Carquest red 96%@20um,what about the 4%um?

[ziggy]

Hi all! I was reading up on carquest filters. Used a blue one last year.nice filter!percolator made.cut it open,and media was good,but I've seen better media. Even frams,we're tougher too tear out,the media!
My question is...bratwurst reds. Read the efficiency,is 96%@20 um,and the blue,is 99%@30 um. The red,filters way better,but...what efficiency,is the remaining 4% being filtered in ums?

 

[bullwinkle]

The other 4% of particles 20 microns in size are getting through, at least initially. Unless the media happens to tear, then some more may make it through! Search for Purolator Classics and Motorcraft filters (especially the FL820S ones), you'll see the risk. I've used them, but only on super short oil changes of 3-5000 miles with thinner oils (5W20/5W30) on beater cars & trucks.

 

[ziggy]

I see! I thought perhaps,maybe 30 to 40 microns would be filtered,in that 4%. How much % @20I'm is the blue filter filtering? Inknow.it's 30um@99%..but 20um?

 

[bullwinkle]

The Pure One/Blue used to be 99+%@20 microns, but they seem to be somewhat tear prone too. The Synthetic (now called Boss) is really the only Purolator I trust for any kind of a long OCI.

 

[SteveG4]

The Pure One/Blue used to be 99+%@20 microns, but they seem to be somewhat tear prone too. The Synthetic (now called Boss) is really the only Purolator I trust for any kind of a long OCI.

Agreed. Admittedly, the Boss appears to be a very good, perhaps excellent, oil filter. I used a few though I've tended to stick with Fram Ultra's or a standard Wix.

The other Purolators I've had a hard time trusting. Though, manufacturing can change and improve... but how to know for sure?

Thankfully, there are many very good to excellent filter choices out there.

 

[ZeeOSix]

My question is...bratwurst reds. Read the efficiency,is 96%@20 um,and the blue,is 99%@30 um. The red,filters way better,but...what efficiency,is the remaining 4% being filtered in ums?

The last 4% is mostly all the particles smaller than 20 microns getting through the filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

How much % @20I'm is the blue filter filtering? Inknow.it's 30um@99%..but 20um?

If it's 99% @ 30u and greater, then it's probably going to be around 85~90% at 20 microns and greater.

 

[ziggy]

I see!.I used a ac Delco few years ago,almost 4000 miles.the oil didn't really turn black,till 3800 miles,then just quickly turn ed black.dipstick checking. Other filters over used,past,frams,..turned black 3400 miles.the delco,was e core.so..the a.c. Delco do filter a very generous portion of 20 microns!??
I saw request website. 99%30um. So about 90%@20um filtered.carquest blue?

 

[Sayjac]

If it's 99% @ 30u and greater, then it's probably going to be around 85~90% at 20 microns and greater.

As I said in the thread regarding the new WM MP series, not much for OF efficiency extrapolation, but that figure seems more realistic than the 95%@20um I saw being promoted there.

My attitude generally on OF efficiency, if one doesn't care for the 'published' efficiency spec or beta of a filter, or how it's published (eg. no ISO spec or at some higher um#), then use one that meets your requirements. If it's that important/critical, seems logical. Otherwise, to use a common phrase now, accept that "it is what it is." Also not much for word of mouth over the phone efficiency specs given, too easy to 'fudge' some number without or even with an ISO spec.

Along that same line, here ~4%@20um not captured. If that's unacceptable, choose another filter with a higher % rating. My.02

 

[Subie5w30]

Agreed. Admittedly, the Boss appears to be a very good, perhaps excellent, oil filter. I used a few though I've tended to stick with Fram Ultra's or a standard Wix.

The other Purolators I've had a hard time trusting. Though, manufacturing can change and improve... but how to know for sure?

Thankfully, there are many very good to excellent filter choices out there.

Same, I've used the boss on other cars without issue but the sizing for my personal motor makes it too big to fit properly so stay away from it. Honestly at this point I don't really trust any purolator made filters outside of the boss and there are just too many as good or better choices for the same or less on their other lines.

 

[ZeeOSix]

As I said in the thread regarding the new WM MP series, not much for OF efficiency extrapolation, but that figure seems more realistic than the 95%@20um I saw being promoted there.

My attitude generally on OF efficiency, if one doesn't care for the 'published' efficiency spec or beta of a filter, or how it's published (eg. no ISO spec or at some higher um#), then use one that meets your requirements. If it's that important/critical, seems logical. Otherwise, to use a common phrase now, accept that "it is what it is." Also not much for word of mouth over the phone efficiency specs given, too easy to 'fudge' some number without or even with an ISO spec.

Agree ... if efficiency spec is important find a maker that gives ISO 4548-12 specs. Otherwise, see my signature.

Along that same line, here ~4%@20um not captured. If that's unacceptable, choose another filter with a higher % rating. My.02

See my post #6 above ... I think he was wondering what sized particles were not being captured in that last 4% of non-efficiency, not that it was 4% efficient at 20u.

 

[SteveG4]

Agree ... if efficiency spec is important find a maker that gives ISO 4548-12 specs. Otherwise, see my signature.


See my post #6 above ... I think he was wondering what sized particles were not being captured in that last 4% of non-efficiency, not that it was 4% efficient at 20u.

Standardized reporting would level out the field, helping the consumer and making decision-making easier.

Perhaps a non-profit org such as the PQIA could take that task...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Standardized reporting would level out the field, helping the consumer and making decision-making easier.

Perhaps a non-profit org such as the PQIA could take that task...

ISO 4548-12 is the industry standard. Has been since 1999.

 

[SteveG4]

ISO 4548-12 is the industry standard. Has been since 1999.

Yes... but do all manufacturers properly report these filtration and overall efficiencies, using percentages, for a specific, and what should be a standard particle size, these days. Do they all do this as they likely should? I suspect not.

For example, I do believe Purolator has not adequately reported their efficiency claims in the recent past. Perhaps that's the case even today. It's the non-standard reporting or non-standard advertising claims that irk me.

Perhaps I'm preaching to the choir and am just griping tonight. I, like many consumers, want to make apples to apples comparisons. These comparisons should include standardized reporting and or advertising claims on key aspects, aiding the consumer.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes... but do all manufacturers properly report these filtration and overall efficiencies per a specific, and what should be a standard particle size, these days. Do they all do this as they likely should? I suspect not.

There is no "requirement" that a manufacturer has to show the filtering efficiency ... it's totally up to them to decide. And obviously, companies that have filters that don't have too great of an efficiecy either don't publlish it, claim it's "proprietary" (that's ridiculous), or claim it's "99% efficient" but don't say at what micron rating.

For example, I do believe Purolator has not adequately reported their efficiency claims in the recent past. Perhaps that's the case even today. It's the non-standard reporting or non-standard advertising claims that irk me.

Purolator advertises ISO 4548-12 efficiency on their website ... has for as long as I can remember. These big filter companies aren't going to lie IMO about an advertised ISO efficiency because their competition has ways of verifying their competition's filter efficiency, so trying to pull a "fast one" and lie about it will probably get them into some legal action.

Why do you think Purolator has not adequately reported their efficiency claims in the recent past?

 

[SteveG4]

There is no "requirement" that a manufacturer has to show the filtering efficiency ... it's totally up to them to decide. And obviously, companies that have filters that don't have too great of an efficiecy either don't publlish it, claim it's "proprietary" (that's ridiculous), or claim it's "99% efficient" but don't say at what micron rating.


Purolator advertises ISO 4548-12 efficiency on their website ... has for as long as I can remember. These big filter companies aren't going to lie IMO about an advertised ISO efficiency because their competition has ways of verifying their competition's filter efficiency, so trying to pull a "fast one" and lie about it will probably get them into some legal action.

I was editing my #14 above while you were answering... nevertheless, I want the see standardized reporting or advertising claims.

I believe there was a recent thread about State of California trying to institute something similar. The industry bombarded state law makers and had the standardized reporting nixed less than a year later. Such irks me as well.

Light, in the form of standardized reporting, needs to be shed for consumers' sakes. It's too bad the State of California's technocrat(s) was or were shut down by Industry. He really was trying to do right for those he, she, or they served -- the people. Caveat Emptor!

All of this reminds me of a consulting job I accomplished in Los Angeles 6 years ago. Being an engineering type, I researched and referenced an obscure FCC regulation stating cell sites were "categorically exempt" from further environmental studies concerning dubious claims of radio frequency (RF) radiation hazards if the RF radiators (antennas) were more than 10 meters above ground level (AGL) and radiated less than 1000 Watts effective radiated power (ERP). Of course, the 200+ site 4G wireless network the City, County, and suburbs' public safety agencies were trying to build met these reasonable stipulations. I effectively stopped the environmentalists and their contractors in their tracks and the construction phase began in short order. Progress was made... the environmentalists and their contractors held up the project (consuming extraordinary project funding) for way too long.

I'm in one of those moods tonight. I'm a smart "hick" that likes to live (fish and hunt) in the hinterlands of Alaska. I take technical work when needed to support my family. Thankfully, my career is winding down... it's hard keeping up with the ever-changing telecom and IT industries. In fact, it's nigh on impossible.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I was editing my #14 above while you were answering... nevertheless, I want the see standardized reporting or advertising claims.

I believe there was a recent thread about State of California trying to institute something similar. The industry bombarded state law makers and had the standardized reporting nixed less than a year later. Such irks me as well.

Yes, I agree it would be nice if all oil (and air) filters reported the efficiency. For oil filters, even if it was only the efficiency % at 20u and greater would make it really easy to compare oil filter performance - if that's important to someone. Some people don't even care about efficiency, see it mentioned in this forum all the time.

There would have to be some kind of "law" for that kind of efficiency performance reporting to happen, but I doubt it ever will because pretty much only dudes that hang out here would fully understand it, lol. At least it seems the big name filter manufacturers have adopted the ISO 4548-12 which helps some, and they typically report the efficiency at 20u and greater, unless the efficiency is lacking some, then they might report it at 30u or 40u.

 

[SteveG4]

Yes, I agree it would be nice if all oil (and air) filters reported the efficiency. For oil filters, even if it was only the efficiency % at 20u and greater would make it really easy to compare oil filter performance - if that's important to someone. Some people don't even care about efficiency, see it mentioned in this forum all the time.

There would have to be some kind of "law" for that kind of efficiency performance reporting to happen, but I doubt it ever will because pretty much only dudes that hang out here would fully understand it, lol. At least it seems the big name filter manufacturers have adopted the ISO 4548-12 which helps some, and they typically report the efficiency at 20u and greater, unless the efficiency is lacking some, then they might report it at 30u or 40u.

So true.

 

[Sayjac]

I'm not going out on a limb saying that requiring all filter manufacturers to go by and/or publish efficiency based on one standard, not going to happen. All one has to do is look at the OEM oil filters, rarely 'if ever' is any kind of efficiency spec published. Again if it's personally that important, pick one that meets your requirements for testing spec used and level.

In my observation though, it does allow some to pick a particular whipping boy brand or brands that don't follow one particular strict reporting protocol. Seeing as the OEMs generally show nothing, difficult 'for me' to pick on one of the aftermarkets on efficiency. I'm much less a stickler for efficiency, as example among others I use Napa Gold/(Wix labeled) regularly. They report efficiency as betas, good enough for me. Some say the betas are 'scrubbed', but as long as I'm satisfied with them all that matters to me. And again, still more info that OEMs. That said, there's one long time member that frequents this forum that oft posts he only uses OEM filters on his Asian vehicle(s), and they are at 200-300k miles. Not that it likely matters to him, I'm cool with that. After all, they are his vehicles.

One other point, the average joe blow buying filters at WM or AP stores, couldn't care less about standardization of efficiency spec.

As for topic the 4% query, perhaps I should have quantified it more specifically saying, 4% particles @ 20um or smaller not media captured, ie., passing through. I would say generally, 96%@20um not too shabby imo.