Comparison of Fram/Purolator/Motorcraft filters via Brand Ranks consolidated data

[inline_five]

I have a Ford Maverick, 2.5l. While researching filter quality for it I found this data fascinating and consolidated it off of a Youtube channel called Brand Ranks.

I tried to focus mainly on the most applicable filters measured, as the couple "high end" filters seemed to filter too well and caused too high of a restriction in order to be effective, especially when cold.

What I noticed, is that when oil is cold, the bypass valve is going to open at much lower flow rates. This may happen on every cold engine start. These are charts of flow rates vs PSI, keep in mind the top Frams and Purolator have synthetic media which apparently gives them a much better filtering efficiency flow rate vs the cheaper cellulose media of the lower end Frams (and I believe Motorcraft FL910S):

Now for filtration ability (this is striking, the lower end Frams are off the chart):

So, combining filtration ability and efficiency at higher PSI settings, it looks like some winners are (MC FL910S has bypass of 14.5 psi):

• Fram Ultra Synthetic XG3614 (bypass valve 12 psi)
• Fram Endurance FE3614 (bypass valve 11-17 psi)
• Purolator Boss PBL10241 (bypass valve 12-15 psi)

Here is a good overall summary, and you can pick which qualities are important to you:

 

[Glenda W.]

Keep in mind the BR testing in not standardized. ISO 4548-12 is the standardized testing for oil filters. In fact BR has several filters that contradict ISO testing numbers which to me puts all of his data into question. I don’t believe his data is repeatable. He created a fun and entertaining YouTube vid but I wouldn’t use it to make filter choices.

Check out the C&P threads here for the last year to see which filters are having QC issues and look at the ISO data to make a better choice.

 

[ka9mnx]

I didn't see my SuperTech on the list?

I think people over stress about filters...

 

[dnewton3]

Old news ... layered over the top of unqualified testing methods.

 

[vwmaniaman]

I buy super tek and.motor craft and frame and micro guard cause they are convenient. If any don't work to.my satisfaction I won't buy them again.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

The issue that comes to my mind, and one that does not mirror in situ, would be that the outlet in the test fixture is relatively unrestricted whereas your engine mains drills and bearings and tappet piddlers, etc., would certainly evidence a greater restriction at the outlet with cold test fluid - and therefore the PSID will be much less than presented here (in data and graphically). Unless I missed a discussion of outlet restriction in the Brand Ranks videos that I have watched in the past.

I will say the methods and data represented by brand ranks does not have to mirror ISO standards to be of some value if they are intelligently, vigorously and robustly devised.

- Arco

 

[twX]

What I noticed, is that when oil is cold, the bypass valve is going to open at much lower flow rates. This may happen on every cold engine start.

Keep in mind that when the oil is as thick as in the cold flow test (~500 cST), an engine's oil flow rate will be very low, since the oil pump pressure relief valve will be open and bypassing most of the flow.

Also, the GPM values on the x-axis of those graphs is wrong. It should range from 3 to 11 GPM, not 1 to 9 GPM. At 3 GPM, all of the filters tested would be below their bypass pressures. With the oil at 500 cST, most engines probably wouldn't even produce a flow rate of 1 GPM.

There is a brief period after an engine starts when the oil flows at its full flow rate, before the oil pump PRV opens, and this will typically cause the filter's bypass valve to open. However, this won't last longer than a couple of seconds, and I wouldn't be concerned about it.

Higher filter restriction will reduce oil flow on cold starts, which is more of a concern than the bypassing, but it shouldn't make a huge difference.

 

[inline_five]

Keep in mind that when the oil is as thick as in the cold flow test (~500 cST), an engine's oil flow rate will be very low, since the oil pump pressure relief valve will be open and bypassing most of the flow.

Also, the GPM values on the x-axis of those graphs is wrong. It should range from 3 to 11 GPM, not 1 to 9 GPM. At 3 GPM, all of the filters tested would be below their bypass pressures. With the oil at 500 cST, most engines probably wouldn't even produce a flow rate of 1 GPM.

There is a brief period after an engine starts when the oil flows at its full flow rate, before the oil pump PRV opens, and this will typically cause the filter's bypass valve to open. However, this won't last longer than a couple of seconds, and I wouldn't be concerned about it.

Higher filter restriction will reduce oil flow on cold starts, which is more of a concern than the bypassing, but it shouldn't make a huge difference.

Yes you are correct, it should start at 3 and go to 11, however I messed up the scale when adding the graph. That doesn't change the relative value of the information.

Looking at the data, would the Purolator Boss be the best filter? It seems it has great cold flow that combines with excellent filtering capability. I'm genuinely curious, I'm not well versed in the science behind it.

Since I'm using the Motorcraft FL910S right now, it seems like the Boss has similar cold flow properties but catches a lot more debris.

 

[inline_five]

The issue that comes to my mind, and one that does not mirror in situ, would be that the outlet in the test fixture is relatively unrestricted whereas your engine mains drills and bearings and tappet piddlers, etc., would certainly evidence a greater restriction at the outlet with cold test fluid - and therefore the PSID will be much less than presented here (in data and graphically). Unless I missed a discussion of outlet restriction in the Brand Ranks videos that I have watched in the past.

I will say the methods and data represented by brand ranks does not have to mirror ISO standards to be of some value if they are intelligently, vigorously and robustly devised.

- Arco

Knowing this, which filters would you recommend? I agree it doesn't have to match test procedure for it to be useful, it seems the filtering capability and cold flow rate are really the most important when it comes to filtration but I'm not well versed in this stuff. Based on that I really like that Purolator Boss.

Since I'm using the Motorcraft FL910S right now, it seems like the Boss has similar cold flow properties but catches a lot more debris.

 

[ZeeOSix]

What I noticed, is that when oil is cold, the bypass valve is going to open at much lower flow rates. This may happen on every cold engine start.

True about any oil filter if the oil is cold enough and the engine is revved up too high before the oil warms up. The key is to keep engine revs down to a reasonable level until the oil warms up pretty good.

When you compare the dP vs flow data, there really isn't enough difference to really matter. When the oil is hot, they are all within +/- a few PSI of dP vs flow of each other.

PS - these test methods and results have been discussed in many threads in this forum. There are many theories on why a filter with horrible ISO 4548-12 efficiency (99% >46u) right from the manufacturer Spec Sheet rates in 3rd place above many others with much better official ISO 4548-12 efficiency ratings. Take the efficiency rankings with a grain of salt. I have more confidence in their dP vs flow data over the efficiency rankings.,

 

[ZeeOSix]

The issue that comes to my mind, and one that does not mirror in situ, would be that the outlet in the test fixture is relatively unrestricted whereas your engine mains drills and bearings and tappet piddlers, etc., would certainly evidence a greater restriction at the outlet with cold test fluid - and therefore the PSID will be much less than presented here (in data and graphically). Unless I missed a discussion of outlet restriction in the Brand Ranks videos that I have watched in the past.

Shouldn't matter, as flow rate is flow rate and the resulting dP is the dP vs that flow rate. But how many engines are going to flow 3+ GPM to the oiling system at higher RPM when the oil is cold and thick and the PD oil pump want's to go into pressure relief just off idle? Not knowing exactly what every engine is doing, the safe thing to do is keep the engine RPM down until the oil warms up some.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Looking at the data, would the Purolator Boss be the best filter? It seems it has great cold flow that combines with excellent filtering capability.

Not according to M+H spec sheets showing the official ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.

Why are you so concerned about the cold flow performance. Just keep the engine RPM down until the engine warms up some. All oil filters will most likely go into bypass if the oil is cold enough and the engine RPM high enough. There are millions of cars doing very cold climate cold starts every winter in the northern parts of the continent, and yet there aren't blown up engines all over the place every winter.

 

[twX]

Looking at the data, would the Purolator Boss be the best filter? It seems it has great cold flow that combines with excellent filtering capability. I'm genuinely curious, I'm not well versed in the science behind it.

According to the BR data, it would be the best filter, but the Boss' efficiency in that test is contradicted by other data. Purolator claims it's only 99% at 46 micron according to their data sheets. Ascent Filtration tested a Boss in a proper ISO test at 99% at 34 micron. Particle counts from UOAs done with these filters also suggest that they have mediocre efficiency.

BR's restriction and holding capacity tests seem to be designed well, and I would use them as a reference, but I wouldn't trust the efficiency test results.

Holding capacity is arguably more important than the initial restriction, since it will determine when the restriction will start to rapidly increase. A filter's restriction when it's brand new isn't as important.

The Mobil 1 had low restriction and a pretty good holding capacity in the BR test. The PurolatorOne is basically the same filter. The Pentius XL and Carquest Premium should be similar, but with better construction, a lower price, and often more filter media. All of these filters are rated 99% at 20 to 26 micron.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The Pentius XL and Carquest Premium should be similar, but with better construction, a lower price, and often more filter media. All of these filters are rated 99% at 20 to 26 micron.

I'd like to see BR run some of those through their tests just to see how they "rank".

 

[inline_five]

Not according to M+H spec sheets showing the official ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating.

Why are you so concerned about the cold flow performance. Just keep the engine RPM down until the engine warms up some. All oil filters will most likely go into bypass if the oil is cold enough and the engine RPM high enough. There are millions of cars doing very cold climate cold starts every winter in the northern parts of the continent, and yet there aren't blown up engines all over the place every winter.

Because I had read/heard that cold flow is where the wear happens.

Because I have a hybrid, it will kick over at say 30 mph or sometimes higher speed and RPMs will climb as you hit the gas. This is only a concern on the first acceleration of the commute but still had me concerned.

Maybe too concerned, since the FL910S has much higher pressure drops than any of the Frams, and according to the studies done, it appears as though the Fram Ultra/Endurance is the better filter vs the Purolator Boss.

I'm probably taking this way too far. Just wanted something that was similar to the Motorcraft FL910S but higher quality if it existed. I'm not opposed to using the FL910S, just wanted something that was better long term. This is my first new car and it only has 4000 miles on it, so wanted to treat it well.

Would you recommend a Fram Synthetic Ultra or Endurance for my application, over the Motorcraft FL910S? I use Motorcraft 0W-20 oil but also am not opposed to switching oil as long as it meets Ford's specs (for warranty purposes).

 

[inline_five]

According to the BR data, it would be the best filter, but the Boss' efficiency in that test is contradicted by other data. Purolator claims it's only 99% at 46 micron according to their data sheets. Ascent Filtration tested a Boss in a proper ISO test at 99% at 34 micron. Particle counts from UOAs done with these filters also suggest that they have mediocre efficiency.

BR's restriction and holding capacity tests seem to be designed well, and I would use them as a reference, but I wouldn't trust the efficiency test results.

Holding capacity is arguably more important than the initial restriction, since it will determine when the restriction will start to rapidly increase. A filter's restriction when it's brand new isn't as important.

The Mobil 1 had low restriction and a pretty good holding capacity in the BR test. The PurolatorOne is basically the same filter. The Pentius XL and Carquest Premium should be similar, but with better construction, a lower price, and often more filter media. All of these filters are rated 99% at 20 to 26 micron.

OK, interesting that the testing doesn't line up, which does bring into question the data on this test. That being said, I assume all are better than the FL910?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Because I had read/heard that cold flow is where the wear happens.

Because I have a hybrid, it will kick over at say 30 mph or sometimes higher speed and RPMs will climb as you hit the gas. This is only a concern on the first acceleration of the commute but still had me concerned.

Maybe too concerned, since the FL910S has much higher pressure drops than any of the Frams, and according to the studies done, it appears as though the Fram Ultra/Endurance is the better filter vs the Purolator Boss.

Well, Ford specs the FL910 for your vehicle, so they aren't too concerned about its cold flow performance.

 

[ZeeOSix]

OK, interesting that the testing doesn't line up, which does bring into question the data on this test. That being said, I assume all are better than the FL910?

Motorcraft oil filters are specified to meet USCAR-36, which has a minimum efficiency spec of 95% @ 30 microns. Not horrible, and probably better than Toyota OEM filters.

 

[factorytuned2012]

Motorcraft oil filters are specified to meet USCAR-36, which has a minimum efficiency spec of 95% @ 30 microns. Not horrible, and probably better than Toyota OEM filters.

They’re nicely made filters however the FL816 for Nissan/infiniti vehicles looks like a premium guard baseplate and doesn’t show a silicone adbv. I’ll stick with my PG’s and Ecogards.

 

[Hatsuwr]

I'm probably taking this way too far. Just wanted something that was similar to the Motorcraft FL910S but higher quality if it existed. I'm not opposed to using the FL910S, just wanted something that was better long term. This is my first new car and it only has 4000 miles on it, so wanted to treat it well.

Would you recommend a Fram Synthetic Ultra or Endurance for my application, over the Motorcraft FL910S? I use Motorcraft 0W-20 oil but also am not opposed to switching oil as long as it meets Ford's specs (for warranty purposes).

One thing you can do on a lot of vehicles with spin on filters that is pretty much always going to be an improvement is to put on a larger filter. This will increase filtration effectiveness, increase flow rate (especially on cold starts), and decrease bypassing. My LX's stock and recommended filter is about 3.4" long, but it has room for about 4.9". That's probably about a 50% increase in filter surface area for free.

Regarding the Frams - they definitely had a period where they were extremely good, and were my go-to for a while. There have been some significant quality concerns in recent months though, and I avoid them now. I'm using Carquest Premium until I find something better.