Efficiency of individual filters

[TrevorS]

Well I'm interested because the .9% above 99% is significant in absolute terms.

Like I said, Frams numbers are based on the average of 3 filters ranging in size from the largest 30001 equivalent to I think one of their smallest. So their average rating looks like it could be meaningful for all their filters.

Whereas Purolator seem to me to be concentrating on claiming 99.9% and therefore reference the biggest filter only.

It might explain why Motorcraft FL820S has lower efficiency than The Purolator Classic 97.5%.

And I agree that testing such as river rats suggest that the filtering is amongst the best. However as I said, in absolute terms, 99.9% is significantly better than 99%.

How much better?

99.9% means 1 out of 1000 particles gets through
99% means 10 out of 1000 particles gets through

So I don't think I'm nitpicking if a filter claiming 99.9% efficiency actually let's 10 times as many particles through as it seems to claim.

And I think the river rat type testing should have shown this 10 time difference between an officially rated 99.9% filter and a 99% rated filter.

Have you seen any filters cut open that compared the media within the same product in different sizes? I think that would help explain some discrepancies esp between the 20 micron and 40 micron filters.

And btw, with regards to nitpicking, there is so much detail in the filter section, I find it amusing that when I'm trying to establish whether a filter is claimed to be significantly better at capturing particles than others, it is considered nitpicking!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Thing is, one would have to read the ISO 4548-12 test spec to see if there is anything about how the test is done that would make a difference in filter efficiency based on media are (ie, like flow rate, delta-p, etc).

As Jim mentioned above, theoretically every square inch of media should have the same efficiency under the same conditions if it's all made from the same material.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
And btw, with regards to nitpicking, there is so much detail in the filter section, I find it amusing that when I'm trying to establish whether a filter is claimed to be significantly better at capturing particles than others, it is considered nitpicking!


Just wait until Newton jumps in here and tells you the wear in an engine isn't significantly different between a filter rated at 60% and 99% based on UOAs and such.

 

[TrevorS]

Yes that voice was in my ear ever since I started the thread!

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
...Have you seen any filters cut open that compared the media within the same product in different sizes? I think that would help explain some discrepancies esp between the 20 micron and 40 micron filters....

What discrepancies? Purolator says that other than the four smallest filters rated at 40um, all the others are rated at 20um whether they be Classic or P1. And contrary to the prior implication the 14610 is larger, the PL/L14459 is larger and does fit in the 20um category. So no discrepancy there. And comparing media with the naked eye while perhaps informative to a degree, does not prove ISO rated efficiency of a filter.

The only way to absolutely confirm the speculations here regarding the P1 and Classic with a 20um rating is to send them off to be ISO tested at a lab. Lacking that what is left here is simply speculation. The only reason there is a now a known efficiency rating for 'one' Motorcraft filter the FL 820S, Amsoil ISO tested it. If one reads this board regularly though, the ~94%@20um has now been carried over and accepted as the effficiency for the other MC filters. Is that a known fact? No, but it seems a reasonable 'assumption' lacking ISO testing of other MC's. Same media is likely, just as same media for all 20um P1 and 20um Classic. But if one wanted to 'nitpick' the MC rating it could be said to only apply to the FL820S.

If you doubt the .9% difference use another brand filter with ISO efficiency ratings you trust. Apparently the >20um used by Fram meets that criteria. 'If' P1 and Classic did that, they could say all their filters meet that standard, also use an average and 'technically' not be out of line imo. Just depends on ones perspective. I would also suggest that some other filter brands, some high end, are much less forthcoming about what and how ISO testing applies to the complete filter line within that brand.

So at this point, lacking ISO testing proof all that is left is speculation and assumptions presented regarding the Puro 20um rating.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Well I'm interested because the .9% above 99% is significant in absolute terms.



Your right in that statement but the qualifier is... AT WHAT MICRON SIZE.

A filter that is 99.9% @ 25 um is catches roughly the same number of 20 um particles of a filter that is 98.7% @ 20 um.

Could you please go over again where and what filter had the 99.9% on the box. I don't recall seeing that. 98.7 (aka Beta 75) is the often used figure.

 

[TrevorS]

Hi Jim,

All Pure One filters, apart from four smaller ones, have the following on the box:

99.9%* Efficiency

* Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001

You can read the same here:

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx

Cheers

 

[Jim Allen]

Thanks. I have an older box that I swear says 99%. I'll check on that next time I'm up at the shop... if I remember.

 

[Ramblejam]

 

[mojocvh]

Purolater filters, had them for years on various Peugot hot hatches in the 80/90's a very good filter, but then again they needed to be

Now I'm into the Mann W940/4 with the .7 liter extra oil capacity for the oil capacity strained AJL [20v 1.8T ] engined A4.

Are/is there comparable technical information, re micron sized filtration, for the Mann filters, does anyone know?

all the best

Andy Brown.

 

[Bruce T]

Among the old theories about the smallest P1 filters (40 µm), my favorite is that all P1 filters use the same media, but the higher pressure generated in smaller canisters reduces the media's efficiency.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Among the old theories about the smallest P1 filters (40 µm), my favorite is that all P1 filters use the same media, but the higher pressure generated in smaller canisters reduces the media's efficiency.


One thing that shoots down that theory is that the 14459 is rated at 20 microns, yet has less filtering media (85 sq-in) than the 14610 (105 sq-in) which is rated at 40 microns.

I don't think anyone really knows why those "smaller" PureOne filters get the 40 micron instead of the 20 micron rating.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Among the old theories about the smallest P1 filters (40 µm), my favorite is that all P1 filters use the same media, but the higher pressure generated in smaller canisters reduces the media's efficiency.


One thing that shoots down that theory is that the 14459 is rated at 20 microns, yet has less filtering media (85 sq-in) than the 14610 (105 sq-in) which is rated at 40 microns.

I don't think anyone really knows why those "smaller" PureOne filters get the 40 micron instead of the 20 micron rating.
The factory A01 Honda filters & Toyota filters in those tiny sizes are rated very poorly for sizes of particles that they can catch, only 50-ish percent at 40 microns. That's why I either run a bigger P1 filter (PL20195) or a synthetic filter like the Fram Ultra in the xB, want to make sure I can get 10K out of the M1 EP that's in it.

 

[Bruce T]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Among the old theories about the smallest P1 filters (40 µm), my favorite is that all P1 filters use the same media, but the higher pressure generated in smaller canisters reduces the media's efficiency.


One thing that shoots down that theory is that the 14459 is rated at 20 microns, yet has less filtering media (85 sq-in) than the 14610 (105 sq-in) which is rated at 40 microns.

I don't think anyone really knows why those "smaller" PureOne filters get the 40 micron instead of the 20 micron rating.


Z06, do you think the smaller filters use different media? I was still getting better filtration with the 14610 in my old Civic Hybrid than I did with the M1 filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
Among the old theories about the smallest P1 filters (40 µm), my favorite is that all P1 filters use the same media, but the higher pressure generated in smaller canisters reduces the media's efficiency.


One thing that shoots down that theory is that the 14459 is rated at 20 microns, yet has less filtering media (85 sq-in) than the 14610 (105 sq-in) which is rated at 40 microns.

I don't think anyone really knows why those "smaller" PureOne filters get the 40 micron instead of the 20 micron rating.


Z06, do you think the smaller filters use different media? I was still getting better filtration with the 14610 in my old Civic Hybrid than I did with the M1 filter.


I don't really know, but it's possible because those 4 spin-on filters seem to fit mostly Asian vehicles, and like Honda and Toyota they seem to like filters that don't really filter very efficiently (?).

I emailed Purolator quite a while ago asking why those 4 spin-on filters and all their cartridge filters were rated at 40 microns instead of 20 microns. I never got an answer back ... maybe they don't want to say why for some reason.

FYI ... I was also told by Purolator Tech Dept that all their cartridge filters are rated at 40 microns, and not 20 microns. Don't know if everyone here knows that or not. Look at the box on any Purolator cartridge filter to verify their filtration rating.

 

[Bruce T]

Thanks, Z06. I wish river_rat had tested one of the small P1s. Oh well, what's life without a little mystery?