Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says they do the multi pass efficiency test in four hours. That is like driving 240 miles at 60mph. I will throw a fly in the mix by saying that is too much debris added in too short of a time to rate an oil filter's efficiency correctly. In a 6k OCI running at 60mph steady, which is very conservative use, no idling etc, gives 100 hours of filtering. Four and a hundred hours aren't giving the same real time efficiency result the way I see it. Now Walmart is even on the efficiency game with 95% on the box. I also see they say beta of 75 is the max for the test abilities, which is 98.67%. Plus the test is run in four hours which loads the filter with debris to the point of an increased delta p. Or in other words, not the way most people here use a filter.
http://www.framcatalog.com/RelatedInfo.aspx?b=F&f=FRAM/2Now_a_Fluid_Filter_Rating.pdf
Good info given in the Fram link you provided, and as already said, it is from 2006 so a bit dated. The multi-pass test method probably wasn't around very long back in 2006.
As far as the accelerated rate at which the filter is loaded with debris, I really see no reason why that would change the efficiency of the oil filter if it took 4 hours to load it up or 4 years. I highly doubt all these filter councils, etc would adopt and approve a test procedure that didn't give some accurate representation of the filter's real performance in use. That was the whole purpose of inventing the multi-pass test in the first place.
The amount of debris is finite per test, determined by the pressure drop, right? The same total amount of debris added to oil, per hour or other unit, filtered four hours or a hundred hours will not give the same efficiency ratings. The oil is filtered 25 times more in the 100 hours than the 4 hours. A filter that is poor in the short test may end up providing cleaner oil than the filter doing well in the short test, in the long (as in the real world).I took the article from their current website. If it is substantially wrong, they should have updated it? I think the multi test is no more than a marketing tool at this point since every corner store seems to put it on everything. Advertisers know how people will glom onto a popular ratings value to buy a product over another. They don't do long tests I believe because if they diluted the debris a couple more stages, to enable equal adding over say 100 hours, it would be so thin they couldn't measure anything. The multi pass test by Fram shows how efficient the filter is loaded to it's limit in four hours of oil flow, that's it. That's my take on it.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says they do the multi pass efficiency test in four hours. That is like driving 240 miles at 60mph. I will throw a fly in the mix by saying that is too much debris added in too short of a time to rate an oil filter's efficiency correctly. In a 6k OCI running at 60mph steady, which is very conservative use, no idling etc, gives 100 hours of filtering. Four and a hundred hours aren't giving the same real time efficiency result the way I see it. Now Walmart is even on the efficiency game with 95% on the box. I also see they say beta of 75 is the max for the test abilities, which is 98.67%. Plus the test is run in four hours which loads the filter with debris to the point of an increased delta p. Or in other words, not the way most people here use a filter.
http://www.framcatalog.com/RelatedInfo.aspx?b=F&f=FRAM/2Now_a_Fluid_Filter_Rating.pdf
Good info given in the Fram link you provided, and as already said, it is from 2006 so a bit dated. The multi-pass test method probably wasn't around very long back in 2006.
As far as the accelerated rate at which the filter is loaded with debris, I really see no reason why that would change the efficiency of the oil filter if it took 4 hours to load it up or 4 years. I highly doubt all these filter councils, etc would adopt and approve a test procedure that didn't give some accurate representation of the filter's real performance in use. That was the whole purpose of inventing the multi-pass test in the first place.
The amount of debris is finite per test, determined by the pressure drop, right? The same total amount of debris added to oil, per hour or other unit, filtered four hours or a hundred hours will not give the same efficiency ratings. The oil is filtered 25 times more in the 100 hours than the 4 hours. A filter that is poor in the short test may end up providing cleaner oil than the filter doing well in the short test, in the long (as in the real world).I took the article from their current website. If it is substantially wrong, they should have updated it? I think the multi test is no more than a marketing tool at this point since every corner store seems to put it on everything. Advertisers know how people will glom onto a popular ratings value to buy a product over another. They don't do long tests I believe because if they diluted the debris a couple more stages, to enable equal adding over say 100 hours, it would be so thin they couldn't measure anything. The multi pass test by Fram shows how efficient the filter is loaded to it's limit in four hours of oil flow, that's it. That's my take on it.
