i guess you don’t care about wear protection or filtration efficiency lol. a 450HP LS2 is putting out some power considering its base level. this isn’t a DOHC toyota, it’s a push rod american V8 and i happen to work on a large quantity of them and own a high mileage elevated power version myself.
I've pulled too may XG Frams off of vehicles due to excessive engine noise. Can't pinpoint why. Got a few laying around with 300 - 500 miles on them.
only way it would create “excess” engine noise is if your oiling system is in bad shape. the flow vs dp curves were all within a few psi of eachother. i think ill reference back to when people tell me valvoline makes top ends quieter.
Oh please! If they don't use your often recommended Fram Endurance "They don't care about efficiency" is based in emotional nonsense. Can you prove choosing a FE vs WIX is any worse for wear? Where are the official specs of these specific filters? Surely you have them to make such statements?
ah yes mr. spec sheet. again, i will point back to official M+H spec sheets showing the “smart fusion” media at 99% @ >46um. and then back to andrews test showing the royal purple (endurance in purple can) at 99%+ @ 20um. cleaner oil is better at preventing wear than dirtier oil. this is a fact, it’s been proven.
The ISO tested specification sheets help show the difference between ones claims. So what I'm collecting is you can't provide a specification sheet from Fram for this LS1 application. Again, How can you say the Fram filter for this LS1 application is MORE efficient than a WIX equivalent w/o its respective data? Then go further & claim it will increase wear w/o that data.
i’m not going to have this argument with you over again. you are a purolator fan boy and it shows. i am a fram fanboy to an extent with OG ultras and Endurance’s. i will ever recommend a PH, TG, or a new XG/FS filter. i recommend premium guards quite often aswell. the boss is not a cheap filter, the wix xp is not a cheap filter. going by your method of official test sheets the boss is in the plain bad category of filter performance. i happen to believe fram’s statement on the box due to its averaging of sizes and the performance in an official test by andrew versus purolator referencing one filter at 20um when it is actually >46um by official m+h spec sheet. i will now add you to the ignore list.
You okay? I’ve noticed a few posts that are out of character for you recently.
I hope so..
But when one states "You don't care about efficiency or wear" if not choosing a Fram filter is not right to say hence my response. What other concerns? 
We have our normal friendly banter here in the oil filter section. I prefer hanging with the usuals here including you. We contribute to the community.I hope so..
Tell me more. These are new to me.
But that’s true as far as it goes. Just state that you don’t care about efficiency if that is the case. Some people don’t.I hope so..
Fanboyism aside. When you say if one chooses another filter like WIX instead of Fram "They don't care about efficiency or wear" w/no data for this application may not be true at all. There are many of us that would like to see concrete proof where others are easily sold on sales pitches. I do go by the M+H spec sheets as the "official" data. Problem is you claim Fram is better w/less wear w/o that comparable data. That is quite a claim that some that frequent this board would think "Gee I don't want that to happens so I have to have a Fram". When in reality there's no evidence to show either low efficiency or higher wear in this LS1. To look at others for choosing a "lesser filter" by invoking fear of extra wear & not caring is quite a stretch w/o.... you guessed it... official testing data.
Yes, I can be a bit direct & possibly a bit abrasive at times. That can kind of look a bit different then my "go lucky happy attitude" most of the time. I do want to be respectful as much as possible. Even though Brendan & I disagree here I still appreciate what he's offered to the forum w/lots of C&P's etc. I don't mind being blocked, it's a nice feature to have & I use it too, we will disagree between members for certain. But like I mentioned above, with no data on this particular Fram filter how is one to claim it's high efficiency? How can one say WIX will cause extra wear even? LOL I know he took this as a Purolator VS Fram argument but that wasn't my point. It was to concretely ask how he could say that w/little to no data on this filter. That alone is part of the variables yes but that's not the only one. It's kind of comical in a way b/c you've seen how Premium Guards have gotten a lot of praise, including from me, & efficiency somehow goes out the window from some folks here
. But remember, "If you don't choose Fram you don't care about efficiency or wear". Think I've seen them put on tons of Carquest Premiums...oops! Seems a bit odd when you see what one actually is using. Surprise to some I actually use Fram's too but I don't go round' tellin' folks "they'r gonna wear thir engine down if you don't buy a Fram" 
. If it's true show the data. Hope your day is as well as mine. 
Unless you want to conduct a million dollar controlled test program, then you have to rely on others in the industry who have done controlled wear vs filter efficiency testing. That has been discussed many times on BITOG. There is plenty of info that shows higher efficiency oil filters result in cleaner oil which results in less engine wear. And as mentioned in many of these engine wear discussions, the longer the OCI, the better it is to use a high efficiency filter. If the OCI is relatively short then a less efficient filter won't matter as much. If people want to help reduce engine wear over the long run, a higher efficiency filter is the way to go. Some people don't understand the connection between filtration, cleaner oil and less wear, or don't care about oil filter efficiency (or many other things about their vehicles) and just have the mind set that their car will rust out or get wrecked anyway. Whatever floats their boat.
Their ISO 4548-12 efficiency claims are based on 3 different sized filters to try and take out the effect of filter size (media area) on the efficiency. In order for the average to be 99% @ 20u all of those sizes have to be really close to 99% @ 20u. It might be that the smallest filter in the line could be a bit less than 99% @ 20u, but it's not going to be something crazy low like 99% @ 46 microns. And Ascent's ISO test came in even better on the OG Ultra than it's rated efficiency by Fram. I have no probem believing Fram's efficiency claims with the 3 size average testing. I don't need a Spec Sheet for every model.
Nobody really claimed it that way .... that's your "dramatized" version of what you interpreted. The message was that high efficiency oil filters can help reduce wear by keeping the oil cleaner for longer, especially with long OCIs.
Too many variables for a blanket statement that was made. Some don't understand that they are easily sold on three referenced filters when the one that really matters is the one they're using. All this talk about efficiency doesn't mean much unless the filter you're using is efficient right? Only way to know that from Fram is to get lucky enough to be using one of the three referenced ISO tested filters.Unless you want to conduct a million dollar controlled test program, then you have to rely on others in the industry who have done controlled wear vs filter efficiency testing. That has been discussed many times on BITOG. There is plenty of info that shows higher efficiency oil filters result in cleaner oil which results in less engine wear. And as mentioned in many of these engine wear discussions, the longer the OCI, the better it is to use a high efficiency filter. If the OCI is relatively short then a less efficient filter won't matter as much. If people want to help reduce engine wear over the long run, a higher efficiency filter is the way to go. Some people don't understand the connection between filtration, cleaner oil and less wear, or don't care about oil filter efficiency (or many other things about their vehicles) and just have the mind set that their car will rust out or get wrecked anyway. Whatever floats their boat.
The statement was "You don't care about efficiency or wear" if not choosing a super efficiency Fram or? filter. If they can dramatize a statement like that so can I. If one is going to make a bold claim like that they ought to know what the efficiency is on that particular filter in topic thread. You believe their sales claim of only three referenced filters...and are perfectly content with that type of advertising...Great! Some of us know better. Whatever flips their lid
