- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 729
The “O” on the valve was the item in question.
Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
Ok, now I know what you're saying. That wasn't laser etched, just part of the molding when the part was made.
We are unlikely to get any test results so have to use judgement on the information and knowledge we have.
On your part, maybe you should stock up while these filters are (for some unknown reason) on clearance.
Yes, and so we come full circle to results shown by BR on Endurance. If it was a “leaker” (I say likely) what would your “judgement on the information” be then?
If you believe BR results are accurate. Which I don’t. The FE and Amsoil were non leakers. The XG, TG, and RP were leakers. All of which would be as good or better than the FE in actual iso results. Plus the iso tested rock catcher Boss performed better….which makes zero sense. Which again backs my assumption that the results are inaccurate.
Last edited:
They showed the leak area on the PH ... it was discussed someplace, maybe in this 35 page/686 post thread, lol. They didn't know about ill fitting and leaky leaf springs when they did those videos.
Yep, this thread probably should’ve been locked long ago.
All the filters that are 99% and 99+% down to 20 microns should be equal to or better than the FE, and much better than the Boss. So either the BR results are bogus or the under performing filters were leakers.
This might be a "don't lock the merry-go-round" discussion thread record.
Yes, there are some ranking of efficiency correlations that don't rank like they would from the official ISO 4548-12 efficiency data would rank on the same filters.
But we have WC video showing Amsoil (AKA “Fram Clone”) as a leaker, right?
The particle counts too.This might be a "don't lock the merry-go-round" discussion thread record.
Yes, there are some ranking of efficiency correlations that don't rank like they would from the official ISO 4548-12 efficiency data would rank on the same filters.
The Amsoil and FE were not leakers in the BR results(if you believe them)because they were similar. The XG, TG, and RP should also be similar, but their not. Thus the leakers are exposed. All the 99% and 99+% filters tested should be almost equal in particle counts.
So we either now know the leakers or the particle counts are inaccurate.
The particle count rankings don't rank the same as the official ISO 4548-12 rankings. There has to be reasons for that. The Boss is a good example. The exact filter model that BR tested has an ISO efficiency Spec Sheet from M+H/Purolator that shows it is 99% @ >46u.
Last edited:
Im not making claims as to the accuracy of BR tests.
I was responding to this comment:
“We are unlikely to get any test results so have to use judgement on the information and knowledge we have.”
So, in lieu of formal test results, the BR data falls into the category on “information and knowledge” currently available.
I
Exactly!!
That’s been my whole point. No way the Boss out performs the xg, tg, rp. So either those were leakers or the results are bogus.
Last edited:
Really? That’s your logic? The results should be similar if they BOTH have the same bypass status….whether it be leaker or not. Conversely, there should be disparities if one is and one isn’t.
So the only conclusion we should come to Is that they were BOTH one or the other, but not in different categories on leakage.
Follow me for a second.
The Amsoil and FE were very very close in particle counts(same filter, should be). That has to say something. Both leaking equally? Unlikely. Both performing correctly? More likely.
Now the other 3 filters that are 99% and 99+% are all over the place and worse than the boss which is a rock catcher. So are those leaking? Likely. Are they performing correctly? No per iso testing which puts them better than the boss and equal to or better than the FE.
Last edited:
This is the exact reason for iso testing. The results are repeatable. A properly performing filter will have the same results when tested again. The companies then are able to advertise 99% down to 20 microns for example.
Now a leaker would not be repeatable because it could have different levels of leakage.
Last edited:
Yes, but that doesn’t prove the status of the BR tested Amsoil filter.
The BR tested Amsoil and FE were very very close in particle counts, which they should be because they’re the same exact filter. So they were either leaking equally or not leaking equally…
Last edited:
So now we’re back to the dead horse thats been discussed in dozens of threads on BITOG for over a year. The BR results are not accurate or repeatable so we’re debating garbage data…..leakers or not, no way of knowing.
Mods please lock this thread!!
I put all the available numbers through a spreadsheet and using what we know about Andrew's testing method and BR's testing method, have converted the particle count numbers into efficiency estimates for a more direct comparison. The results are as follows:
| Tester | Filter | Efficiency 21-38 Microns / 20-40 Microns |
| Brand Ranks | Royal Purple | 91.3% |
| Brand Ranks | Fram Ultra (New) | 94.9% |
| Brand Ranks | Fram Endurance | 97.3% |
| Brand Ranks | Amsoil | 99.0% |
| Ascent | Royal Purple | 99.3% |
| Ascent | Fram Ultra (OG) | 99.9% |
| Ascent | ACDelco Gold | 97.7% |
| Ascent | Purolator Boss | 77.0% |
| Ascent | Wix XP | 71.4% |
So I would say that the Amsoil is the only one that was not a leaker in the Brand Ranks testing since it is very close to the Royal Purple that Ascent tested. The other 3 were leaking to some degree even the Fram Endurance since it is performing more like the ACDelco which is a 99% filter at 25 microns.
My judgement is that the leaf spring quality is getting worse and worse, so although the efficiency numbers of the leakers are not as bad as say a Wix XP, they were tested several months ago and if you buy any one of them, you might be using a filter that is worse than 91.3% efficient for all particles 21-38 microns.
Last edited:
Similar threads
