Been over this many times. The ISO 4548-12 efficiency test standard (used all over the world in the filter industry) was invented around 25 years ago for a reason, to take out the variables in real world use. That's the only way to get an apples-to-apples comparison on filter efficiency - how else are you going to compare their performance. And controlled (as much as possible) filter efficiency vs engine wear studies done in the field have shown that there was less engine wear with the more efficient filters. Been many discussions with backup material on the subject matter. It's pretty simple logic that cleaner oil results in less wear. The use conditions of the engine certainly matter too, but if you keep the use conditions the same and only change the cleanness of the oil then you will see the correlation.
Referencing 3 different sized filters in the same filter line isn't really a "blanket statement" when talking in the context of ISO 4548-12 efficiency test results. The efficiency statement based on the 3 different sized filters is good enough for me - a lot better than most do who just use the largest filter size they make. Wish they all at least did the same by averaging 3 or more different sized filters.
After seeing some Spec Sheets from Purolator/M+H, I've realized they have all kinds of conflicting efficiency claims on the same exact filter models - even their efficiency claim on their huge 30001 model doesn't match the Spec Sheet - sloppy or who knows what's accurate from them. If you don't want to believe Fram's claims then I really don't care. If you really understood the ISO test procedure and how they define the overall efficiency, and what can effect oil filter efficiency, you'd know that testing 3 different sizes takes into account the variations in efficiency due to the media area size. Why else do you think they used the 3 different sized filters?
I've never said that. I've explained many times in detail when higher efficiency matters and when it may not. Some people care about using a high efficiency filter regardless of the OCI, some don't care about efficiency at all. I really don't care, I just give the technical info about oil filtration and how many studies always conclude that better filtration gives cleaner oil and result in less wear. Nothing will change the physics of that relationship.
"Lucky enough"?, lol ... not really, as already explained.
He said "I guess you don’t care about wear protection or filtration efficiency lol." He didn't reference Fram, and his statement basically means any high efficient oil filter - which there are many besides some Fram models. You're the one that lock in on Fram when you see a statement like that - think about it.
I do, for the reasons I've already stated which you can't seem to grasp, and I could really care less if you don't believe their 3 filter model claim statements and think you "need" a Spec Sheet for any filter you use. I remember when Ascent showed up to do ISO testing and the Fram haters thought they were going to catch Fram in an efficiency claim lie, but instead it tested even better than their claim ... sad time for the haters, lol. The whole Spec Sheet mantra is just a tool you use to try and discount efficiency claims. You've used other filter brands, but did you have a Spec Sheet for every one of those specific filters? Ans: No.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
Last edited:
Sweet machine. Love the Pontiacs.
.
