Fascinating.
Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
It would be interesting to see how the Amsoil, Endurance, and Royal Purple particle counts compare to each other on this YouTube test?
Or say a set of 15-20 each with zero gap, small gap, medium gap etc otherwise exactly same built and see what happens
Is it possible that the Royal Purple in the Ascent test was basically what the Endurance is (both Champ Lab built), and if so maybe its efficiency started rolling off faster than the OG Ultra (with the leaf spring sealing ring design) because the Royal Purple had a metal-to-metal leaf spring seal. Would have been interesting to see the curves go down to 10 microns. Just a wild theory, but could explain the difference there.
Do you have a full copy of ISO 4548-2? I can only find a partial copy.
Wonder if they also seal the leaf spring to end cap metal-to-metal seal. Seems they would to just test the bypass seal itself. Obviously, if there were some big gaps at the leaf spring seal, the test would show it, but you couldn't distinguish that leak from the actual bypass valve leakage.
Yes, this could be an interesting "garage test". Do two identical brand/model filters ... one with the leaf spring sealed and one with leak gaps (both with sealed off media). Could even do a 3rd filter with the bypass and media sealed, but with leaf spring gaps not sealed. Run different feed PSI head levels and see how the flow rate (collected volume over time) changes with dP.
Last edited:
I was able to get pics of the bypass valves and particle counts from the YouTube tests. The order is Amsoil-Endurance-Royal Purple. The valves vary in finish. None as bad as mine. Royal Purple looks the worst and tests the worst. Uncontrolled test so take it for what it’s worth.
Added my bypass on bottom.
Added my bypass on bottom.
Last edited:
I searched the 'net pretty extensively - even made an account on academia.edu so I could search for research papers. I couldn't find any technical papers on rectangular orifice coefficient as a function of aspect ratio. I did find the same study I referenced earlier with more in depth information that the rectangular orifice they used was 2:1 aspect ratio (length was twice the height). The coefficient was basically an average of 0.50.
Here's an interesting blurb I found in one study on academia.edu. Humm ...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2022
- Messages
- 832
All the live long day...
Yours looks like it could be a real leaker compared to the others shown.
No doubt
No, but I have a full copy of ISO 3968, which covers flow-dP and bypass valve testing for hydraulic filters. It seems to be very similar to ISO 4548. PM me an email address and I'll send it to you.
It could be that FRAM would seal the leaf spring to the end cap for this test, since the purpose of the test is to test the leakage of the valve itself. In any case, they'd be able to inspect the leaf spring before the test, and they probably wouldn't test one with an obvious manufacturing defect.
If you don’t think the the Endurance in the above test wasn’t a bypass leaker, I’ve got a nice bridge for sale ..CHEAP!!!
No proof ... only speculation. Test filters were not inspected for leak gaps. Also, the Boss ranking 3rd (and above the Ultra) in efficiency test is very suspect given the official ISO 4548-12 spec sheet right from Purolator/M+H.If you don’t think the the Endurance in the above test wasn’t a bypass leaker, I’ve got a nice bridge for sale ..CHEAP!!!
Show me an Endurance cut open that passes flashlight bypass test.
Give me $1000 and I'll go buy a bunch to find out. 
No matter how many times you say you think the BR Endurance was a leaker and still ranked high doesn't mean it was because there's no proof. It's just what you want to believe happened.
No matter how many times you say you think the BR Endurance was a leaker and still ranked high doesn't mean it was because there's no proof. It's just what you want to believe happened.
You've got this ARSE BACKWARD>>>>Give me $1000 and I'll go buy a bunch to find out.
No matter how many times you say you think the BR Endurance was a leaker and still ranked high doesn't mean it was because there's no proof. It's just what you want to believe happened.
The burden for the flashlight and leaker crowd is to PROVE the Endurance doesn’t filter as claimed .
You can flashlight test until the cows come home.
Gas Lighting is alive and well.
Last edited:
I'M not required to show whether BR test filters were leakers.... YOU need to show current Endurance filters now available don't perform as those tested to date.^^^ LoL ... no proof that BR test filters were leakers or not. No proof ... no conclusion.
Ball's in your court, not mine. LOL
No one has shown Endurance claims on Filtration aren't valid....Same goes for BR tests.
Burden's on YOU......not me.
Nope ... you're the one always claiming BRs test results are "valid" and you assume they were leakers like the ones talked about here. There is zero proof of your assumption ... it's just what you want it to be, without any proof of such. So you made the claim, you show the proof. I've said there is no proof one way or other, so I have nothing to prove. If I kept saying the BR Endurance wasn't a leaker, then I'd have to prove it ... but nobody can prove it unless BR still has that same exact filter laying around.
BR hasn't proven that their ranking of any of the filters are valid based on an actual ISO 4548-12 efficiency test (like Ascent) of the same filters to see if the official ISO test results ranks them in the same order as BR's ranking.
Similar threads
