A theme for certain posters and it's meant to derail a technical discussion..001”= 25.4 microns. So it’s a big difference. Small particles cause the most wear.
The need to continually defend Boss/Purolator??? Odd
A theme for certain posters and it's meant to derail a technical discussion..001”= 25.4 microns. So it’s a big difference. Small particles cause the most wear.
The need to continually defend Boss/Purolator??? Odd
Just read the post again, all the words.It can make a difference to moving parts with tight clearances. A lot of discussion of wear vs particle size has been done here with links to study sources. Go do some research on it ... easy to find on the 'net. Particles less than 20u cause the majority of wear because those are the particles that can get between tight moving parts.
Read what you posted again in post 296, then read again what my response was. My point is that 99% @25u vs 99% @ 50u is a big difference in efficiency and therefore could certainly impact oil cleanliness and wear as a result. A filter that is 99% @ 50u is going to let way more particles less than 20 microns though and just recirculate over and over. Particles less than 20u do the most wear ... go research it.Just read the post again, all the words.
I read it all. The point was calling 25 microns good, and 46 rock catcher. Yeah 46 looks big against 25, but it’s in microns. I don’t care if 46 is called rock catcher myself, but it is exaggeration. You missed the point.Read what you posted again in post 296, then read again what my response was. My point is that 99% @25u vs 99% @ 50u is a big difference in efficiency and therefore could certainly impact oil cleanliness and wear as a result. A filter that is 99% @ 50u is going to let way more particles less than 20 microns though and just recirculate over and over. Particles less than 20u do the most wear ... go research it.
Apparently you don't like the term "rock catcher" ... otherwise you have no point and don't really know much about wear and what many studies have shown.I read it all. The point was calling 25 microns good, and 46 rock catcher. Yeah 46 looks big against 25, but it’s in microns. I don’t care if 46 is called rock catcher myself, but it is exaggeration. You missed the point.
He’s clueless at this point. Just repeating nonsense to make some odd point.Apparently you don't like the term "rock catcher" ... otherwise you have no point and don't really know much about wear and what many studies have shown.
An AMSOIL filter costs me $14.80
Bonus plan is I don’t have to drive to WallyMart
Guess it’s $19.05 without the the preferred plan
I would need to buy Amsoil membership and also buy other stuff from them. They do charge for shipping if its under $100, so would need to go Amsoil all the way (for all my lubrication needs) to make it worthwhile. Nothing against them, but this is not the switch I want to make.
Note that they are the same as the RP and FRAM Endurance filters.I’m just gonna stick with amsoil filters. Ended up becoming a dealer and I really like the products.
Gonna do different testing in all 3 of my vehicles.
I’ll stick with the amsoil still. I can get them pretty cheap with becoming a dealer plus I do love their products so it works out. I’ll be doing testing on various products as well with used oil analysis. I did 1 voa as well. I have 4 more about to be sent out I’ve been curious on recent samples as well as seeing samples on 4 of the products.Note that they are the same as the RP and FRAM Endurance filters.
A $35 spectrographic analysis isn't that magical?^^^ A UOA without a particle count won't tell you anything about the filter performance.
What labs include a particle count?^^^ A UOA without a particle count won't tell you anything about the filter performance.
They do, but it's added cost.What labs include a particle count?
Blackstone?
^^^ A UOA without a particle count won't tell you anything about the
I’m aware. I appreciate you looking out tho.They do, but it's added cost.
They do, but it's added cost.