Champion Labs: Mistakes or Lies?

[Filter guy]

BigAl:

The media Champ uses for the ACDelco filter is a high efficiency one.

Is it the "highest"..nope.

But "marketing" types can blag on about high efficiency all they want. The question is..compared to what? or who'se filter?

Typically you will find something like "standard" filter performance chart or something on the filter packaging or website versus their "high efficiency" one. What is never explained to you is what is their criteria for a "standard" filter.

You assume it's the current low price filter widely available.

But is it..

Chances are it is media tests performed years ago on the "standard" cellulose element. So they compare a newer version to and older one. Or a competitors older one. Or, as is the case generally, a media used outside the USA. As those medias tout life. Which is generally at the expense of efficiency.

So the company using such figures and tests on their packaging or websites do indeed have "tests" to prove what they claim.

What you infer or what you assume are more than likely two different things. Unless you get a specific test of Brand A v Brand B as sold today.

 

[Pete C.]

Remember Gentlemen. There IS a difference between OE specs and AFTERMARKET.

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

What you infer or what you assume are more than likely two different things. Unless you get a specific test of Brand A v Brand B as sold today.

---

OK, I could test my oven rack using golf balls and claim it is a 100% efficient filter. Champ claims 98% efficiency on their current SuperTech Ecore box, but only 85.14% in their current Ecore brochure. Is one figure wrong? Do they have vastly different media, inconsistent test methods, or does the marketing department just make these numbers up?

 

[kanling]

And do they test the filter as a complete system or just test the media and assume it applies to the system?

Being as every ST box says 98% efficiency regardless of the size, they probably don't test every filter size separately.

So if there is leakage around the media somehow, that has been most probably ignored. Cut a 6 inch square out of the corner of your oven rack and any golf balls that got through that spot can be ignored.

(Sorry, I got set off about potential leakage in another recent post by the #1 E-core defender.)

 

[BigAl]

I don't have a gripe about the fact that Champ has gone to Ecore. I'm sure they did their homework. I was using that attribute mainly as evidence that the published numbers are current. My gripe is that I can't seem to get consistent information.

 

[Filter guy]

Again..apples and oranges.

You quote the Super Tech box that claims 98% efficiency.

And the E-core brochure that says 85.14 % efficiency.

The problem is those are two different tests.

The ST claim is for a "Single Pass efficiency"
Run under SAE HS806.


The E-core is a "Weighted Average efficiency" test. Run under SAE HS806-2001.
http://www.champlabs.com/ECOREBROCHURE.pdf


Both tests are different in how they are run.

Weighted average efficiency is way of looking at Multi-pass testing. It takes the total contaminants removed versus those induced into the stream over the "life" of the test. The "life" being the predetermined test criteria of when to shut the test off based on the pressure drop ( as determined by the filter company or OEM).

Weighted average efficiency is not the same as saying that a filter is X micron absolute or Bx=75.

You get the "absolute" rating from a multi-pass test. But the filter is removing particles below that "absolute" rating. The Weighted Average efficiency is for all particle sizes from 1-100 micron induced during the test.

Multi-pass testing is for a complete filter as what comes off the production line..

Single pass is usually for a sheet ( grade) of "cured" media. Hence the commonality of testing for multiple "brands" of filters. Filter companies do this test themselves not media suppliers.

 

[D$]

Hmmmm...interesting information. I agree with everythng up to the point of "Single pass is usually for a sheet ( grade) of "cured" media. Hence the commonality of testing for multiple "brands" of filters." From what I have heard and read in the past, a single pass test is run on a complete off the production line filter. Yes it can be run both ways, but I'm almost positive it is mostly done on a complete filter and not just the sheet. If they only did it on the sheet, I dont see how they can claim it for the complete filter... the test results would come out differently... dont you think?

 

[Filter guy]

Depends on the equipment a lab has. It can be run on a sheet of "cured" media. Who cares if it is in element form? The contaminant has to go through the media.

To spin on a filter on a piece of test equipment and run a "single pass test"..then clean the equipment to run another test is a bit time consuming..wouldn't you think...

 

[D$]

What do you think they do with a sheet of media? They just throw the sheet on there, hit start and let it go. To me, it seems like the work would be about the same, if not more for sheet testing. Has anybody ever seen the single pass performed on both sheets and filters? I would like to know what does take more?!? I guess it really doesnt matter, because were not the ones running these tests, so who cares how long it takes, all we care about are the results.

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

The ST claim is for a "Single Pass efficiency"
Run under SAE HS806.


The E-core is a "Weighted Average efficiency" test. Run under SAE HS806-2001.

---

Thanks, that clears things up. Gotta read the fine print.

 

[Filter guy]

You need more than just fine print.

You need to know the specs the test was actually run under.

People asssume that just because someone says they ran SAE test J806 or the newer version HS806 or an ISO test...that all tests are the same. They aren't. Flow rate, contaminant add rate, how much contaminant,type of contaminant, and termination point are all variables.

 

[Mickey_M]

Filter guy

quote:

---

Flow rate, contaminant add rate, how much contaminant,type of contaminant, and termination point are all variables.

---

Which means how the filter performs in *your* vehicle may differ from how it performs in a test jig using something like AC fine dust.

There's a reason in some applications the automobile manufacturer specifies higher bypass pressures or other changes from their run-of-the-mill products. The best design isn't going to do much filtering if it is always in bypass mode.


.

 

[Filter guy]

BigAl..welcome to the world of filter marketing.

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

People asssume that just because someone says they ran SAE test J806 or the newer version HS806 or an ISO test...that all tests are the same. They aren't. Flow rate, contaminant add rate, how much contaminant,type of contaminant, and termination point are all variables.

---

Some manufacturers don't even list which test was used, like the PureOne which claims 98% multipass efficiency by some undisclosed "SAE Test."

So basically, we are wasting our time trying to find out which filter performs better. If ignorance is bliss, then I guess we should all be euphoric. No use spending any more time on this site.