EFFICIENCY: Royal Purple / Amsoil vs. Fram Ultra / Titanium

I like the Ecore type center cage and baseplate on the one RP filter. Nice and clean. The 5 micron rating might just be from extrapolation of the graph and marketing approves that method. The fast lab test wasn't going below 10 or above 98.7in it's range? Extrapolating can be fun maybe. Nothing wrong with having fun.
 
Just for the record, Fram claims 99% + efficiency at 20 microns. Note the little + after the 99. Thatś the best efficiency claim I´ve seen.
 
Originally Posted by Ignatius
Upon doing a little research on the websites of Royal Purple and Amsoil I noticed that Amsoil has published a 99% @ 20 micron efficiency rating while Royal Purple has published 99% @ 25 microns, 98.7% @ 20 microns, and 80% @ 10 microns. As these two brands have been acknowledged as having similar, if not identical, internal filters in the past I do wonder if Amsoil has had the filter media in their specific brand filter improved or perhaps it has always been that way for both brand filters but a newer form of testing has shown improved results? As far as Fram goes the Ultra/Titanium internal filter is officially rated as 99% @ 20 microns and it has been suggested here on BITOG that the efficiency may be as good as 98.7% @ 16 microns and 80% @ 5 microns but those are unofficially published numbers. So as far as efficiency goes it appears that Royal Purple / Amsoil have produced an oil filter that is at least as good as a Fram Ultra/Titanium and as far as officially published efficiency ratings it may even be better.
Based on what you posted here, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the RP/Amsoil filter is better? 99% efficiency at 20 microns appears to me to be the same claim as 99% at 20 microns. (You left out the ¨+¨ that Fram claims) If what was described as efficiency with smaller particles is true, then your own post indicates the Fram is better. So again, how do you post that data and then conclude it is better than the Fram? Maybe I´m missing something here?
 
Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by Ignatius
Upon doing a little research on the websites of Royal Purple and Amsoil I noticed that Amsoil has published a 99% @ 20 micron efficiency rating while Royal Purple has published 99% @ 25 microns, 98.7% @ 20 microns, and 80% @ 10 microns. As these two brands have been acknowledged as having similar, if not identical, internal filters in the past I do wonder if Amsoil has had the filter media in their specific brand filter improved or perhaps it has always been that way for both brand filters but a newer form of testing has shown improved results? As far as Fram goes the Ultra/Titanium internal filter is officially rated as 99% @ 20 microns and it has been suggested here on BITOG that the efficiency may be as good as 98.7% @ 16 microns and 80% @ 5 microns but those are unofficially published numbers. So as far as efficiency goes it appears that Royal Purple / Amsoil have produced an oil filter that is at least as good as a Fram Ultra/Titanium and as far as officially published efficiency ratings it may even be better.
Based on what you posted here, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the RP/Amsoil filter is better? 99% efficiency at 20 microns appears to me to be the same claim as 99% at 20 microns. (You left out the ¨+¨ that Fram claims) If what was described as efficiency with smaller particles is true, then your own post indicates the Fram is better. So again, how do you post that data and then conclude it is better than the Fram? Maybe I´m missing something here?
"it may even be better" is not a definitive statement. For what it is worth I appreciate the fact that Royal Purple publishes efficiency ratings below 20 microns no matter how inconsequential they may be. I appreciate that more that a "+" that is not definitive. At the very least they should be considered roughly equal until proven otherwise.
 
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
I like the Ecore type center cage and baseplate on the one RP filter. Nice and clean. The 5 micron rating might just be from extrapolation of the graph and marketing approves that method. The fast lab test wasn't going below 10 or above 98.7in it's range? Extrapolating can be fun maybe. Nothing wrong with having fun.
Remember those long discussions about how particle counters work, and what ISO 4548-12 calls out for what particles sizes the particle counters must measure? Yes, they do measure down to 5u ... even a lowly 6 channel particle counter. A 5 channel counter might only go down to 10 microns. Section 9.3.7 from ISO 4548-12. [Linked Image]
 
It could be 99.01% and be 99+, it's similar to the "greater than 20 microns" is any amount over 20. Fram Ultra box I have states 99% with no plus sign, it says "over." Pretty sure they just are making it look better than the TG because it costs more. Purolator used to advertise 99.9% @ 20 microns for the Pure One. Some here really promoted those. laugh
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by gfh77665
I did not imply it was like house plumbing. I know oil has pressure. A super high efficiency filter COULD impede the flow somewhat, especially at cold start up, and especially near the end of its cycle when partially loaded. Its noteworthy that the first 30 seconds of operation after a cold start up is when a lot of everyday wear occours, so you want max oil flow ASAP at that point. I like a balanced approach that considers efficiency, flow, and holding capacity. I don't want any filter that targets the extream of any one of those three.
I don't understand how flow is ever impeded, if the filter is too restrictive doesn't the bypass open? You can't "hold back" oil, can you? Even if the oil filter was completely plugged wouldn't you still have the same amount of oil flowing through the engine via the bypass? And what are these filters that are so efficient but also so restrictive that they are harmful? I want to know so I don't buy them.
Only time oil flow going into the engine will be cut back is if the PD oil pump hits pressure relief. If a filter was really clogged to the point where nearly all the oil had to go through the bypass valve of the filter, then it could be possible for that to make the PD pump work harder (raising it's output pressure) to the point of hitting pressure relief. Then the oil volume coming out of the pump is essentially constant as the engine RPM keeps rising. That may or may not reduce the oil flow enough to hurt something, depending on the volume output per RPM design of the PD pump, and what the minimum supply volume to various engine parts really is before damage occurs.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
I like the Ecore type center cage and baseplate on the one RP filter. Nice and clean. The 5 micron rating might just be from extrapolation of the graph and marketing approves that method. The fast lab test wasn't going below 10 or above 98.7in it's range? Extrapolating can be fun maybe. Nothing wrong with having fun.
Remember those long discussions about how particle counters work, and what ISO 4548-12 calls out for what particles sizes the particle counters must measure? Yes, they do measure down to 5u ... even a lowly 6 channel particle counter. A 5 channel counter might only go down to 10 microns. Section 9.3.7 from ISO 4548-12. [Linked Image]
You are in all the rooms checking labels on the machines? Or it also could be extrapolation by the bean counters trying to be ahead of the other company. How about this? LEAVE ME ALONE. laugh
 
Originally Posted by gfh77665
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
One of the biggest misconceptions is that high efficiency oil filters automatically means more flow restriction and the reduction of oil flow to the motor. But even if a filter was a little more flow restrictive, with a PD oil pump that is only true if the oil pump hits pressure relief which is hardly ever unless you really try to make it. The oiling system in an engine is not like the plumbing system in your house.
I did not imply it was like house plumbing. I know oil has pressure. A super high efficiency filter COULD impede the flow somewhat, especially at cold start up, and especially near the end of its cycle when partially loaded. Its noteworthy that the first 30 seconds of operation after a cold start up is when a lot of everyday wear occours, so you want max oil flow ASAP at that point. I like a balanced approach that considers efficiency, flow, and holding capacity. I don't want any filter that targets the extream of any one of those three.
You're absolutely correct and it's a very good question. Hydraulic and bypass filters are made with common threads and not suitable for full flow use due to the restriction. It's safe to use what a well known and old company like Fram, Baldwin, Champ, etc recommend in their catalog for your car. The Ultra for example holds more so if you even change it early like I do, you still have a filter restricting less than if try to run it out.
 
Originally Posted by shibby6600
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
In reading highest efficiency oil filter articles this week, I uncovered another one.... Bosch Distance+...... 99.9% @ 20 microns
Straight from this site - https://www.boschautoparts.com/en/auto/filters/distanceplus-oil-filters
Quote
It goes the distance with a 99.9%* efficiency rating... *Based on ISO 4548-12 at 40 microns on D3500
So The Bosch Premiums are the [email protected], not the Distance+ ([email protected]) Going window-shopping at Advance and Napa tomorrow. Want to view the Purolator One and Carquest Blue Premium center tubes also. Three different filters to look at. Hope the counter guys don't mind me pulling them out of their cardboard boxes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
I like the Ecore type center cage and baseplate on the one RP filter. Nice and clean. The 5 micron rating might just be from extrapolation of the graph and marketing approves that method. The fast lab test wasn't going below 10 or above 98.7in it's range? Extrapolating can be fun maybe. Nothing wrong with having fun.
Remember those long discussions about how particle counters work, and what ISO 4548-12 calls out for what particles sizes the particle counters must measure? Yes, they do measure down to 5u ... even a lowly 6 channel particle counter. A 5 channel counter might only go down to 10 microns. Section 9.3.7 from ISO 4548-12. [Linked Image]
You are in all the rooms checking labels on the machines? Or it also could be extrapolation by the bean counters trying to be ahead of the other company. How about this? LEAVE ME ALONE. laugh
It's an official formally used industry test standard that's been around since 2009, and lays out all kinds of formal requirements to run the testing. Go find a copy and read it sometime. Wow ... some people just don't get it, lol. Put me on ignore if you don't like seeing me commenting on misconceptions - like someone saying "The 5 micron rating might just be from extrapolation of the graph and marketing approves that method" ... it's not, the particle counters used are capable of measuring down to 5 microns.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
I like the Ecore type center cage and baseplate on the one RP filter. Nice and clean. The 5 micron rating might just be from extrapolation of the graph and marketing approves that method. The fast lab test wasn't going below 10 or above 98.7in it's range? Extrapolating can be fun maybe. Nothing wrong with having fun.
Remember those long discussions about how particle counters work, and what ISO 4548-12 calls out for what particles sizes the particle counters must measure? Yes, they do measure down to 5u ... even a lowly 6 channel particle counter. A 5 channel counter might only go down to 10 microns. Section 9.3.7 from ISO 4548-12. [Linked Image]
You are in all the rooms checking labels on the machines? Or it also could be extrapolation by the bean counters trying to be ahead of the other company. How about this? LEAVE ME ALONE. laugh
It's an official formally used industry test standard that's been around since 2009, and lays out all kinds of formal requirements to run the testing. Go find a copy and read it sometime. Wow ... some people just don't get it, lol. Put me on ignore if you don't like seeing me commenting on misconceptions - like someone saying "The 5 micron rating might just be from extrapolation of the graph and marketing approves that method" ... it's not, the particle counters used are capable of measuring down to 5 microns.
I agree that this is an important distinction to make. I was invited to a webinar sponsored by Fram recently and one of the guys on the show was affiliated with Fram. He went into some detail about how they test for filtration efficiency but didn't say much beyond that 20 microns is their brand's baseline. I know Motorking Jay has some old posts from when he was here in which he related efficiency ratings for the Ultra below 20 microns, I don't know why Fram would withhold this information at this point. They could publish those figures and it would help them show that they have a better product. For example I think I can see why a company like K&N does not publish any efficiency data for its oil filters. I looked up as much information as I could find and someone here shared their beta ratios a few years ago and they were something like 95% @ 20 microns and 99% @ 75 microns. It seems like the industry benchmark is 99% @ 50 microns so if I had a product that wasn't hitting it I would not want to advertise that information even if performance otherwise was considered acceptable.
 
Originally Posted by gfh77665
Thats right. You can get a super high efficiency filter, but at some point it begins to impede flow. Filters are a balancing act between flow, holding capacity, and efficiency.
I ran a fram ultra on my 4.8 Silverado and it developed a tick and worse cold piston slap. Based on suggestions on here, I changed the filter to an extra guard and the noises stopped. The same fram ultras had no negative effects on my 350 Oldsmobile or 305 Chevy. The olds has had low oil pressure for at least the past 110k miles I've ran it. Hard to wrap my mind around it, but I'm going to try the m1 ep filter on the truck next time, since I always buy what's on sale at Canadian Tire. My friend ran the m1 on his 4.8 that has lots of cold start piston slap and apparently it got quieter.
 
Originally Posted by Ignatius
As these two brands have been acknowledged as having similar, if not identical, internal filters in the past I do wonder if Amsoil has had the filter media in their specific brand filter improved or perhaps it has always been that way for both brand filters but a newer form of testing has shown improved results? [...] So as far as efficiency goes it appears that Royal Purple / Amsoil have produced an oil filter that is at least as good as a Fram Ultra/Titanium and as far as officially published efficiency ratings it may even be better.
I have a 2.7 ecoboost which takes cartridge filters. I nearly ordered a RP but I noticed that "made in china" is visible in the picture on O'Reilly's website. I phoned Amsoil to ask if their filters were made in the same place as RP filters, factory or country, and received a vague answer. I ordered an Amsoil anyway, wanting a synthetic media filter, or at least one where the company makes claims about efficiency that indicate some sort of certainty about being better than average, at least. The Amsoil cartridge EA15k43 looks identical to the RP in the O'Reilly picture. The numbers and letter seem to be in the same font, and also made in china. It would be reasonable to assume it came from the same factory. As to the same identical media, well, I don't think it would unreasonable to assume that it is also exactly the same. The nice thing about cartridge filters is you can compare the internals by simply opening the box. Many of the non-synthetics all seem identical to each other too, number of pleats, lettering, etc. I am starting to wonder of there are maybe at total of three companies making cartridge filters for the 2.7 Ford. I'd prefer a US made or at least non-china made filter of high quality but the major brands seem to omit the cartridge filters from their higher lines. Recommendations welcome.
 
Fram customer support recently (within the last 2 weeks) told me that for my vehicle (2019 Toyota Tacoma - V6 - FRAM Ultra Synthetic Oil Filter, XG9972) the Multi pass Efficiency - ISO 4548-12 test - 99.6% @20um Ed
 
caprice_2nv said:
Originally Posted by gfh77665
Thats right. You can get a super high efficiency filter, but at some point it begins to impede flow. Filters are a balancing act between flow, holding capacity, and efficiency.
[B]I ran a fram ultra on my 4.8 Silverado and it developed a tick and worse cold piston slap. Based on suggestions on here, I changed the filter to an extra guard and the noises stopped.[/B] The same fram ultras had no negative effects on my 350 Oldsmobile or 305 Chevy. The olds has had low oil pressure for at least the past 110k miles I've ran it. Hard to wrap my mind around it, but I'm going to try the m1 ep filter on the truck next time, since I always buy what's on sale at Canadian Tire. My friend ran the m1 on his 4.8 that has lots of cold start piston slap and apparently it got quieter.
Click to expand...

Why would the Ultra cause a tick but the Extra guard would not? Ultra has superior flow, ADBV, and a solid bypass
 
So, who makes Amsoil Oil Filters anyway?

I heard back in the day it was Wix, so is that still true?
 
I'm never touched an Amsoil filter, but I've always thought they looked like the Royal Purple's from pictures online. I know Champ makes the Royal Purple and always have. I remember hearing/reading back in the day that Amsoil's filter was made by Wix. I don't know if this was true or came from the fact Amsoil has always sold Wix filters on their website too, so people figured it was logical to think Wix made their filters.
 
iunderpressure said:
I'm never touched an Amsoil filter, but I've always thought they looked like the Royal Purple's from pictures online. I know Champ makes the Royal Purple and always have. I remember hearing/reading back in the day that Amsoil's filter was made by Wix. I don't know if this was true or came from the fact Amsoil has always sold Wix filters on their website too, so people figured it was logical to think Wix made their filters.
Click to expand...

Yes I would say that the Amsoil filter is either an improved version of the Royal Purple filter. As far as why Amsoil sell Wix products on their website, my take is that not everyone is going to be willing to pay the price for an Amsoil product but Amsoil still wants to be able to offer them something to get that business and not see a customer go somewhere else when they could be buying it from Amsoil. Wix filters are generally recommended for OEM recommended intervals while Amsoil oil filters are recommended specifically for extended intervals, they're just trying to cater to both crowds of customers :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OVERKILL
AMSOIL EaO oil filters no longer using Donaldson Synteq media
Replies
19
Views
2K
OVERKILL
B
List of oil filters with 99% efficiency at 20 microns.
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
15K
kschachn
A
Need a grand oil filter summary thread
Replies
18
Views
657
ZeeOSix
B
Latest Fram Ultra Synthetic oil filter as of 2023 January - Is it still a good choice?
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
12K
350Rocket
Ignatius
Are metal endcaps simply cosmetic?
Replies
11
Views
1K
NJMike
Top