- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 846
Craftsman? I think Black and Decker makes them and owns them. Sears had someone make them for them.
Efficiency Info on the New Mobil 1 Filter
- Thread starter ZeeOSix
- Start date
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Glenda, did they actually say "ISO numbers"? As discussed in another thread, the graph looks like quite a bit more than 98.7% @ 15u.
Would that insinuate the graph is NOT ISO testing?
The graph zoomed in looks more like this:
99.6%@15u
99.75%@20u
99.88%@25u
99.96%@30u
Yes, I rounded to 2 decimal places
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
So does the ISO-4585-12 apply to the graph, or the numbers they told you?
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Like on a forum …
Numbers I was given. The graph is supposed to match those numbers.
Am I supposed to be worried about Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters or something, because of filtering efficiency ???
And I must now ask...what size of particles cause engine wear ?
The answer to this is the crux of the matter.
It is time to move along with my current filter change interval, which will be closer to 35k miles.
And I must now ask...what size of particles cause engine wear ?
The answer to this is the crux of the matter.
It is time to move along with my current filter change interval, which will be closer to 35k miles.
Engine wear studies say particles 5u to 20u do the most wear because they are small enough to get into the thin oil film between moving parts. The more efficient a filter is at 20u means it's more efficient for particles below 20u. the OG Ultra was 80% @ 5u per Motoking when he was working for Fram.
What filter are you running to 35K miles ... OG Ultra? Keep in mind that an oil filter actually becomes less efficient by shedding already captured debris as it loads up - this can be seen in the ISO 4548-12 test. And a filter that has a higher ISO 4548-12 efficiency is less prone to debris shedding as it loads up. A filter that's 99% @ 20u can't get to that level of efficiency if it was shedding a lot of debris.
Last edited:
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I think we should probably trust the graph over what the individual wholesalers tell us. Rowley's description says 99% efficient at removing particles as small as 20u, Hooten Oil says 99% efficient at removing particles as small as 25u, both post the same graph.
PGI(the manufacturer of them all) gave me the range. They said the individual sellers can advertise anything in that range. Some like 99.5%@20 others like 99.9%@25. Another advertises 99%@20. It’s all correct and within the efficiency range. It appears Service Pro uses a graph of the whole ISO tested range even below common advertised microns, taking it a step farther!
I think the only problem with the graph is getting exact numbers due to printing irregularities and even pixel differences.
In the end all of the PGI XL filters are among the most efficient made and by far the best QC.
Last edited:
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Granted, the graph would not be accurate to 4 decimal places, but is that really necessary? I know I took it out that far when I got my numbers by zooming in. When I zoomed in to make the 2% border lines 7" apart they were blurred, but the Mobil 1 line was still sharp, so I used that for comparison assuming Mobil 1 was 100% & modified the number upward. Yes, printing tolerance may not have been that accurate, so I could have been basing the measurement off of inaccurate values.
Using percentages looks good for marketing, because the higher numbers look good. 99.8% is 100% worse than 99.9%, because if we flipped it to show particles allowed instead of particles removed, then 99.9% is allowing 0.1% of particles through, where 99.8% allows 0.2% through, a 100% increase. The particle count would be 1000ppm for 99.9%, & 2000ppm for 99.8% at the specified micron rating.
The Sequence X
Sequence X.
Dispersants.
M1 103A EP durability.
Successive gradually extended UOAs.
My consistent maintenance plan.
Confidence.
Partical size AND density both matter.
As well as driving conditions.
Not sure what you're trying to convey here. Sequence X if for timing chain wear due to oil performance. Is this justification for running an oil filter for 30K mile? What oil filter are you running to 35K miles at this time? UOAs are very insensitive to anything beyond benign wear levels since the typical UOA can only see particles 5u and smaller.
Timing chains are protected, as well as other parts of the engine.
I have many UOAs and many miles of 30k mile filter change intervals.
Mobil 1 EP oil filters are just fine for me, based on experience.
99% at 30 Microns is plenty good
Many OEM filters are 99% at 30 microns and in some cases even less for example my PF47E filter I use on my Chevy is 98% at 30 microns.
There is something to what @ZeeOSix is saying.
But it just seems like we are emphasizing chasing numbers and what the claimed efficiencies purportedly indicate.
Southwestern was testing using a 2.0L Ecoboost GDI, while I have a Port-Direct Injection dual system.
I'm not really arguing efficiency, mainly pointing out that higher efficiency oil filters don't lose efficiency as much as they load up. If a filter is going to be ran for 30K to 35K miles you need to ensure it doesn't get over loaded and lose a bunch of efficiency. If the engine is clean running and spotless inside, then that's a better senario. If you're doing 5K OCIs and the engine is clean then filter loading will be at a low rate. Still didn't say what filter you're currently running to 35K ... is it the Mobil 1 EP?. If so, must be the old M+H built one. I'd be afraid of media tearing on those versions.
Standard UOAs are kind of useless to tell if the filter is performing well. Would need ISO particle count testing.
Was the SWRI doing extended oil filter use testing? Sequence X has no relation to that.
Last edited:
An ISO particle count also done with every UOA?
M1 103A.
The old one.
It holds up fine in my circumstances.
No tears.
No particle count.
Wear numbers look good.
wwillson's engine looks clean.
I have one old one and one new one yet to use in my stash.
The old one.
It holds up fine in my circumstances.
No tears.
No particle count.
Wear numbers look good.
wwillson's engine looks clean.
I have one old one and one new one yet to use in my stash.
