I've seen posts from experienced people saying intex cartridge filters are junk. Why is that? I haven't really seen an explanation. What are the benefits of upgrading?
Intex cartridge filters
- Thread starter Poolzzz
- Start date
There's really nothing wrong with them other than they are undersized for the pools that Intex pairs them with.
I think the small Intex filters work just fine in removing particles from the water. That's not the issue. Usually when Intex users upgrade, they install a larger pump and filter combo. The benefit to doing this is you may only have to clean the filter once or twice a season instead of every few weeks, depending on how dirty the filter gets.
The cartridges are also not reusable. You have to replace them. There are aftermarket ones that fit, that filter better and you can clean and reuse. Upgrading to the sand filters is still way better.
They are very cheaply made, the filter media is thin and not very good. They are designed specifically to be disposable and thus are built down to a cost.
The Intex material is thin and doesn't catch nearly as much as better replacement filters. I use Unicel with good success. Years ago I had dull looking water with the Intex filter, I made the switch to Unicel and discovered the Unicel catching lots of what I assume to be grey dead algae and soon the pool had that sparkling polished look.
And what others are saying, the pumps and filters are undersized for the pool Intex pairs them with. I'm doing fine with longer run times however.
And what others are saying, the pumps and filters are undersized for the pool Intex pairs them with. I'm doing fine with longer run times however.
Thanks everyone. The stock filter material sure is thin, I didn't know better aftermarket ones existed. The local pool store is bringing a Unicel C-4607 in for me tomorrow. I've re-used the same stock Intex filter all summer so the Unicel should last forever (in Intex pool years). I was misled by the Pool School article comparing filter types which says cartridge filters better than sand.
I don't follow the comments about the Intex pumps/filters being undersized. I clean mine once a month which doesn't seem too onerous. I also run the pump for about 4 hours during the day for my solar panel and that time seems to be plenty to mix any chlorine/chemicals. I've left the pump on 24/7 to see if it would filter better but the water looks the same so now I just do the minimum required for the solar panel and call it good. I'm not seeing a problem with the current pump sizing but am probably missing something. What benefit will I see by going to a larger pump?
I should add that the pool came with a stock 330 gph pump and I bought a cheap 530 gph pump (for $5) but that was only so my pool vacuum would work better. I didn't see any other benefit.
I don't follow the comments about the Intex pumps/filters being undersized. I clean mine once a month which doesn't seem too onerous. I also run the pump for about 4 hours during the day for my solar panel and that time seems to be plenty to mix any chlorine/chemicals. I've left the pump on 24/7 to see if it would filter better but the water looks the same so now I just do the minimum required for the solar panel and call it good. I'm not seeing a problem with the current pump sizing but am probably missing something. What benefit will I see by going to a larger pump?
I should add that the pool came with a stock 330 gph pump and I bought a cheap 530 gph pump (for $5) but that was only so my pool vacuum would work better. I didn't see any other benefit.
I didn't notice your pool size. With a 600 gallon pool and a 530 gph pump (although in reality its probably less than that) you are getting plenty of water filtering, probably better than most here. With the Unicel filter getting the fine particle size the Intex lets flow through your water will look great.
I think the undersize comes into play with bigger pools. I have a 15,000 gallon that came with a 2,500 gph pump, I could run that 24 hours a day and I don't think I'd get the same turnover rate you are.
I think the undersize comes into play with bigger pools. I have a 15,000 gallon that came with a 2,500 gph pump, I could run that 24 hours a day and I don't think I'd get the same turnover rate you are.
No, you misinterpreted what was written in the article. Cartridge filters filter more finely than sand filters, and DE filters more finely than either. That does NOT mean one is better than the other because they all have positive and negative qualities. Water clarity is a combination of filtration and chemistry and with properly maintained water chemistry will allow any filter to do its job. There is also the case of proper sizing of the pump and filter. Being able to filter to a specific micron is a small part of deciding which filter to purchase, but even then the disposable Intex filters will not be able to filter nearly to the size quoted in the article. That you are able to keep your water clear while using one shows how water chemistry is the most important factor in water clarity.
That's all I meant. I don't know who is the keeper of Pool School articles but clarification on that point would improve the article IMHO.
KK: Yes, your ratio is radically lower than mine even with my original stock pump. My pool for next year is a 15' x 42"" so about 4k gallons with a 1000 gph pump. That's three or four times worse ratio than I have now but still better than your ratio. I don't have a good feel for what is really required, at a certain point one is re-filtering the same water for little extra benefit. Most stuff seems to sink or float anyway.
This is the end of my 4th summer with the pool. My original 1000 GPH filter/pump started having issues with the power plug, so I treated myself to a new one - this time a 1500 GPH one, that used the same filter cartridge.
Being as I'm a frugal person, over the years I haunted the clearance aisle and had 3 4-packs of the "A/C" filters, plus some loose, all brand new. That drove my choice of new filter. I do notice a much better filtering job done by the new filter.
I only use 2, maybe 3 filters all summer. I start with a new one, then switch out to another new one after the initial few days. Then once a week over the summer, I switch, Each time I take the dirty filter into the laundry tub, rinse it out well, then soak it in a bucket with some Oxiclean and bleach. After a day or so, I take the filter from the bucket, rinse it again and let it dry. Pretty much good as new.
Being as I'm a frugal person, over the years I haunted the clearance aisle and had 3 4-packs of the "A/C" filters, plus some loose, all brand new. That drove my choice of new filter. I do notice a much better filtering job done by the new filter.
I only use 2, maybe 3 filters all summer. I start with a new one, then switch out to another new one after the initial few days. Then once a week over the summer, I switch, Each time I take the dirty filter into the laundry tub, rinse it out well, then soak it in a bucket with some Oxiclean and bleach. After a day or so, I take the filter from the bucket, rinse it again and let it dry. Pretty much good as new.
Well...I went to pick up my Unicel C-4067 and the pool store guy gave me a Pleatco PC7-120 saying it is the same thing.
Googling the Pleatco filter it is clearly not. Unicel uses Dupont's Reemay filter material while Pleatco is doing their own thing. The underlying material is the same but the manufacturing design is different. Apparently Pleatco introduced a 3rd generation fabric last year called their Advanced Point Bonded fabric which is, "driving exceptional cleaning performance; vastly superior to anything that has come before." It is 4oz material like the Unicel (I believe their previous generation was 3 oz material). Anyway they claimed their previous generation was superior to the Reemay material so this must really be something...
So I did a test. I cleaned my Intex filter and then ran it for 3 hours (about 2 turnovers worth) and checked for dirt accumulation. I then inserted the Pleatco and ran for another 3 hours and compared the result. They looked the same, I really couldn't see any difference at all...just a very, very slight brown stain at the input side on each that looked indentical.
Also I should correct a comment I made earlier. I said the stock filter material "sure is thin". It turns out my spare filter is a HydroForce filter and very thin with holes you could drive a dump truck through!
The stock Intex filter that was in my pump is much thicker and similar in weight to the Pleatco. So for sure there are some bad filters out there but based on this one test it doesn't seem a "premium" aftermarket filter catches any more dirt than the stock. It may last longer or hold more dirt etc but I was primarily interested in increased filtration which I'm not seeing. In my mind, if the Pleatco really was filtering smaller particles then 2 complete turnovers of the pool water should have picked up something that the Intex was missing. What do you experts think?
Also has anyone compared a current generation Pleatco with the Unicel? Maybe I should try a Unicel. I've come this far and it's only another $12 to know for sure...
Googling the Pleatco filter it is clearly not. Unicel uses Dupont's Reemay filter material while Pleatco is doing their own thing. The underlying material is the same but the manufacturing design is different. Apparently Pleatco introduced a 3rd generation fabric last year called their Advanced Point Bonded fabric which is, "driving exceptional cleaning performance; vastly superior to anything that has come before." It is 4oz material like the Unicel (I believe their previous generation was 3 oz material). Anyway they claimed their previous generation was superior to the Reemay material so this must really be something...
So I did a test. I cleaned my Intex filter and then ran it for 3 hours (about 2 turnovers worth) and checked for dirt accumulation. I then inserted the Pleatco and ran for another 3 hours and compared the result. They looked the same, I really couldn't see any difference at all...just a very, very slight brown stain at the input side on each that looked indentical.
Also I should correct a comment I made earlier. I said the stock filter material "sure is thin". It turns out my spare filter is a HydroForce filter and very thin with holes you could drive a dump truck through!
The stock Intex filter that was in my pump is much thicker and similar in weight to the Pleatco. So for sure there are some bad filters out there but based on this one test it doesn't seem a "premium" aftermarket filter catches any more dirt than the stock. It may last longer or hold more dirt etc but I was primarily interested in increased filtration which I'm not seeing. In my mind, if the Pleatco really was filtering smaller particles then 2 complete turnovers of the pool water should have picked up something that the Intex was missing. What do you experts think?Also has anyone compared a current generation Pleatco with the Unicel? Maybe I should try a Unicel. I've come this far and it's only another $12 to know for sure...
Follow-up to my test which I now believe was invalid (for the reasons below).
First some background. I chose 2 turnover cycles based on the following logic: First, assume the Pleatco filters smaller particles than the Intex (ie the Intex lets them through). Then, for illustration, assume the Pleatco is 90% efficient. This means for 100 particles upstream the Pleatco will remove 90% leaving 10 particles downstream. This is the first pass. On the second pass there would be 10 particles upstream and the Pleatco would remove 90% leaving 1 particle downstream. So after 2 passes 99% of the particles would be removed making it pointless to have more passes. Now 90% is probably unrealistic in reality so assume a more reasonable 70% efficiency. Using the same logic, after 2 passes 91% of the particles would be removed so further passes would show little improvement. Even an efficiency of 50% would mean 75% of the particles are captured in 2 passes and the resulting "dirt stain" substantially formed by 2 passes.
However, I left the Pleatco running for another 20 hours and the "dirt stain" on the filter material became several times that seen after 3 hours. This indicates a new filter is actually very low efficiency (for the particles an Intex may be letting through). 10% might be a better number and the first pass may even be less than that for the additional reason below...
After some reading about filtration, it seems these type of cartridge filters are considered "clarification filters". Meaning they improve their efficiency with each subsequent pass. They also filter smaller and smaller particles each pass (up to the materials limit). This means 2 passes is probably not a valid test. It likely takes many more passes before the Pleatco could potentially be filtering out smaller particles than the Intex and an actual difference seen (either on the filter itself or in water clarity).
In the end, I couldn't find any credible test specs or test results establishing that pool cartridge filters (of any kind) filter down to a given micron size below about 50 um with reasonable efficiency. If someone has real data that would be useful to know. I must say though, my water has never looked so good (although it kinda looked good before...). LOL
Testing filters is a murky endeavor!
First some background. I chose 2 turnover cycles based on the following logic: First, assume the Pleatco filters smaller particles than the Intex (ie the Intex lets them through). Then, for illustration, assume the Pleatco is 90% efficient. This means for 100 particles upstream the Pleatco will remove 90% leaving 10 particles downstream. This is the first pass. On the second pass there would be 10 particles upstream and the Pleatco would remove 90% leaving 1 particle downstream. So after 2 passes 99% of the particles would be removed making it pointless to have more passes. Now 90% is probably unrealistic in reality so assume a more reasonable 70% efficiency. Using the same logic, after 2 passes 91% of the particles would be removed so further passes would show little improvement. Even an efficiency of 50% would mean 75% of the particles are captured in 2 passes and the resulting "dirt stain" substantially formed by 2 passes.
However, I left the Pleatco running for another 20 hours and the "dirt stain" on the filter material became several times that seen after 3 hours. This indicates a new filter is actually very low efficiency (for the particles an Intex may be letting through). 10% might be a better number and the first pass may even be less than that for the additional reason below...
After some reading about filtration, it seems these type of cartridge filters are considered "clarification filters". Meaning they improve their efficiency with each subsequent pass. They also filter smaller and smaller particles each pass (up to the materials limit). This means 2 passes is probably not a valid test. It likely takes many more passes before the Pleatco could potentially be filtering out smaller particles than the Intex and an actual difference seen (either on the filter itself or in water clarity).
In the end, I couldn't find any credible test specs or test results establishing that pool cartridge filters (of any kind) filter down to a given micron size below about 50 um with reasonable efficiency. If someone has real data that would be useful to know. I must say though, my water has never looked so good (although it kinda looked good before...). LOL
Testing filters is a murky endeavor!
FWIW, here are 120x microscope images of the Bestway HydroForce, Intex Type A, and Pleatco pc7-120 filters.
The Bestway is tissue thin with a lot of voids. The internal plastic structure is significantly more open than the others which would be good except there is so little structure the cartridge is floppy. I'd be concerned it won't seal properly. It has the most pleats at 73 (give or take counting error). The pleats are very poorly spaced. Some are touching, others are far apart.
The Intex media is thicker and noticeably more dense than the Bestway. It has the most rigid internal structure (basically looks like a PVC pipe with holes in it). As the cartridge gets dirty the hole pattern becomes evident on the filter media indicating non-uniform flow through the media. This effectively reduces the total area of the media. It has about 70 pleats (again subject to counting error). The spacing is better than the Bestway but still somewhat irregular.
The Pleatco is easily the thickest and most dense of the three. The point bonding is clearly evident causing one to wonder what the effective area of the filter really is (since nothing flows through the point bonded areas). The internal structure is quite open but significantly sturdier than the Bestway. Dirt cakes over the whole filter evenly (excluding the point bonded areas). It has 50 pleats or so spaced very evenly, much better manufacture than the other two.
If I was a itty-bitty dirt particle trying to get to the other side, I know which filter I'd choose. And which one I wouldn't.
The Bestway is tissue thin with a lot of voids. The internal plastic structure is significantly more open than the others which would be good except there is so little structure the cartridge is floppy. I'd be concerned it won't seal properly. It has the most pleats at 73 (give or take counting error). The pleats are very poorly spaced. Some are touching, others are far apart.
The Intex media is thicker and noticeably more dense than the Bestway. It has the most rigid internal structure (basically looks like a PVC pipe with holes in it). As the cartridge gets dirty the hole pattern becomes evident on the filter media indicating non-uniform flow through the media. This effectively reduces the total area of the media. It has about 70 pleats (again subject to counting error). The spacing is better than the Bestway but still somewhat irregular.
The Pleatco is easily the thickest and most dense of the three. The point bonding is clearly evident causing one to wonder what the effective area of the filter really is (since nothing flows through the point bonded areas). The internal structure is quite open but significantly sturdier than the Bestway. Dirt cakes over the whole filter evenly (excluding the point bonded areas). It has 50 pleats or so spaced very evenly, much better manufacture than the other two.
If I was a itty-bitty dirt particle trying to get to the other side, I know which filter I'd choose. And which one I wouldn't.
This is awesome! Thanks for the pictures. Now if we could resurrect pictures of old filter sand to prove that it doesn't get worn out in a filter after a few years
