EFFICIENCY: Royal Purple / Amsoil vs. Fram Ultra / Titanium
- Thread starter Ignatius
- Start date
Where did the 80% @ 10 microns come from for Royal Purple?
Re: Fram Ultra. While that info has been posted from Fram, prior information suggested 80% at 5 micron.
And based on the post/thread below that seems possible and it beat Royal Purple head to head.
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.
bobistheoilguy.com
...You are aware of that thread as you posted in it...so it seems like you're trolling.
Not trolling by any means, how you could come to that conclusion I have no idea. I'll quote the opening line from my original post that started this thread:
Here's a link directly to the webpage on Royal Purple's website where they publish that information:
Premium Extended Life Oil Filters | Royal Purple
Royal Purple Synthetic Oil | The Performance Oil That Outperforms
www.royalpurple.com
Fair enough, I can believe they are 80% at 10 micron.
But like I said it seems reasonable that Fram Ultra is 80% at 5 micron.
The head to head testing by Ascent seems to be the most relevant information here.
If we wan't to mince words RP says "based on ISO-4548-12" and does not state which filter(s) this was qualified on.
Royal Purple looks pretty good per Ascent Filter testing data - it's 96.5% @ 15u so agree it will most likely make the 80% @ 10u claim.
One thing I saw was the Royal Purples holding capacity wasn't as good as I'd expect for being a full synthetic media. And it's flow vs delta-p was the highest in the group of filters tested.
One thing I saw was the Royal Purples holding capacity wasn't as good as I'd expect for being a full synthetic media. And it's flow vs delta-p was the highest in the group of filters tested.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Sounds like we should get an EaO tested. I know the RP and AMSOIL look basically identical, but my understanding is that AMSOIL is using the Donaldson Synteq media, no idea what RP is using.
Marketing papers do not tell us tom think that.
Updates!
New and old Fram Ultra info from Fram
Amsoil now claims 99% @ 20 microns and 98.7% @ 15 microns (considered absolute)
Royal Purple still claims the same figures as they always have, BUT... (see next image)
In Ascent Filtration's independent testing in 2021 we found out that Royal Purple's filtration efficiency is just marginally less than that of the former wire backed Fram Ultra's media.
I still find it interesting that Royal Purple claims filtration 80% @ 10 microns while the Fram Ultra is 70-74% @ 10 microns. Fram may be better at filtering larger particulate matter but Royal Purple and Amsoil may be better at the smaller stuff.
New and old Fram Ultra info from Fram
Amsoil now claims 99% @ 20 microns and 98.7% @ 15 microns (considered absolute)
Royal Purple still claims the same figures as they always have, BUT... (see next image)
In Ascent Filtration's independent testing in 2021 we found out that Royal Purple's filtration efficiency is just marginally less than that of the former wire backed Fram Ultra's media.
I still find it interesting that Royal Purple claims filtration 80% @ 10 microns while the Fram Ultra is 70-74% @ 10 microns. Fram may be better at filtering larger particulate matter but Royal Purple and Amsoil may be better at the smaller stuff.
... like pointed out many times, the size of the filter can have a bearing on the ISO efficiency results. You would have to compare all the different brands of the same basic sized filter like Andrew did in his tests to have a better apples-to-apples comparison. Why do you think Purolator and others use and reference the most gigantic filter they make to state the ISO efficiency? 
No, they state: PH8A, 3387A and 4967. That covers large, medium, small i would say.
Just to be clear Fram was 99+% in Ascent Filtration's testing at 15micron. Started at 99.9% and went to >99.5% once loaded.
If you extrapolate that data Fram should be better than what they claim at 10micron.
Fram was better at 15 micron than RP was at 20 & 25 micron. So to think that RP all of a sudden would be better at 10 micron.
Nope, that doesn't add up.
I believe Amsoil makes (or has made) very good filters, but without head to head data i'm not sure I would believe them to be better than Fram.
If you must have wire backed, then sure.
The only meaningful solution is a bypass filter system. Then is makes a lot less difference as to the exact specs of a full flow filter.
But at the end of the day your car will rust out or transmission will fail and cost more than car is worth to rebuild. It will not go to the boneyard because of a worn out engine.
Those two are small hoss....
Not big.
3387a = 3.35 HT and diameter 2.98
4967= 2.92 HT and 2.68 diameter
A XG-2 I used was big. . .
So is not like Fram uses ALL big filters for their testing.... That was my point....
They don't use big filters... 2 small and a bigger one.
2 are not big by any imagination.
Last edited:
Hoss?
I said small medium and large.
PH8A is 5.05"Hx3.66"OD, isn't that larger than XG-2?
Did you want them to only use large filters in their qualification? Leaving out the vast majority of filters are not large?
Is there really a legitimate point you're trying to make?
Fram tests one filter without bypass, showing the bypass system they use is good. They also show it doesn't matter what size filter, their efficiency numbers are the same. What no one knows is media consistency from piece to piece, roll to roll. It should be good but there are always tolerances and manufacturing differences. Looking at minute differences in lab test efficiency may be pointless, like reading to microns on a digital caliper because the digital screen says so when the underlying accuracy is not there.
So moving from a "baked on screen" will enable them to increase production?
I do not understand, what is the difference here? They bake it on right at the assembly line, and that is too slow?
I do not understand, what is the difference here? They bake it on right at the assembly line, and that is too slow?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I suspect the real reason is cost. They use the 99% @ 20 micron media in the ToughGuard already and being a cellulose blend, it's cheaper to manufacture. So, you remove the multiple layers of full synthetic media, you remove the screen required to provide the rigidity, you use your ToughGuard media as the base and then put a synthetic "topper" on it to increase holding capacity and you've just made the can faster and cheaper to produce.
I think they might have meant "backed" .. not baked. The wire backed media wasn't "baked" on the media. The nylon type screen backing material (not used in the mainstream spin-on Ultras, maybe some cartrridge Frams) might be "baked" on to the media.
