which oil filter?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jun 5, 2003 | 06:02 AM

#41

vettenuts

Team Owner

Joined: Mar 1999

Posts: 22,025

Likes: 192

From: At the beach in little Rhody

Re: which oil filter? (Patman)

Quote:

Click on this link here:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/...=365&submit=Go

In there you'll see many different oil analysis results for many different cars. I've noticed a trend that the LS1s running the UPF44 show higher wear metals, especially higher iron, than those running less restrictive oil filters.

But don't take my word for it, the best thing to do is do your own oil analysis on your own car, just to see that you've made the right choice in oil, viscosity, oil filter and intervals. Once you see how good the oil is at 3000 miles, you'll have second thoughts about draining it out so soon too. Brian is at 10k on his LS1 synthetic oil life study and if you calculate out his wear rates they aren't any worse than they were at 3000 miles (calculated out as wear in ppm per 1000 miles that is)

Patman, which thread on this link. I can't find it. I just switched from Mobil-1 to the UPF-44 because I thought it flowed better and based on Terry's recommendation to get rid of the M-1 filter thought this was a better choice. I had not seen anything to indicate the UPF-44 was also an issue.

Here is the link to my UOA, I was running the M-1 for this analysis.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/...=000286#000000

[Modified by vettenuts, 6:05 AM 6/5/2003]

Jun 5, 2003 | 06:08 AM

#42

Patman

Race Director

Joined: May 2001

Posts: 15,320

Likes: 2,069

From: Guelph, Ontario

Re: which oil filter? (vettenuts)

On that permeability test, the second link, it shows that the Ultraguard is restrictive to flow. But look how well the K&N does.

Jun 5, 2003 | 06:37 AM

#43

vettenuts

Team Owner

Joined: Mar 1999

Posts: 22,025

Likes: 192

From: At the beach in little Rhody

Re: which oil filter? (Patman)

OK, now I found it. What is interesting is the comments on the M-1 filter material and the fact that the UPF flows basically the same at the PF. I haven't found Bob's oil filter test thread yet (will return later), but here is a note later in the thread that even thought the air test flowed much different between the Amsoil and the K&N, the oil flow pressure drop was near the same. Just not sure how much the air compressibility plays in these numbers.

Jun 5, 2003 | 07:00 AM

#44

Patman

Race Director

Joined: May 2001

Posts: 15,320

Likes: 2,069

From: Guelph, Ontario

Re: which oil filter? (vettenuts)

It is just a piece of the puzzle though, the true tests will come when Bob does his next round of oil flow testing, this time with hot oil.

Jun 5, 2003 | 07:59 AM

#45

Highroller

Burning Brakes

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 1,016

Likes: 0

From: Bristol Ct

Re: which oil filter? (Patman)

Quote:

On that permeability test, the second link, it shows that the Ultraguard is restrictive to flow. But look how well the K&N does.

Have you or anyone else ever run any testing on the K&N to see what it filters down to? It seems to me that the best way to be less restrictive would be to filter less such as K&N air filters :skep:

Jun 5, 2003 | 01:39 PM

#46

Patman

Race Director

Joined: May 2001

Posts: 15,320

Likes: 2,069

From: Guelph, Ontario

Re: which oil filter? (Highroller)

Quote:

According to K&N their oil filters trap 90% of the 10 micron particles in the multipass test (versus about 98% for the M1 and UPF) and their nominal rating is around 18 microns I believe. This level of efficiency is more than enough to protect these engines, which have clearances big enough that a 10-20 micron particle isn't going to cause much engine wear at all.

I've seen excellent oil analysis results so far with using the K&N oil filters on my cars.

Jun 5, 2003 | 03:31 PM

#47

Highroller

Burning Brakes

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 1,016

Likes: 0

From: Bristol Ct

Re: which oil filter? (Patman)

Quote:

On that permeability test, the second link, it shows that the Ultraguard is restrictive to flow. But look how well the K&N does.
Have you or anyone else ever run any testing on the K&N to see what it filters down to? It seems to me that the best way to be less restrictive would be to filter less such as K&N air filters :skep:

According to K&N their oil filters trap 90% of the 10 micron particles in the multipass test (versus about 98% for the M1 and UPF) and their nominal rating is around 18 microns I believe. This level of efficiency is more than enough to protect these engines, which have clearances big enough that a 10-20 micron particle isn't going to cause much engine wear at all.

I've seen excellent oil analysis results so far with using the K&N oil filters on my cars.

Two things, can you post some j-pegs of your tests and in other posts you've given all the credit to to the brand of oil you use, now it's the filter using "According to K&N" as your source of information, what would you have them say, our filters will let a small Toyota through? In the real world they call this "Brand Loyalty", you know , my car's faster then your car, my fathers stronger then your father, thing is if your going to make a statement back it up.

[Modified by Highroller, 3:40 PM 6/5/2003]

Jun 9, 2003 | 10:18 AM

#48

skidmarc

Thread Starter

Drifting

Joined: Sep 2001

Posts: 1,651

Likes: 0

From: Ocean County NJ

Re: which oil filter? (Highroller)

I give up on the oil filter issue....I got a case of the UPF44's and some K&N HP1007's...I will alternate between the two with 5W30 M1 and call it a closed issue....lol Oh I added a mag drain plug too...lol

I am just glad I got that oil filter study I posted....no more Fram's for me....