|
RAB
04-03-2007 23:39:13
|
|
Re: oil bath or dry element in reply to kyle boettcher, 04-03-2007 18:28:38
|
|
|
A few misconceptions down here but most are covered in other posts although it is not always possible to know which post is right, when they contradict each other!
B&D is a bit extreme when he compares one to t"other. The dry filter IS more efficient than an oil bath type. It does collect SMALLER particles as well. Don"t now what your "mil" is but particles down to upper single micron numbers are typical for a dry and a bit more for a wet - a micron is one millionth of a metre. Oil baths were not used for turbo engines as the oil mist would erode the impellor - anything will erode an impellor at 100,000 rpm and there is always some carry-over! There is no more chance of drawing the oil into the engine than on a normally aspirated engine, given the cleaner is sized correctly. So, yes a dry element is better, but the oil bath was perfectly adequate for the engine tolerances of the day. Lastly I know not how the differences in pressure drop across the various devices compare, but the oil bath type would only clog up when not working, too late to stop dirty air into the engine if pressure drop was used as a service indicator. The original reason for change to dry filtration? - probably initial production costs, as a tin box was cheaper than it"s predecessor. Or maybe Japanese motorcyles! Add to that other advantages, which came later, like access, shape (squeezing it under the bonnet), size, closer mechanical tolerances, waste disposal, it has been a good progression.
Regards, RAB
|
|
|
