FL910s efficiency...

Messages
5,435
Location
KC
I know it has been posted on here numerous times but I can't seem to find it. I thought the Motorcraft FL910s was rated 95% at 20um. Does anyone know if that is correct?
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
Amsoil tested a Motorcraft and said it was 94% @ 20 microns.
It appears Wix likely tested it at that same level.
 
Messages
14,668
Location
The Old North State
Actually Amsoil only tested the FL820S or we'd still be left with the previous vague MC spec which said 80%>20um (which AAP still uses in their MC spec sheets). But thanks to Amsoil's 2011 ISO testing of several oem filters the 820S tested at ~94%@20um. Very respectable. While the 910S wasn't tested and the OEMs like to keep their specs proprietary, imo safe to assume the 910S is at the same level as 820S. I'm unaware of any test that Wix may have done of the 910S and find it unlikely they would publish Motorcraft oil filter specs. Even Purolator doesn't do that and they make Motorcraft. But if you have a link, be interested in seeing it.
 

pbm

Messages
8,906
Location
New York
I am concerned about tearing as the MC 910 is made by Purolator. I'm debating whether to use them or Fram in my new Focus.
 

MrQuackers

Site Donor 2021
Messages
2,499
Location
Banana Republic
The Tough Guard that I would use is $6.99 at O'Reilly. Right now O'Reilly is giving out coupons for $5 off $10 purchases. So you can pick up a Tough Guard for a very reasonable price this way. I might get a couple. I think I'd buy a MicroGard for my brother's van and the TG for my car. Total would be 10.78 - 5.00 = $5.78 for both filters. http://cashcountdown.hscampaigns.com/ Gotta love the sale and rebate section on BITOG laugh
 
Messages
8,138
Location
Mahzurrah!
I have both old and new FL-400s filters. The older one, before they downsized, appears to be straight paper cellulose media, a lot of it. If that is the case, an 80% efficiency would be very typical. The media on the newer, smaller FL-400s filters is clearly different and is much more similar in appearance to the blended media you'd find in something like a Napa Gold. So I would be inclined to believe the efficiency in the newer Motorcrafts is better and the 93-94% suggested seems very reasonable.
 
Messages
14,842
Location
Illinois
Originally Posted By: pbm
I am concerned about tearing as the MC 910 is made by Purolator. I'm debating whether to use them or Fram in my new Focus.
MC is not a Purolater. MC are made by Purolater to Ford specs. Purolater is not. It's like TGMO is made by M1 but is not M1. TGMO is made to Toyota specs.
 
Messages
2,744
Location
San Antonio, TX
FWIW the blended media Purolator puts in Quaker State & Pennzoil oil filters is rated 94% to 95% efficienct and *might* be the same media used in *some* current Motorcraft filters based on the Amsoil test data for the FL820S. It would certainly save a lot of logistics for different media if their non-Purolator branded filters all used the same media. Food for thought anyway. The Quaker State and Purolator L-series filters previously tested at 99.6% efficiency at 25 microns per data from Champion Labs using an older test protocol in 2007, but must have had the same media back then, which isn't the case today. It's been pointed out to me the current published Purolator Classic efficiency is 97.5% with cellulose media, so some cellulose media can be rated higher than some blended media.
 
Messages
673
Location
Ohio
Originally Posted By: pbm
I am concerned about tearing as the MC 910 is made by Purolator. I'm debating whether to use them or Fram in my new Focus.
Stttaawwwpppp. As tig said, Puro is only the manufacturer, building to Ford spec. No one has reported media tear issues with Motorcraft.
 
Messages
14,668
Location
The Old North State
Quote:
If say an 820s is xx efficient at yy microns, wouldnt all MC filters be comparable?
As said, likely but not an absolute. And if not for Amsoil we wouldn't even currently have the one FL820 data point as a reference, just the old vague 80% vague spec still listed at AAP. As an example, not all filters from some aftermarket maufacuters are rated at the same micron level or have the same percent level. If Motorcraft wanted it to be an absolute they could release ISO test information as basis for all their filters. But similar to the majority of oems they have chosen to keep it proprietary. As said though, I'd be fairly confident the topic'd filter is in the same range as the 820S.
 

pbm

Messages
8,906
Location
New York
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
Originally Posted By: pbm
I am concerned about tearing as the MC 910 is made by Purolator. I'm debating whether to use them or Fram in my new Focus.
Stttaawwwpppp. As tig said, Puro is only the manufacturer, building to Ford spec. No one has reported media tear issues with Motorcraft.
I believe there have been Motorcrafts with tears although not as frequent as Purolators.
 
Messages
27,869
Location
PNW
Originally Posted By: Hyde244
Originally Posted By: pbm
I am concerned about tearing as the MC 910 is made by Purolator. I'm debating whether to use them or Fram in my new Focus.
Stttaawwwpppp. As tig said, Puro is only the manufacturer, building to Ford spec. No one has reported media tear issues with Motorcraft.
Spoke too soon ... and there have been a few others beside this latest one. Not nearly as many reported as Purolators, but they do happen. Torn Motorcraft FL400S
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
Originally Posted By: sayjac
I'm unaware of any test that Wix may have done of the 910S and find it unlikely they would publish Motorcraft oil filter specs. Even Purolator doesn't do that and they make Motorcraft. But if you have a link, be interested in seeing it.
Wix tests every OEM filter out there because the specs don't get published for what is actually produced. Wix will only sell a filter that meets or exceeds every rating they measure in the OEM filter. Wix provides 95% @20um for this spec'd filter. I doubt they waste money to go much beyond what the FL910s provides. It is likely they tested it to be around 90-95% and 95% sounds like the most plausible taking everything into account.
 
Messages
14,668
Location
The Old North State
First I've ever read of using Wix's average efficiency of the majority of it's filters as reasoning to determine the absolute efficiency of every oem with non published specs. While it may be 'likely' Wix tested the 910 in the range mentioned, other than Amsoil's ISO test of the 820S there remains no published specs of Motorcraft filters. And if 'wasting money' and simply meeting or exceeding oem was the primary consideration for Wix filter specs, then as an example, the 57356 used on majority Hondas would be in the ~65-67%@20um range, based on Amsoil's results of the Honda A02. It's also rated 95%@20um. Further if that is the logic for all Wix's efficiency specs, then Wix's XP synthetic filter line using either the spec from the CS dept would not be in line with that explanation. As currently the XP's info from that source is below the FL820S Amsoil's ISO published testing result. It seems odd that Wix wouldn't use the very same reasoning for efficiency and promotion of their 'premium' synthetic filter line. That would seem to be paradoxical to the 'meet or exceed' every oem rating. Little doubt Wix majority 95%@20um is a safe efficiency to meet or exceed most any oem, but I can't assume every oem made is in that range because that is the spec Wix uses for the majority of it's standard line. 'Imo', it's more likely the topic'd 910S is in a similar range to the published results of the FL820S than using Wix average efficiency spec of all it's filters.
 

badtlc

Thread starter
Messages
5,435
Location
KC
Originally Posted By: sayjac
First I've ever read of using Wix's average efficiency of the majority of it's filters as reasoning to determine the absolute efficiency of every oem with non published specs. While it may be 'likely' Wix tested the 910 in the range mentioned, other than Amsoil's ISO test of the 820S there remains no published specs of Motorcraft filters. And if 'wasting money' and simply meeting or exceeding oem was the primary consideration for Wix filter specs, then as an example, the 57356 used on majority Hondas would be in the ~65-67%@20um range, based on Amsoil's results of the Honda A02. It's also rated 95%@20um. Further if that is the logic for all Wix's efficiency specs, then Wix's XP synthetic filter line using either the spec from the CS dept would not be in line with that explanation. As currently the XP's info from that source is below the FL820S Amsoil's ISO published testing result. It seems odd that Wix wouldn't use the very same reasoning for efficiency and promotion of their 'premium' synthetic filter line. That would seem to be paradoxical to the 'meet or exceed' every oem rating. Little doubt Wix majority 95%@20um is a safe efficiency to meet or exceed most any oem, but I can't assume every oem made is in that range because that is the spec Wix uses for the majority of it's standard line. 'Imo', it's more likely the topic'd 910S is in a similar range to the published results of the FL820S than using Wix average efficiency spec of all it's filters.
They have different design criteria for the XP line, but please, continue your babbling. Nobody is basing anything on just Wix. It is context and circumstantial evidence from "multiple sources" (you missed that?) but by your post I'm guessing that is beyond your reasoning capability.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,668
Location
The Old North State
A personal attack, guess I really touched a nerve. But now looking back on the Mazda6 filter thread and recognizing a similar reaction that would appear to be your MO. As said, I've seen no evidence that Wix's efficiency for the vast majority of it's standard filters is a definitive indication of the topic'd 910 specific efficiency. So for all the reasons previously noted/quoted I'll politely agree to disagree with your opined conclusion.
 
Top