i have read the articles on particle counts, but here is what does not make sense to me.....how can a filter like the pure one filter the best but have a higher particle count......does this make sense?????
best filtering oil filter
- Thread starter crimsontide
- Start date
- Status
Well...I just did more research on the Amsoil EAO filters and the ratings they use are...........ISO 4548-12
It's a first for guaranteed filtering capability in an Oil Filter Line. The International Standards Organization Standard is BIGTIME and coming our way. Now, I am going to find out what tests the Standard consists of...Bravo Amsoil
Additional Link
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...Organization+4548-12&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
[ February 18, 2006, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: LargeCarMan ]
It's a first for guaranteed filtering capability in an Oil Filter Line. The International Standards Organization Standard is BIGTIME and coming our way. Now, I am going to find out what tests the Standard consists of...Bravo Amsoil
Additional Link
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...Organization+4548-12&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9
[ February 18, 2006, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: LargeCarMan ]
LargeCarMan..
The USA's representative from SAE to work with ISO and come up with joint testing standards is the Lab Manager from Champion Laboratories.
Champ has been running ISO tests for years. They were using some back in 2000 when I was there.
The USA's representative from SAE to work with ISO and come up with joint testing standards is the Lab Manager from Champion Laboratories.
Champ has been running ISO tests for years. They were using some back in 2000 when I was there.
Now the real question is....can we get the data that Champ has about the $2.07-$2.89 filters, the $5.59 filter, and the $10.99 filters. Then one could make an educated choice.
I think not.
I think not.
LargeCarMan..
There was nothing wrong with the SAE ( Society of Automotive Engineers) tests.
As per usual..Europeans were using ISO.
A bit like the old..why do we need metric argument.
Just two slightly different ways of coming to a similar measurement.
--------------------------------
SWHeat...
Show where any filter manufacturer releases SAE or ISO test results?
What they do print is bits of information and what test they use. Not how they ran the test.
I have yet to see where any filter company shows under what criteria they ran the test.
And this is where consumers get their shorts in a wad. NONE of the tests SAE or ISO tell the lab that they MUST run the test to the exact same flow rates, termination points, and contaminant add rates.
So if filter manufacturer A runs their test at 3 gpm and manufacturer B runs theirs at 5 gpm..the results will be very different. SAE or ISO do not say you must run the test at a certain gpm..
Which is why "test" results from manufacturer to manufacturer should be taken with a grain of salt.
Just as this thread started with a claim that Pure One has the best filtering ability..yet with particle counts by some consumers showed they didn't.
It's all in the test and how you run it...
There was nothing wrong with the SAE ( Society of Automotive Engineers) tests.
As per usual..Europeans were using ISO.
A bit like the old..why do we need metric argument.
Just two slightly different ways of coming to a similar measurement.
--------------------------------
SWHeat...
Show where any filter manufacturer releases SAE or ISO test results?
What they do print is bits of information and what test they use. Not how they ran the test.
I have yet to see where any filter company shows under what criteria they ran the test.
And this is where consumers get their shorts in a wad. NONE of the tests SAE or ISO tell the lab that they MUST run the test to the exact same flow rates, termination points, and contaminant add rates.
So if filter manufacturer A runs their test at 3 gpm and manufacturer B runs theirs at 5 gpm..the results will be very different. SAE or ISO do not say you must run the test at a certain gpm..
Which is why "test" results from manufacturer to manufacturer should be taken with a grain of salt.
Just as this thread started with a claim that Pure One has the best filtering ability..yet with particle counts by some consumers showed they didn't.
It's all in the test and how you run it...
Fair Enough Filter guy, but we are making strides in the right direction...
By the way...what is metric?
By the way...what is metric?
Filter Guy, that was my point. No manufacturer is giving the info we desire. I didn't mean to pick on Champion Labs. It just would be nice to have that kind of information. Hmmm, may there is a clue as I do believe you use an ecore Super Tech filter ..... there maybe something there.
And yet, maybe not.
I guess that is why BigODave et. al. have cut them open to do an analysis. Even if it means nothing in the real world, people are wanting something, anything logical to base their dicisions upon. Flow rate, beta ratios, multipass tests, single pass tests. We are at the mercy of what the filter companies want us to know. I guess more particle counts from specific filter sizes and applications over years could give us what we want.
I guess that is why BigODave et. al. have cut them open to do an analysis. Even if it means nothing in the real world, people are wanting something, anything logical to base their dicisions upon. Flow rate, beta ratios, multipass tests, single pass tests. We are at the mercy of what the filter companies want us to know. I guess more particle counts from specific filter sizes and applications over years could give us what we want.
Excellent, were moving in the right direction to hold the filter manufactures to a standard and understand what we are purchasing.
Thanks Filter guy...
Thanks Filter guy...
That's exactly right, SWHeat, at least in my case.
I was using Super Tech..just changed oil last Friday, now have an STP E-core on my Taurus..
- Status