Brand Ranks air filter test

[KevinMalone]

Thoughts on their test method and results? I like that they aerosolized the test dust. Comments suggest that K&N will be tested in the next round.

Here are the results in a table. I had to post it as an image otherwise the forum had a meltdown:

 

[fantastic]

Going to watch it right now...

Here's some numbers I put together to add some more details from best (top) to worst (bottom) of 1 gram holding capacity vs 1 um particle size that didn't get filtered out.

WIX - For every 1 Gram of Holding Capacity it allows 198.52 1um particles past
Purolator One - For every 1 gram of holding capacity it allows 262.10 1um particles past
Fram EG - For every 1 gram of holding capacity it allows 319.38 1um particles past
EcoGard - For every 1 gram of holding capacity it allows 491.30 1um particles past
EP Auto - For every 1 gram of holding capacity it allows 502.91 1um particles past
Beck/Arnley - For every 1 gram of holding capacity it allows 628.95 1um particles past

For all the complaints we hear about M+H & Purolator they seem to have done excellent in this "test". I don't buy Beck/Arnley stuff but wow that allowed over x3 more dirt past than the WIX.

 

[twX]

Here are the efficiency curves of the filters. The Fram seems to be the clear winner in terms of average efficiency, based on the area under the curve. The Purolator looks quite good as well.

The Wix seems to do alright in the loading phase, but it seems that they either cut the test short, or that they just took fewer measurements, in which case the x-axis doesn't actually represent elapsed time. If this is the case, the Wix would actually have a similar curve to the EP Auto if its x-axis was scaled to match.

 

[fantastic]

Not much to glean from this but thought I'd post the pleat count.

WIX = 97 Pleats
Purolator = 95 Pleats
Fram = 73 Pleats
EcoGard = 90 Pleats
EP Auto = 94 Pleats
B/A = 53 Pleats

 

[Bill7]

So which air filter won?
By winning I mean filtering the best, so the least amount of particles would have gotten into the engine.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Here are the efficiency curves of the filters. The Fram seems to be the clear winner in terms of average efficiency, based on the area under the curve. The Purolator looks quite good as well.

The Wix seems to do alright in the loading phase, but it seems that they either cut the test short, or that they just took fewer measurements, in which case the x-axis doesn't actually represent elapsed time. If this is the case, the Wix would actually have a similar curve to the EP Auto if its x-axis was scaled to match.

View attachment 245663

Not that it matters that much but once they get to Purolator and onwards, the max particle numbers they give do not match the y axis.

In terms of whether they stopped recording data for the Wix, it wouldn't make sense since they tested each filter to capacity and likely used the same filter for that as well as the max particle count test.

Below is a close up of the Wix.

Since the Wix held 70g and that number was much larger than the others, it would make sense that it is a filter that prioritizes flow / longevity over efficiency.

So it makes sense that a 70g capacity filter is less efficient for a longer time at the beginning.

But it will get caked up and improve after that.

As with all air filters, as it gets caked up, it's efficiency improves. But because it is designed to flow better, the test will not end at the same efficiency as a higher efficiency filter would end the test due to the restriction limit being reached.

So that's why you see lower particle counts than any other filter at the end of the graph which I would interpret as the end of the test.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Thoughts on their test method and results?

They used medium test dust (as they did with the oil filter testing).

I believe they should have used coarse test dust.

This could skew the results and make more efficient filters last less long than the real world, while making less efficient filters seem worse than they would be in the real world.

Anyone thinking of getting a Fram, check out the Fram Ultra air filters at Walmart. They are cheap and supposedly better than the basic ones.

Re Wix, I received a Wix air filter that is advertised as 99.5% efficient (but no micron size or test standard) and it is identical to a ProTec which is "minimum 97.5% efficient according to ISO 5011". Both are made in China. Wix would not give me any further information so that made me suspicious. These results make me even more suspicious of their quality. Interesting it is made in Mexico where oil filter quality also seems to be bad regardless of if it is a US or German brand.

Re epauto & ecoguard (Premium Guard), this confirms my suspicion that non major brand names are not likely to use as good media as major brand names. I would trust European & Japanese / Korean manufacturers the most here, followed by US (Fram more than Wix), with Chinese the least. I would think that the media itself comes from the same country as where the filter is manufactured. I would extend this logic to the media used in oil filters. However, construction of the air or oil filter is another matter distinct from the media used.

Re Beck Arnley, another suspicion confirmed of a company not meeting their claims of being OE equivalent. They state that they source OE quality parts from various manufacturers but the one time I saw the specification of what they claimed was an OE equivalent European power steering fluid, it did not meet the specifications. Have not trusted them since then and this is another confirmation.

Re Purolator, here we have a case of a US manufacturer whose quality is not as good as it should be, having a product made in China which seems to be doing what it should. This is likely a M&H air filter and nothing to do with Purolator US management successfully outsourcing to China. M&H make very high quality air and oil filters except in US subsidiaries which seem to be somewhat autonomous and also in Mexico.

 

[CharlieBauer]

So which air filter won?
By winning I mean filtering the best, so the least amount of particles would have gotten into the engine.

Fram is best followed by Purolator. None of the others seem to be worth buying.

If the Fram Ultra air filter from Walmart is better (as Fram claim it is) vs the Fram basic filter tested here, then that is clearly the best buy on efficiency and longevity and price. Just need to examine it to make sure it's quality has not gone down like their oil filters.

They should test the German and Japanese air filters. I would still choose a made in Europe Mann / Hengst / Mahle where those are original equipment as they are specified for very high efficiency, very high holding and excellent construction quality.

 

[fantastic]

So which air filter won?
By winning I mean filtering the best, so the least amount of particles would have gotten into the engine.

WIX

 

[CharlieBauer]

WIX

Disagree. It looks like it has terrible filtering for a third to half it's life. Might even be the worst one.

 

[fantastic]

Disagree. It looks like it has terrible filtering for a third to half it's life. Might even be the worst one.

PC @ 1UM 13,897 is the second best. I didn't mention the B/A since it's the worst for capacity.

 

[CharlieBauer]

PC @ 1UM 13,897 is the second best. I didn't mention the B/A since it's the worst for capacity.

That's the max particle count recorded at any time during the test.

Look at the area under the curve to get an idea of how many particles get through in the lifetime of the filter.

I clipped a picture of the non compressed Wix graphic in an earlier post for precisely that reason.

Additionally, superimpose the epauto chart over the Wix graphic but only so that it is half the length across. That reflects that the epauto holds 35g vs the Wix 70g.

That will show you that the epauto which looks terrible, is actually better over it's life because it cakes up much sooner and then becomes more efficient much sooner.

 

[fantastic]

That's the max particle count recorded at any time during the test.

Ah, Perhaps that is true & I'm misunderstanding how BR is using that measurement. After looking back at the graphs that appears to be true & the um rating is just a snapshot at any given time of the highest recorded PC at 1um.

Look at the area under the curve to get an idea of how many particles get through in the lifetime of the filter.

I clipped a picture of the non compressed Wix graphic in an earlier post for precisely that reason.

Additionally, superimpose the epauto chart over the Wix graphic but only so that it is half the length across. That reflects that the epauto holds 35g vs the Wix 70g.

That will show you that the epauto which looks terrible, is actually better over it's life because it cakes up much sooner and then becomes more efficient much sooner.

I understand that part, thanks, and 70 grams of holding capacity is way ahead of the others, like you mentioned, as excellent if valuing capacity or many miles on a filter. Fram appears to be the clear "Winner" of this test.

Fram (1st place)
Purolator (2nd)
WIX (3rd)
Ecogard (4th)
B/A (5th)
EP Auto (6th)

What you think?

 

[CharBaby]

I use good filters for my vehicles that are readily available. Also, what results one gets in testing, depends on the application for the vehicle. The filters tested in BR testing, aren't for my vehicles. They just give an idea of what one can expect from tested filters.
I stick with the Puro BOSS of FRAM Ultra(W*M) or Titanium(AAP) for our vehicles. It's that easy.
Once in a while I'll use a SuperTech(a good filter).

 

[CharlieBauer]

Fram (1st place)
Purolator (2nd)
WIX (3rd)
Ecogard (4th)
B/A (5th)
EP Auto (6th)

What you think?

Agree with Fram then Purolator.

The rest are all very bad. If I had to rank them they are all equal last.

 

[oil pan 4]

I need a tatooine duty air filter.

 

[OilStainedNapkin]

Apparently fram is the best even though it has the least pleats. Most of the “gurus” on YouTube (and here) that dissect filters and emphasize pleat count etc don’t know what they’re talking about

 

[KevinMalone]

That's the max particle count recorded at any time during the test.

Look at the area under the curve to get an idea of how many particles get through in the lifetime of the filter.

This is a very good point, and perhaps a flaw in BR's results. They should note total particle count rather than peak particle count.

A similar thing happened with the Toyota filter in their oil filter test - it had a very "high" capacity due to its very low filter efficiency.

I hope they test an OEM filter to see how the aftermarket filters compare. I also can't wait to see how good/bad the K&N filter does.

 

[KevinMalone]

Apparently fram is the best even though it has the least pleats. Most of the “gurus” on YouTube (and here) that dissect filters and emphasize pleat count etc don’t know what they’re talking about

It's really interesting. I assumed a higher filter efficiency should also have a larger filter media to offset the increased restriction. The Fram had the second least pleats, but also the lowest restriction, yet it's total particle count seems to be the lowest. The Fram pleats do seem quite tall though:

Too bad they didn't dissect each filter and provide measurements

 

[CharlieBauer]

The Fram had the second least pleats, but also the lowest restriction, yet it's total particle count seems to be the lowest.

Surface area is better than pleat count but even then, it's not taking into account media depth and type.

The best air filters are a very fine synthetic depth media that can filter very well with low restriction and high dust holding.

What I would like to see Brand Ranks test would be the European OE filters because apart from those three characteristics, they may be superior in initial efficiency as well which is lacking in all the ones they tested so far ie they have to get caked before they become efficient.

They should also test the Fram Ultra since it seems to be advertised as having the benefits of that synthetic type media.