marketing and I will stand firm on my simple request....Show me data. Any worthwhile manufacturer has DONE the comparisons for their own benefit. If they were truly superior then why in the world would they not BRAG WITH THE NUMBERS!!!! I want what is best for my truck and I will gladly fork over the cash for a UNI if someone can show me numbers and facts, not cartoonish bar graphs and marketing. On this site we have performed wonderful, factual data to support additional fuel and oil filtration. We researched hard work and data performed by CAT to support the need for better fuel filtration. SOMEBODY has researched Air Filter efficiency for various reasons. Where is this information? Mr. Morrison referred to data and experiments in the mining industry. This is what I am talking about. Bobistheoilguy posted an unscientific study. It may have been unscientific but it was a study with objectivity in mind. Without unbiased facts we are all being led blindly. Where is the after market manufacturer who is willing to share their data comparisons. SPICER
I think I may have just found the answer to what you're looking for.... specs out pretty good at least, "The filtration system will remove 99% of dust particles as small as five microns and 91% of particles as small as one micron in size." but the flow rate leaves a bit to be desired and finding a mounting location could prove difficult. :D
http://www.thejdscompany.com/Airtech.htm
In all seriousness, your gripe seems to be with the marketing that the MFGs do. I don't think you're going to see Fram saying "Our oil filters suck and will significantly reduce the life of your engine." any time soon. It's all on the consumer to make wise and valid decisions. Test results can and often are misleading, IE four ball wear testing and the spinning metal wheel test that you see on TV. What about the fantastic merits of molybdenum disulfide? Is it hydroscopic or hygroscopic? Can it be shown in testing to be corrosive under the right circumstances?
You're implying that air filtration testing should be done as easily as the fuel filter testing. Greg made a good attempt to show that very thing, but there were some potential flaws in his testing that others screamed about. When you get to sample the environment that you're driving in, much the same idea as sampling the fuel that comes from the pump, then air filter testing shouldn't be difficult. Keep in mind that all the dust has to be exactly the same so changes in humidity, driving location, amount of traffic, etc MUST be the same in order for this to work anything like fuel filtration testing. Lab testing could be done, but the test should be as close to possible as those in real world conditions. You
george morrison
11-29-2003, 17:53
It is quite challenging undertaking a "complete air filter comparison" study in that it is more than just screen door filtering comparison which we have been able to do in the fuel filter studies. With air, we have a whole new arena of filtration possibilities in addition to the OEM "screen door" paper, the oiled gauze, foam. The difficulty is that different 'dirts' from around the country seem to react differently to the tackifiers used in the oiled gauze/foam filters, from my experience. You know well my position on K&N's and yet I do see 3 or 4 out of 100 K&N's that are very effective in removing intake dirt. I have no explanation as to why..
As a result of the test I was involved in a number of years ago I have been firm on OEM/Paper element use. Which also is the position of every major diesel engine manufacturer in the world, so I am not alone... Every on highway truck you pass on the road is using paper air filter elements. If a re-usable element provided the same level of intake protection and was washable/re-usable, every major truck line in the country would be using them as they spend millions of dollars each year replacing paper elements.. The same is true for all off-highway and mining equipment. All come with paper elements and must use paper elements. The mining company I worked with spent in excess of $20,000 a month on air filter replacements! Which is why we explored the use of washable, re-usable air filter elments..
That said, the cleanest, absolute cleanest Duramax engine oil analysis result (spectro, particle count, ferrography) I have reviewed to date with ISO particle count incredibly clean (below robotic hydraulic oil target!) and a ferrography reflecting NO visible wear particles (a first for ANY engine ferrography I have ever reviewed) was an oiled foam Unifilter equipped engine.
To evaluate an air filter effectiveness, one cannot just look at spectrographic oil analysis results. Yes, they are an excellent indicator of filter performance but spectro has inherent limiations of particles of 5 microns and smaller. One must look at the complete size spectrum as many of the non-screen door filters allow large amounts of 5 micron and larger dirt particles through the system, which would be undetected by simple spectro oil analysis procedures..
Air filtration effectivness/efficiency is an on-going subject with the newcomer Unifilter foam filter having some excellent results... More to follow......
George Morrison
sonofagun
11-29-2003, 18:24
Boy this topic continues to raise it's ugly head from time to time. It is obviously an important issue. I know that the paper filter restricts some airflow in our turbo boosted engines so foam is better there. I trust George and his background so paper is better there. All this said I am running the UNI and hope George gets some additional data to validate the current early returns. My truck is too new to run an analysis yet (3500 miles) but I will get it done in time.
I agree with Spicer on the testing and factual results angle. Then you have marketing 101 which does not include much of that. If someone had run the tests and had the results we seek wouldn't they post them?
George ----- help!
Keep the info coming guys.
I
Tough Guy
11-29-2003, 22:22
Do air filter manufacturers certify their product as with oil? Such as API standards?
If so, which filters meet this criteria?
Cheers
George, thanks for the input.
Just curious, this cleanest oil sample that you are referencing, is it possible that this individual was running some form of supplemental oil filtration, ie. bypass? A good full flow filter is something like 15 micron nominal. The cleanliness you are speaking of, is that even seen in new oil out of the bottle? SPICER
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.