I have noticed you post every couple months mostly “Rehashing” old Endurance threads.
This is extremely hard to believe.
Last edited:
Fram Endurance every other OCI vs Microgard Select every OCI on Hondas?
- Thread starter brages
- Start date
I don’t see a 15% leak in this instance, your calculations notwithstanding.
In addition , does this study take into account the fact any “leaked oil” is continuously recirculating back through the filter?
(Recently Edited)
I’m dead serious …if I could see an ACTUAL TEST of an Endurance filter demonstrating “inferior” performance or component failure , I’m out…no questions asked!
Again, I’ve been using the Endurance for a year now and two 6K OCs (new filters) with no measurable oil consumption at all. Dip stick levels remained at the “full” mark the entire time. I started when I first got the car with 21K mi. I might add that I also switched to Restore and Protect, which may have a lot to with this. I’m not claiming the filter in anyway contributes to zero oil consumption, but it does show it fully “supports” a very healthy engine condition….in a car (Hyundai Sonata) known for oil consumption problems.
So I’ll continue to stay the course until I’m shown better alternatives, either for oil ir filter.
Last edited:
Look at the table column headings. Do the particle count ratio math. Filter efficiency is all about how many particles go in vs how many make it past the media. This example shows how the filter efficiency will be lowered due to a 15% internal leak past the media, which is the leak rate calculated based on measurements of the leak gap that @Glenda W. did on an Endurance leaf spring gap (thread in this forum). No matter what the level of particles is going into the filter, with a 15% leak the efficiency percentage will drop as shown. If you think your engine is so clean running and clean inside that an internal filter leak doesn't matter, then go for it.
Last edited:
Aside from whether or not it’s really “15%”….
that test doesn’t account for that fact that any “leaked” oil is recirculated back through the filter continuously…correct?
A “live” pumping in tact filter test like BR, accounts for that.
BR's test was continually adding test dust into the oil throughout the test. Just like an engine is constantly making debris as it's running. Of course the level of contamination BR was adding was way accelerated compared to an actual engine, otherwise the test would have taken a very long time to fully load the filters. Every engine produces debris as it runs. You've seen enough filter C&Ps here and the debris inside of oil filters to realize that.
The filter the leak gap measurements were on may or may not be the "norm", but it was an example actually measured. Some could have less or more of a leak gap depending on manufacturing consistency and quality. Fact is, basically all that were checked had some level of gap between the leaf spring and end cap.
Would you use a filter that's 84% @ 20u on your engine? Why would you chose a 99% @ 20u filter instead of a 84% @ 20u filter? If you think the engine is so clean, and you can justify lower efficiency filters because if it's not caught the first time maybe it will be caught the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time around, then why not just use lower efficiency oil filters to start with?
The other thing that nobody mentions is a filter with a big leak gap can let debris much larger that 40-50u past the media because the leak gap is much larger than that, whereas a low efficiency filter (like 99% @ 40 or 50u) with no internal leakage will catch most of the debris that large and larger.
Last edited:
Would I like to see a “no leak” filter?? ….goes without saying. Again, I’m only concerned about actual “real world” performance of this filter and so far the evidence THAT WE DO HAVE, indicates this filter has no equal as far as actual “real world” particle filtration. All counter arguments that I have seen so far are “tangential” in nature and entail speculative assumptions that attempt to extrapolate data or gross observations like flash light gaps. “SHOW ME THE MONEY”….BR has done just that. You can argue that the BR BOSS filter results seem to contradict other ISO tests, but that doesn’t mean you can simply invalidate both Endurance and AMSOIL (clone) results! Maybe the actual BOSS filters tested in each case were different models and that variance “could” account for the apparent contrary results?
No matter, to date there has been no filter test indicating this filter doesn’t do what it claims.
I hope that’s the case. Unfortunately my gut says you’re just here to stir the pot…..
So would you still use one with a big gap showing between the leaf spring and end cap? I'd have to say yes, based on the way you try to defend and justify a flaw like that. The Dos Eequis guy would do the same whle sipping on a few XXs.
BR's testing is not "real world" testing. It's only a way to try and "rank" them. You have no info on the condition of the leaf spring on the BR tests, and also have no info to show that BR's ranking order coincides with the ranking order based on actual ISO 4848-12 tests. It does to some extent, but has outliers that can't be fully explained. We do have some correlation of the ranking if you look at Ascent's ISO test data, and it shows the Boss was way less efficient than the OG Ultra and RP (Endurance clone).
I think we saw the M+H official spec sheet for the Boss that BR tested, and it was shown as 99% >46u. If M+H doesn't know the efficiency of their own oil filter, I don't know who does. So that rabbit hole is a dead end.
So you you think the Boss is as basically as good as the Ultra and Endurance solely based on the ranking result of the BR's testing? That right there should make you question the BR testing methodology for all the filers. You threw out other sources of official ISO test information because you think BR's testing is better than that? How so?
If you cut and inspected the Endurance and saw two big gaps between the leaf spring and end cap, would you still decide to use them?
Last edited:
Logic and reasoning usually goes out the window when some level of fanboyism justification is at play.
Nothing wrong with fanboyism because it's just what they decide is best for themselves based on some kind of justification.
Last edited:
Let’s cut to the chaseLogic and reasoning usually goes out the window when some level of fanboyism justification is at play.
ARM CHAIR SPECULATION and “analysis” aside….
SHOW ME a filter test ….any filter test… or an actual instance that demonstrates the Endurance doesn’t do what Fram claims, and I’ll turn in my “fanboy” membership.
No flashlight gaps…no “elegant” Arm Chair treatises on flow or filter data…no interpretations of why existing test result WE HAVE “may” be faulty…..No BOSS FILTER “ Red Herrings”
Just show me the money shot!!
All else is speculation.
I have no “troll agenda” ….but I’m not going to sit idly by and read the endless bashing of a filter I’m using simply because it has some imperfections….which, in my opinion….have no meaningful impact on its overall performance.
Pretty simple explanation.
These threads are months old. “REHASH” was your words, not mine
This is what prompted my “rehash”. I just felt compelled to agree and reply after “hibernating”.
Send 3 filters to Ascent or a similar certified ISO filter testing lab and have them officially ISO tested. Buy 6 filters total, all with the same date code or within a few days of each other so the ones not tested can be cut open first to see what the leaf spring ruffles and gaps look like. The cut the 3 open after testing to inspect the leaf spring ruffles and gaps.
If there is a leak gap as large as what Glenda W. measured, it should show up in a real ISO test because the beta ratio analysis shows even a 15% internal leak is going to lower the efficiency vs particle size curve pretty good. It would not be able to maintain 99% @ 20u. You have a better analysis, since you don't seem to believe any mathematical analysis given.
Since my original leak thread we've seen gaps much larger and others with no gaps. Some leaf springs were bowed and not sitting flush even without ripples.
Of course that testing would be ideal.
Unfortunately I don’t have enough “skin in this game” to justify the cost or efforts required.
As long as I’m trouble free with minimal oil consumption, I’ll remain committed to using same oil and filter.
sorry to be "that guy".... but you need a bare minimum sample of 30. Preferably >100. Ideally 500.
For fleets, it's a no-brainer to get a "scientific" answer. For Normies, we only have flame fights on the internet, unless someone is willing to start a new season of "Mythbusters"
For fleets, it's a no-brainer to get a "scientific" answer. For Normies, we only have flame fights on the internet, unless someone is willing to start a new season of "Mythbusters"
This is most recent Whip City post on used Endurance made yesterday. No sure if it was posted here previously?
Last edited:
Similar threads
