Fram Endurance every other OCI vs Microgard Select every OCI on Hondas?

[ZeeOSix]

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"

It would be pretty easy to test for the impact of an internal leak on efficiency with an official ISO 4548-12 test. And you wouldn't need anything close to 30 or more samples. People that design and test these filters for efficiency don't test 30 or more. Ascent tested one sample of 5 different oil filters and the ISO 4548-12 efficiency data pretty much matched what the manufactures claimed, and they also ranked in the same order as their claimed ISO efficiency from the manufacturers. Now if one or more came out not matching close to what the manufacturer claimed, then another one or two would have to be tested to see if it tested differently. And the one that didn't pass would have to be cut and inspected of course. If you read that big Ascent testing thread, you would also see that a bubble point test is done before conducting the ISO 4548-12 test. Ascent bought two filters of each model, and used one set for the bubble point test. It think the pairs were the same date code or very close to each other - I'd have to go back and read the thread again. I have way more confidence in an official ISO test on one filter vs a test like BR does on one filter.

If you wanted to be certain of the correlation, you could take four filters, open them up and verify at least two had measurable gaps at the leaf spring, and take the other two and 100% seal the leaf spring to end cap interface. Put the filters back together and test them per ISO 4548-12. Fram has done this type of testing in their lab on competitor's filters, and one competitor's filter that has pretty low efficiency was found to be leaking internally. When they fixed the leak and put the guts back in the can the efficiency was improved.

The ones with the internal leak are going to have a lower efficiency vs particle size curve. There is not way one that is leaking internally past the media is going to test as good as one that's not leaking.

 

[Ronn]

The ones with the internal leak are going to have a lower efficiency vs particle size curve. There is not way one that is leaking internally past the media is going to test as good as one that's not leaking.

No argument there.
We go back to …”it begs the question”….
Does this flaw hobble performance enough to make a difference?
Does it knock it out of “first place” in particle filtration?
So far I’ve seen no “Prima facie evidence”
that supports that. None.
The only scant testing we have (BR) says otherwise,
Of course there’s the actual Fram ISO claim on the books, albeit not precise with the grammar used. Skeptics still nick pick the claim.

From Fram>>>
“Designed for use with synthetic oils. Metal Screen Back construction for enhanced durability. Fully synthetic blend media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*

*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.

I’m starting to interpret this as ….They actually tested those specific FE models listed and extended it to all other FE models based on equivalents of TG/EG results . After all, there’s no way they would test ALL FE models!!!

 

[ZeeOSix]

From the WCW video posted earlier.

One side of the leaf spring is pretty ruffled.

An edge view of the ruffled area.

The other side looks smoother, but the ledge where it sits on the raised thin ring around the center tube on the end cap is more narrow than the ruffled side. If the raised ring on the end cap sits outside that narrow mating ledge, then there could be a leak in that area. It probably barely makes it from what I'm seeing. This is another thing seen on some leaf springs ... the sides 90 degrees to the ears are pretty narrow on some of them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

No argument there.
We go back to …”it begs the question”….
Does this flaw hobble performance enough to make a difference?
Does it knock it out of “first place” in particle filtration?
So far I’ve seen no “Prima facie evidence”
that supports that. None.
The only scant testing we have (BR) says otherwise,

Like said, you would have to pay some big bucks and get your answer with an official ISO efficiency test. And do it in a way so there is a know leaker vs a known non-leaker to see the impact of the leak. The fact still remains that the beta ratio model will say all day long that any internal leakage will lower the efficiency. The larger the leak, the more decrease in efficiency - it's a simple particles in vs particles out model ... that's what filtration is all about. If a filter is leaking 15% of the flow volume past the media and not filtered, it's going to decrease the efficiency from 99% at 20u to 84% @ 20u. For a lower efficiency filter, the decrease isn't quite as much as shown in post 80. If you're OK with a filter that leaks and has some level of decreased efficiency vs one that doesn't leak, then that's your choice of course.

I think latching on to BR's test ranking as totally accurate and "gospel" is a narrow view, and since their ranking of filters doesn't correlate well with Ascents test result and the manufacturer's efficiency claims should raise questions about the accuracy of the BR rankings.

 

[Ronn]

*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns

“I’m starting to interpret this as ….They actually tested those specific FE models listed and extended it to all other FE models based on equivalents of TG/EG “ . After all, there’s no way they would test ALL FE models”

I posted this regarding ISO claims….… thoughts???

 

[ZeeOSix]

*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns

“I’m starting to interpret this as ….They actually tested those specific FE models listed and extended it to all other FE models based on equivalents of TG/EG “ . After all, there’s no way they would test ALL FE models”

I posted this regarding ISO claims….… thoughts???

Those Fram statements have been messed up and confusing for a long time. We got Motorking to have Fram update some of them to be more accurate, but looks like someone at First Brands is back to using the illogical efficiency statement.

You can't test the FE model line and relate it in any meaningful way to the efficiency of other lines of filters like the XG/TG/EG, etc.

What Fram does is ISO 4548-12 test 3 different sized filters in the filter model line (like an FE or XG or FS, etc) and take the average ISO efficiency of the 3 filters. That takes the size factor out of the resulting ISO efficiency. A larger sized filter will typically have a little higher efficiency than a smaller filter. So instead of just referencing one larger filter like Purolator does (their giant 30001 model), Fram uses 3 different sizes and takes the average efficiency of the 3 filters.

The efficiency statement for the HP line (Fram's racing filter) is logical, and based on the average of 4 filter sizes:
"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of HP3, HP8, HP17, HP20 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."

If Fram wrote the efficiency statement correctly for the Endurance (and all the other filter lines) it would only reference the specific filter line like this:
"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."

Or like this:
"FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of XG8A, XG3387A and XG4967 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."

They only tested the FE for the efficiency of the FE, and they only test the XG for the efficiency of the XG, etc, etc. There should be no mention of any other filter model line in those efficiency statements.

 

[Ronn]

It can be a bit tortuous on logistics,
But it does appear they made claims for specific FE models and then extended this claim (bootstrapped) to all other FE models that are TG/EG equivalents in cases where the same ISO threshold of 99%/20mu was met.

Here’s TG statement…same approach ;

“Stronger, more durable media provides an outstanding 99% dirt-trapping efficiency.*

Foot Note
* “FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns”

 

[ZeeOSix]

It can be a bit tortuous on logistics,
But it does appear they made claims for specific FE models and then extended this claim (bootstrapped) to all other FE models that are TG/EG equivalents in cases where the same ISO threshold of 99%/20mu was met.

Here’s TG statement…same approach ;

“Stronger, more durable media provides an outstanding 99% dirt-trapping efficiency.*

Foot Note
* “FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns”

The way Fram writes those efficiency statements is illogical. If they test only a TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 to cover the size range of TG filters, and average the resulting efficiency to represent the efficiency of the entire TG filter line, then the statement should be written as:
“FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns”

They need to take the "or equivalent XYZ models" out of the statements and only reference the filter line they are making the efficiency statement for to make it logical and clear to the reader. For example, they don't test the XG filters to represent the TG line ... that makes zero sense. They test filters in the TG line to only represent the TG line. They test filters in the XG line to only represent the XG line ... etc, etc.

 

[69GTX]

I totally missed this issue on the Fram Ultra's over the past 4 yrs. Been using XG2's on my daily driver for 5+ years or so......changing out the filter about every 8K-10K miles or every other oil change. I have 2 of them left that are dated 2023. Are they still at least good for single 6 month OCI's of 3K-4K on my Lincoln 4.6L-32v engine? I would think they're still good for that. Thanks.

 

[Glenda W.]

I totally missed this issue on the Fram Ultra's over the past 4 yrs. Been using XG2's on my daily driver for 5+ years or so......changing out the filter about every 8K-10K miles or every other oil change. I have 2 of them left that are dated 2023. Are they still at least good for single 6 month OCI's of 3K-4K on my Lincoln 4.6L-32v engine? I would think they're still good for that. Thanks.

I did have my daughter finish a 5k oci on an Endurance because I only see the vehicle during maintenance. After that never used one again.

Below is a pic of an Ultra passing debris through leaf spring gaps.

 

[Fair enough]

It would be pretty easy to test for the impact of an internal leak on efficiency with an official ISO 4548-12 test. And you wouldn't need anything close to 30 or more samples. People that design and test these filters for efficiency don't test 30 or more. Ascent tested one sample of 5 different oil filters and the ISO 4548-12 efficiency data pretty much matched what the manufactures claimed, and they also ranked in the same order as their claimed ISO efficiency from the manufacturers. Now if one or more came out not matching close to what the manufacturer claimed, then another one or two would have to be tested to see if it tested differently. And the one that didn't pass would have to be cut and inspected of course. If you read that big Ascent testing thread, you would also see that a bubble point test is done before conducting the ISO 4548-12 test. Ascent bought two filters of each model, and used one set for the bubble point test. It think the pairs were the same date code or very close to each other - I'd have to go back and read the thread again. I have way more confidence in an official ISO test on one filter vs a test like BR does on one filter.

If you wanted to be certain of the correlation, you could take four filters, open them up and verify at least two had measurable gaps at the leaf spring, and take the other two and 100% seal the leaf spring to end cap interface. Put the filters back together and test them per ISO 4548-12. Fram has done this type of testing in their lab on competitor's filters, and one competitor's filter that has pretty low efficiency was found to be leaking internally. When they fixed the leak and put the guts back in the can the efficiency was improved.

The ones with the internal leak are going to have a lower efficiency vs particle size curve. There is not way one that is leaking internally past the media is going to test as good as one that's not leaking.

Ascent put corks in removable bypass valve filters to pass the bubble point. Leaky bypass valves don’t pass.
First time I heard of filters being put back together and tested. It seems Fram isn’t finding any correlations with bypass leaks as the average number remains at 20. It all gets more interesting as the 20 number appears on all their sizes listed. Which tells the consumer all the sizes filter the same, 20 microns. If things like this can be interesting.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ascent put corks in removable bypass valve filters to pass the bubble point. Leaky bypass valves don’t pass.

The filters tested for efficiency by Ascent were not touched. The ones he cut open and bubble point tested were not tested for efficiency. The bubble point test was a precursor before moving on to the efficiency test, as the ISO test procedures points out.

First time I heard of filters being put back together and tested. It seems Fram isn’t finding any correlations with bypass leaks as the average number remains at 20.

I wasn't talking about what they do for normal efficiency testing. Talking about when they are trying to figure out why a filter isn't testing as high in efficiency as it should. They can open the filter, look for problems like an internal leak and fix it, then seal the can back up and retest to verify the change made a difference.

It all gets more interesting as the 20 number appears on all their sizes listed. Which tells the consumer all the sizes filter the same, 20 microns. If things like this can be interesting.

The use 20u was the reference point they pick to state the efficiency ... that's the reason 20u is used in the efficiency statements. They could chose any micron size and show the corresponding efficiency. Every oil filter has an efficiency vs particle size curve as was shown in the Ascent test data results.

 

[Ronn]

I did have my daughter finish a 5k oci on an Endurance because I only see the vehicle during maintenance. After that never used one again.

Below is a pic of an Ultra passing debris through leaf spring gaps.

View attachment 288215

View attachment 288216

 

[Ronn]

I’m confused on lower pic with crud.
Looks like top inside of can and what looks like the bottom head of bypass (orange)??

 

[Glenda W.]

I’m confused on lower pic with crud.
Looks like top inside of can and what looks like the bottom head of bypass (orange)??

It’s the bottom of the can where leaf spring sits.

 

[Ronn]

Ok thanks
It’s hard to see leaf spring….that’s what’s confusing. Also, valve appears orange there but black in previous pic?
In that one (black valve) it’s what I would expect, since oil would be there normally .
Are those actual pics of her filter or different pics of two different filters not related?

 

[Fair enough]

The filters tested for efficiency by Ascent were not touched. The ones he cut open and bubble point tested were not tested for efficiency. The bubble point test was a precursor before moving on to the efficiency test, as the ISO test procedures points out.


I wasn't talking about what they do for normal efficiency testing. Talking about when they are trying to figure out why a filter isn't testing as high in efficiency as it should. They can open the filter, look for problems like an internal leak and fix it, then seal the can back up and retest to verify the change made a difference.


The use 20u was the reference point they pick to state the efficiency ... that's the reason 20u is used in the efficiency statements. They could chose any micron size and show the corresponding efficiency. Every oil filter has an efficiency vs particle size curve as was shown in the Ascent test data results.

I know only elements are bubble point tested and efficiency is the whole assembled filter tested.
No one apparently is finding lower efficiency numbers at Fram due to the bypass seal.
They say the same 99% @ 20 micron numbers for all the filters under discussion.

 

[Glenda W.]

Ok thanks
It’s hard to see leaf spring….that’s what’s confusing. Also, valve appears orange there but black in previous pic?
In that one (black valve) it’s what I would expect, since oil would be there normally .
Are those actual pics of her filter or different pics of two different filters not related?

It’s all pics of the same filter. First pic is the only pic of leaf spring with black bypass(no orange bypass in any pics). The two others are the bottom of the can with debris and oil(bypass/leaf spring removed). The gritty debris is going through the ruffles.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Also, valve appears orange there but black in previous pic?
In that one (black valve) it’s what I would expect, since oil would be there normally .

The bypass valve color is different depending on what filter model. Fram used different colored valves to indicate what the bypass valve setting is.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I know only elements are bubble point tested and efficiency is the whole assembled filter tested.
No one apparently is finding lower efficiency numbers at Fram due to the bypass seal.
They say the same 99% @ 20 micron numbers for all the filters under discussion.

Who is ISO 4548-12 testing Champ Lab filters with ruffled leaf springs? Nobody that I've seen.