You'd think with all the fear mongering over filtering efficiency there'd be tons of reports on the net about crappy oil filters causing engine damage. As if all the Fram Endurance and Ultra wire-backed users were the only ones on the road with cars that haven't fallen apart. Yet, I don't think I've ever heard a single anecdote that could be traced back to an oil filter with filtering efficiency of 46 microns at 99% (or 34 microns at 99% if you are invested in Ascent's 3 year old test results).
Fram Endurance vs Purolator Boss oil filters
- Thread starter Scott S
- Start date
One way to get that data is...drum roll.."Spec sheets" for individual filters. Otherwise how is the consumer supposed to know that data?
I would choose the highest efficiency filter at the best overall cost point based on interval, use requirements, etc. I will compare any ISO tested filters that I need to use. That doesn't necessarily mean it would be your favorite flavor 99%@20 microns. Business often choose to change oil more frequently & paying money for a Boss doesn't make financial sense. Why would I just look at M+H only? I'll compare any ISO tested data I can get. As of right now Purolator is the one offering those.
The Pronto was on the Volvo when I bought it. The oil/pronto filter was just put on there prior to my purchase & plan on running the oil out a bit further first before changing them. It's a PG made & as we all know now have proven to be excellent quality. I have x2 OG Fram's waiting for duty I picked up for cheap. There's several reasons I don't currently run a Boss filter. First the Purolator One seems to be better ISO tested efficiency & I'm not going crazy long mileages so the One fits my needs well for now. Yep, I referenced the Specification Sheets for my model number, that I've posted here on BITOG, to decide which one I wanted to go with too. Cost is usually something I very much consider as well. Not to say it's expensive I've not looked them up recently.
It's 50/50 sometimes a new Ultra pictures gets posted here in the oil filter thread & I'll beat on it a bit while others that look good I will state such. Like I just did today HERE. Like I've said previously, The Ultra was not broken & needed no changes but now we get wavy pleats & torn media... There's a reason folks complain that you refer to as "Beauty judges". I think they've seen the disaster unfold & are simply speaking their mind about what they're getting for their money now. That's been my only complaint w/ them...it was cheapened and the price remained or went up on some.
Many here have & know full well higher efficiency via an oil filter is one way to potentially reduce wear...You are not uncovering some sort of mystery there or unknowns. You want to choose an efficient filter to accomplish that right? Great, some here want to see testing data first. If Fram showed me a TG9549 ISO tested filters data today, it was better than what I saw from Purolator Spec Sheet, & good price point, I'd want to use the Fram. I think that is reasonable for any bitog to want. You claim Fram tests the avg of three specific filters as if that is superior to Purolator ISO data. You've put too much into Marketing pitches & not seen the real data that really tells the truth. Lately it seems Fram is doing a bit more to share data which is excellent no doubt. I hope they get better & get to the point of Purolator ISO Spec sheets. I'm sure that's what you & others here would like to see too I'd imagine. More data right? We should commend M+H for doing that b/c it may put the heat on other companies like Fram to do the same. A big company like Fram could do that if they wanted to. Perhaps some leeway for the smaller filters companies that may be a bit more cost prohibitive.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 1,374
Cool
Same response I gave in the other thread applies to this post. Nobody has ever claimed that using a less efficient filter "blows-up" engines. It's about reducing engine wear over the long run. Just like some here show data from studies that using a viscosity thicker than a xW-20 oil will help reduce wear over the long run depending on the vehicle use conditions.
Will a less Efficient Filter Keep Oil as Clean as More Efficient One
The bottom line is that no controlled study is going to conclude that cleaner oil from better filtration doesn't reduce wear. Sure we all know that the air filter is important, but does that mean you should ignore what the efficiency of the oil filter is ... not really. And just how many people...
bobistheoilguy.com
Copied right from the fleet handbook.
Just like lubricant performance testing, in many cases, it is wise to get filters tested by an independent laboratory. For instance, if you have three filter brands you are considering, it would be advisable to get an objective, unbiased confirmation of the following questions:
Fortunately, there are excellent standards available for answering questions 1-4. Sadly, testing filters to these standards has not been widely available to the user community. These standards are:
Just like lubricant performance testing, in many cases, it is wise to get filters tested by an independent laboratory. For instance, if you have three filter brands you are considering, it would be advisable to get an objective, unbiased confirmation of the following questions:
- Which filter gets the oil the cleanest (capture efficiency across the life of the filter)?
- Which filter lasts the longest (dirt-holding capacity)?
- Which filter has the lowest flow resistance (pressure-flow performance)?
- Which filter is manufactured to the highest quality and fabrication integrity (free of random defects)?
Fortunately, there are excellent standards available for answering questions 1-4. Sadly, testing filters to these standards has not been widely available to the user community. These standards are:
- ISO 2942: filter fabrication integrity (quality)
- ISO 16889 and ISO 4548/12 (performance): particle capture efficiency, dirt-holding capacity, flow resistance
If you don't have spec sheets like the M+H then you have to use the other available ISO efficiency info - you have nothing else to go by otherwise. You have this mantra lately that if you can't get a specific spec sheet than no other data is good. We know for instance that the ISO efficiency data given by the filter makers pretty much correlates to the Ascent ISO test data. BRs test data for efficiency isn't official and for entertainment only, yet some people will believe it's as accurate as an ISO test - it's not. You latched on to one Fram Harley filter (the chromed model) that is obviously made for Fram based on the base plate design (looks like a Champs Lab) that didn't correlate with Fram efficiency statement, and now think Fram efficiency claims are wrong for everything. I'm not going that far with logic. Would it be great if Fram has a spec sheet for every filter model they make? Of course, it would be great if every filter on Earth had an official ISO 4548-12 spec sheet. But that's never going to happen.
I'm not going to limit myself to only Purolators becaues they have spec sheet for specific models. Besides, the model I'd use don't show that great of efficiency.
I wouldn't use the Boss for any lengthy OCI even if it was low in price. I'd maybe use it on a race engine (for the low flow vs dP and mesh backing) that only ran the oil for a few races. I've said many times if the efficiency was better (like 95% @ 25u or better - that's my cutoff) I'd use them.
Is pretty much everyone disappointed by the Ultra change? ... absolutely. Fram had a well selling high tier filter in the Ultra and did ruin a good thing ... anyone knowing oil filters will agree with that. Instead of changing the Ultra, Fram should have just raised the price a few bucks and not come out this the Endurance which is only sold a Walmart which reduces its market footprint.
The new Ultra is still rated at the same efficiency per Fram, so you either believe them or not unless you want to spent $2000+ for an Ascent ISO test. The whole "beauty queen/C&P centerfold" thing is one of the funniest things seen here on BITOG. Just goes to show that looks matter way more to people than functionality. Guys don't choose the ulgy in beauty contest, lol.
Guess you haven't read many of the filter efficiency debates. There are also many here that think oil cleaniness doesn't matter, even after droves of information and studies in the field show othewise. All you can do is present information, and people can either believe it or not. It's pretty clear that better oil filtration gives cleaner oil and results in less wear. As usual, the longer the OCI the more important it is to keep the oil cleaner.
I believe that Fram's efficiency claims using the 3 different sized filters covers the filter lines for the most part. Remember, and people need to understand it's based on 3 different sized filters, so there could be some outlyers in the mix. Just like the 4 smallest Purolator PureONE spin-on, where it showed as 99% @ 40u instead of the typical PureONE 99.9% @ 20u advertised efficiency. The only place you saw the efficiency of the 4 small PureONEs was on the box ... it was never published on their website or anyplace else. Purolator's website isn't any more transparent tham Fram's, actually less accurate as their efficiency claim for the PureONE and Boss on their website does not match their spec sheets. Big disconnect going on there.
Last edited:
You don't need to convince me. I'm right with you that a more efficient filter will keep engine oil cleaner and reduce wear. That is common sense. But we are talking about a 14 micron difference between the two filters this thread is about. I can't say how much more wear one engine would get over another between these two filters, but I'm highly confident that using the BOSS over the Endurance for the life of a vehicle would not result in any meaningful engine wear difference when those vehicles ended their service. This is the point I am trying to make. You are making it sound like someone who uses a BOSS over an Endurance is causing meaningfully significant wear to their engine. I just don't agree with that. My argument is, both filters (and most oil filters on the market) are more than sufficient to keep oil clean enough to not introduce meaningfully significant wear that could have a deleterious effect on the longevity of the engine. Do you disagree with that statement?
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
i do. most wear is caused by particles under 20um. you want a filter that is the most efficient to 20um so that as the particle size shrinks there is still filtering capability. as in the OG ultra media still being 99%+ at 15um in the ascent test.
I have never claimed any kind of such thing as in your bold statement in your quote. I've never claimed that using a Boss or any other lower efficiency filter is going to "cause meaningfully significant wear to their engine". That's what you've concluded, not based on what I've actually said.
All I have claimed is that better filter efficiency results in cleaner oil, and that can reduce engine wear, especially if longer OCIs are done. Same basic thing I said in the post linked to in my post 84 above. And that's based on the studies that prove that. If someone doesn't think that the lower efficiency of the Boss will cause any increase in meaningful wear then that's for them to decide based on the simple fact that cleaner oil can reduce wear. I've never put any kind of numbers on that, but there is actually a graph from a study that shows a reduction factor in engine life based on the filter efficiency - not ever posted in this thread, but has been posted in other similar oil filter debate threads.
Last edited:
What do you think is likely to happen to the vast majority of vehicles on the road that are using less efficient filters? Will their service life be reduced?
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
more than likely. no way to know unless you or other people defending low efficiency filters to buy identical cars, driven exactly the same, serviced exactly the same etc and see which gives up first. for me, i choose to run my old engines as long as physically possible so again, cleaner oil=less wear.
It's been pointed out many times that reducing wear over the long run helps keep the engine in prime mechanical condition. Better oil filtration for better oil cleanness is part of that formula. Of course, the right motor oil for the job and other maintenance items like an efficient air filter, changing the fuel filter when needed, etc also need to also be performed. IMO, the oil filter is just as important as any other maintenance item to keep an engine in top condition.
Last edited:
To add, about your comment ^^^, I would not run a lower efficiency oil filter for longer OCIs, especially on an already dirty engine. As I showed earlier, the Boss and WIX XP per Ascent's test is are big "debris shoughers" compared to the higher efficiency filters Ascent tested. The higher ISO efficiency filters just don't slough off much already captured debris, and that's one main reason why they come out higher efficiency in the ISO test. Most people don't grasph that fact, so that's another useful part of comparing ISO efficiency between filters.
I get that there are measurable differences and that it can be useful to know this. And I'm glad that info is available to those who care and want only the best for their engines. But I still stand on the fact that the vast majority of vehicle owners don't know or care about this and use whatever filter the dealer or oil change shop puts on there, completely ignorant of it, without any noticeable consequence over the lifetime of their vehicle.
Information and choice is good. But I think the importance of a high efficiency filter is being overstated IMO.
That is up to you. I would be completely comfortable with the filter you got, but a few others on here might have a different opinion.
Thank You!
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,335
You'll be perfectly fine.
