Check out the graph up top from Ascent Filtration Testing and look at the official testing numbers.
Fram Endurance vs Purolator Boss oil filters
- Thread starter Scott S
- Start date
Parroting happens everyday and twice on wendsday
. But I’m still not convinced either.
To add ... Ascent's ISO 4548-12 test used the same Boss PBL22500 model as BR tested, and as you mentioned Ascent got 99% @ 35u, but it also fell off horribly to 62% @ 20u (see below). It's likely a big "debris slougher" as it loads up. The Boss ranking 3rd overall in efficiency of all filters tested by BR so far is out of wack based on how it did in the official ISO 4548-12 done by Ascent, and how it would rank if comparing official ISO 4548-12 test efficiency.Something I noticed recently about the data sheets that have been floating around lately for Purolator BOSS filters, is that in the fine print on the page margins they all seem to have a date code of 05/2000.
Another thing that indicates that these tests are very old is the fact that they used an oil viscosity of 24 cST, which was the standard test viscosity back in the 1997 version of ISO 4548. The viscosity required for the ISO tests has been 15 cST since the 2000 version of the standard was introduced.
So the 46 micron rating is likely from tests done 24 years ago, and is more in line with Purolator's previous claims of 99% efficiency at 40 micron for the BOSS filters. These days they claim 99% at 25 micron in their marketing, and the Ascent test showed 99% at 34 micron. I think the BOSS filters are probably quite a bit more efficient than 46 micron these days.
Still, the Endurance should be a lot more efficient. Here are some recent microscope pics of filter media, comparing a FRAM Endurance to a WIX XP, which seems to use the same media as the Purolator BOSS:
If you looked at the raw particle counters data at 20u as the PBL22500 loaded up, the efficiency went from ~85% when 15% loaded down to ~53% efficient when the filter was 65% loaded. The 50% loaded point basically equates to the ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating (ie, the average efficiency from 0% to 100% loaded) when the efficiency decrease as the filter loads up is near linear as shown below. The 50% loaded point below equates to ~62% efficiency at 20u just as the Ascent graph below also shows.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2024
- Messages
- 89
The Endurance tested better than the BOSS in BR's test and people seem to be satisfied with that. But when it comes to the BOSS, everyone points to 1 test and a 20 yeard old test done by Purolator
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
beatles 8 days a week - Search Videos
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
we know the endurance filters better as the endurance is the same filter as the royal purple in the graph above.
the data has been presented. it is official data none the less.Parroting happens everyday and twice on wendsday
i’m glad you guys like purolator, the boss is well built and ive liked what ive seen after cutting them apart. but if you cut apart a boss and an endurance right next to eachother, the build quality is very close with the boss IMO winning by a slight margin on build quality. when it comes to me buying one or the other i choose the efficiency.
before i knew better i ran nothing but Mobil 1 filters. i chose what weighed more at the store a long time ago and used a M1-206a from 60k miles to 233k miles in my truck. i swore off fram from all the old wise tails and passed up OG fram ultras that entire time and only learned about them after they were discontinued.
I hadn't bought a Fram oil filter in 20+ years, but all the Fram Endurance talk got to me. I ordered 3 of them through Walmart for my 2021 Equinox 1.5T. I have to say it's got the most weight to it that I I've felt in this size of filter. The baseplate is super thick. The can feels very thick. It's a pretty filter. Are ~$12 oil filters really worth it? That is a first for me. I'm not going to run them for more than 4-5K miles in this turbo GDI engine.
That "one test" was performed on the same million-dollar equipment that all major oil filter manufacturers use. People just don't want to accept the Purolator Boss just isn't that great of a filter compared to the competition.
The Fram Endurance is the same filter as the Royal Purple and Amsoil filters all created by Champion Labs.
The Endurance should test better than the Boss since the ISO 4548-12 efficiency for the FE is 99%+ @ 20u. The Royal Purple (same as the FE) tested at 99% @ 20u in the Ascent test. The BR testing says the Boss is ranked 3rd for "efficiency", which means it would have to be really close to 99% @ 20u also. But The Boss that Ascent tested (same model Boss PBL22500 that BR tested) came in at 99% @ 35u (and 62% @ 20u) - so not even close.
So BR's efficiency ranking puts the Boss above every filter listed that ranked #4 or worse. I don't think so based on official ISO 4548-12 tests. The fact that BR ranks the Boss higher than the Fram Ultra, the Royal Purple and the Bosch (basically a PureOne) for efficiency doesn't rank like their ISO 4548-12 efficiency would rank.
One approach is to actually run the filter in the vehicle you drive with the oil you use in the manner you drive and then have an oil analysis done with a particle count.
Most of the particles wind up in the oil through the air intake, so if you’re using a high quality air filter and keep the intake system in order you’ve already solved most of the problem.
The particle size is inversely proportional to the potential for wear - obviously larger particles are more damaging than smaller ones are.
And that gets into the issue of capacity. If I install a filter that can grab 99% of the particles at 5 microns it is more likely to stop filtering than one that lets all the 5 micron particles pass and grabs 99% of the 15 micron particles.
There are trade-offs between all these parameters and how you drive.
For example a high efficiency low capacity low flow filter is going be in bypass more often if you drive with a lead foot than a less efficient higher flow filter.
Most of the particles wind up in the oil through the air intake, so if you’re using a high quality air filter and keep the intake system in order you’ve already solved most of the problem.
The particle size is inversely proportional to the potential for wear - obviously larger particles are more damaging than smaller ones are.
And that gets into the issue of capacity. If I install a filter that can grab 99% of the particles at 5 microns it is more likely to stop filtering than one that lets all the 5 micron particles pass and grabs 99% of the 15 micron particles.
There are trade-offs between all these parameters and how you drive.
For example a high efficiency low capacity low flow filter is going be in bypass more often if you drive with a lead foot than a less efficient higher flow filter.
Most wear occurs from particles that are less than about 20 microns in size.
Every engine wear study says that the particles that are 20u and smaller do the most wear. If a particle is too large to get between parts clearances, and into the super small oil film between moving parts, then they can't cause wear. Larger particles can get broken into smaller pieces, and then those can cause wear.
Running a high efficiency oil filter will filter out more sub 20u micron particles than a less efficient filter, and over the long run help reduce engine wear from particulate in the oil. Engine wear from particulate is basically proportional to the level of cleanliness of the oil times how many times the oil has been circulated through the oiling system. People that do longer OCIs will benefit by keeping the oil cleaner longer through the OCI. If you did 1000 mile OCIs, a high efficiency filter won't be as beneficial compared to using it for a 10K+ OCI. If the OCI was only 1000 miles, you could probably get by with no oil filter if the engine was already well broken in.
There are too many variables affecting when and how long an oil filter may bypass to make a general claim like that. High efficiency filters can actually flow better (ie, a lower dP vs flow curve) than some less efficient filters. And the bypass setting of the filter should be designed to account for any additional flow resistance the filter may have new and as it loads up.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2022
- Messages
- 579
Analysis of Large Wear Debris is Essential for Comprehensive Oil Analysis
This article intentionally focuses attention on analysis of large wear particles because the resulting analysis information enables informed users time for planned maintenance instead of surprise reactive unplanned repairs.
blog.spectrosci.com
Anatomy of Wear Debris
This article is the fourth part of a series of “anatomy” lessons within Machinery Lubrication. In this issue, the various modes by which wear debris is created will be examined along with the...
www.machinerylubrication.com
Most wear occurs from particles that can get between surfaces that should be separated by a film.
Most of those come from the air intake.
And?Analysis of Large Wear Debris is Essential for Comprehensive Oil Analysis
This article intentionally focuses attention on analysis of large wear particles because the resulting analysis information enables informed users time for planned maintenance instead of surprise reactive unplanned repairs.
Anatomy of Wear Debris
This article is the fourth part of a series of “anatomy” lessons within Machinery Lubrication. In this issue, the various modes by which wear debris is created will be examined along with the...
Most wear occurs from particles that can get between surfaces that should be separated by a film.
Most of those come from the air intake.
That Wear Particle Size chart is something I've posted here before. It shows the limitations of a spectrographic analysis, contrary to your assertion that it is relevant.
Particle count, not elemental analysis.
That drop in efficiency is pretty similar to drop in efficiency for the AC Delco at 20 microns from the same test. It passed 2.7 times more dust during the fourth measurement period vs the first, vs 2.9 times as much for the Purolator BOSS. So I don't think the BOSS is particularly bad in terms of particle shedding.
Unlike the Ascent test, the BR test uses a fixed amount of dust for each filter, I think around 4 grams. A filter with a lower holding capacity like the FRAM Endurance (4.4 g) would have been almost clogged at the end of test, and they're really only measuring the efficiency of the filter near the end of test.
The Purolator BOSS, with a holding capacity of 9.0 g, would have been under 50% loaded at end of test, which would have helped give it a lower particle count. This doesn't completely explain why the particle count was so much lower than expected though. The WIX XP seems to use the same media and had a similar holding capacity, and its particle count was much higher.
