I don’t think this bypass GAP is “hit or miss” as it would be with a torn media.
The accuracy of their rankings has not been verified through official test standards like ISO 4548-12 for comparison. In fact, some of their ranking order contradicts the results of official ISO 4548-12 information from the filter manufactures. They should also include careful visual inspection for leak gaps after they test, as filters that rank noticeably different from what their ISO spec says may be because of a leak in the specific filter they tested. Like the PH they tested ... it could have had a leak gap on the leaf spring due to the end of the center tube interference like seen here a few times.
The ISO 4548-12 efficiency difference between a 95% @ 20u (the PH) and a 99% @ 20u (the Endurance) filter would not be the main reason for that bad of a PC difference. The leak path in the Endurance discussed in this thread was calculated to be around 16% of the flow going into the filter, which IMO isn't really "insignificant". Like said a dozen or more times, you'd have to test the effect of a leak path in a controlled manner to know the actual impact on the efficiency. Of course, the larger the leak the more impact it will have.
“The ISO 4548-12 efficiency difference between a 95% @ 20u (the PH) and a 99% @ 20u (the Endurance) filter would not be the main reason for that bad of a PC difference.”
Yes it would have been great if they opened and inspected all the tested filters.
“The ISO 4548-12 efficiency difference between a 95% @ 20u (the PH) and a 99% @ 20u (the Endurance) filter would not be the main reason for that bad of a PC difference.”
Ok, let me ask you this then. Correct me if I’m off base. The lower rated PH filter would continue to allow a greater passage in that particle range to ACCUMULATE in the oil with subsequent passes and so the effect becomes ADDITIVE and COMPOUNDS over time. That 5% doesn’t seem like much, but it accumulates quickly given 5 passes of total volume per minute in an average motor?
Now that’s revealing. Looking at WIX EP vs Fram HP results are about 2X ratio for 95% vs 99%. The chart 95 vs 98.7 would even be greater at almost 4X. In any event, it appears then that the poor HP can be attributed to the filter rating alone.
Yes, Ascent tested the whole filter, just as it would be mounted on an engine in real use. If you haven't read the Ascent ISO efficiency testing thread, you should.
The difference in particals/ml between 95% and 99% efficiency is around 4 times more particles with 95% filtering efficency.There is a big # of particle difference between a 95% efficient filter and a 98.7% efficient filter:
If you went off the table in post 488, there should be around 4 times more particles/ml if you used a 95% @ 20u vs 99% @ 20u filter (non-leakers) for the same exact OCI under the same exact driving conditions (ie, same exact level of debris generation into the oil over the OCI).Ok, let me ask you this then. Correct me if I’m off base. The lower rated PH filter would continue to allow a greater passage in that particle range to ACCUMULATE in the oil with subsequent passes and so the effect becomes ADDITIVE and COMPOUNDS over time. That 5% doesn’t seem like much, but it accumulates quickly given 5 passes of total volume per minute in an average motor?
“If you went off the table in post 488, there should be around 4 times more particles/ml if you used a 95% @ 20u vs 99% @ 20u filter (non-leakers)”
It all depends on the size of the leak, the contamination level of the oil and the efficiency of the filter media. Many factors involved. A constantly leaking filter is decreasing its efficiency, and the larger the leak the more impact it has on the effective efficiency.
This broken ecord has been smashed over the dead horse's head.
No one in their right mind would rally around any defect. So I’m all in for any improvements.It all depends on the size of the leak, the contamination level of the oil and the efficiency of the filter media. Many factors involved. A constantly leaking filter is decreasing its efficiency, and the larger the leak the more impact it has on the effective efficiency.
But the bottom line is filters should not have leak paths like the ones seen. Just like filters should not have torn media, which is another type of constant leak path.
This broken ecord has been smashed over the dead horse's head.
Nobody really knows just how "superior" any leaky filters is. Maybe it's the most "superior" leaky filter in the market.
Yes, A leak decreases it’s potential efficiency, but it’s still superior until proven otherwise , so…..
Does it warrant taking action and replacing it with another?
The decision in this case is a no brainer for me. Still the best filter on the market.
Nobody would know without controlled testing. 
Burden’s on you to refute and prove current current claims by Fram (and BR results) are invalid. Finding a “potential leak” doesn’t refute those results does it??Nobody really knows just how "superior" any leaky filters is. Maybe it's the most "superior" leaky filter in the market.
How many times have I said I make no such claim one way or the other - so I don't have any claim to.prove. The efficiency tested filters could have been non-leakers or leakers - there's no proof one way or the other. My only claim is that nobody has any real test data that correlates a leaky filter's impact on the efficiency compared to the same filter not leaking. So no proof one way or the other has been shown.
