Yeah, I'm guessing it's just an old template, and the filters were tested more recently with the proper ~15 cST oil. The pressure drops listed on the BOSS test sheets are unrealistically low for 24 cST oil and 25 L/min flow rate, comparing them to the Ascent and BR test results.
Fram Endurance vs Purolator Boss oil filters
- Thread starter Scott S
- Start date
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.
The AC Delco retained most of it's efficiency as it loaded up. Look at the efficiency numbers as the loading increases. At 20 microns, it went from 98.39% efficient when barely loaded to 94.62% efficient when fully loaded, and the overall ISO efficiency came out to 96.49% @ 20u.
The Boss is way worse than this in terms of losing efficiency as it loads up, as shown in post 23 above. If you plot the data like I did in post 23, there is a huge difference between the AC Delco and Boss in efficiency loss as the filter loads up. The Boss certainly is a big debris slougher, and that's why its overall ISO efficiency is so bad. Even when it's barely loaded, the Ascent raw particle count data showed it was only ~85% @ 20u.
AC Delco raw particle count data, and associated % efficiency as it loads up.
Is the FE holding 4.4 g capacity coming from BR's test? If so, it's another result of their testing that doesn't seem to correlate to Ascent's official ISO testing data and how the filters he tested ranked in terms of holding capacity. The FE is rated for 25K miles, so I'd think its holding capacity would rand pretty high compared to others filters with much lower mileage use recommendations.
The Royal Purple in the Ascent test showed 10.1 g of holding capacity, and we pretty much know the FE and the Royal Purple have the same guts. So where ever the FE holding capacity of only 4.4 g came from, I don't believe it based on Ascents official ISO 4548-12 test data.
Ascent got 12.5 g of holding capacity for the Boss ... the same Boss filter model as what BR tested (PBL22500). And Ascent's raw test data showed that the Boss was 50% loaded after ~6.6 grams was captured.
The bottom line is the Boss was a poor performer in the official ISO 4548-12 test, and the raw data shows that it clearly loses a lot of efficiency as it loads up. If someone thought they could use the Boss for a very long OCI and expect that it's "getting more efficient" as it loads up (a long time misconception about oil filters in general), then they are not understanding how loading can really hurt an oil filter's efficiency as it loads up. Obviously, oil filters that rate very high efficiency in the ISO test can not by definition lose much efficiency as they load up - ie, they capture an hold debris very well and don't slough off debris as they load up and the dP increases across the media.
Last edited:
It seems like a big drop in terms of efficiency percentage, but in terms of the percentage of particulate getting through the filter, they are very similar. The beta ratio of both filters drops by around a factor of 3. If we had data for a smaller particle size where the AC Delco had an initial efficiency of around 83%, it may have also ended up near 55% if the beta ratio dropped by a factor of 3.
The holding capacity of the RP was a lot higher in the Ascent test, but so were all the other filters, probably due to differences in the test method, and because the Ascent test used larger filters.
The relative performance of the WIX/BOSS vs the RP/Endurance is similar in each test. The WIX had a higher capacity than the BOSS in the Ascent test, and was identical the BR test, but the filter in the Ascent test had a leaky bypass valve.
Beta ratio is not a linear function with the associated efficiency % to the beta ratio - plot beta ratio vs % efficiency to see the relationship. Even though both define filter efficiency performance, the % efficiency is the better and more clear way to compare filtering performance.
Looking at the efficiency % drop as loading and dP increased, the Boss lost a lot of efficiency compared to the AC Delco. The Ultra and Royal Purple hardly lost any efficiency with debris loading and increased dP to end of test run - that's why they had a very high overall ISO efficiency. They had very little debris sloughing, and the media is good at capturing particles the first time through the filter.
The number of particles upstream vs down stream in the flow through the filter is what ultimately defines the filtering efficiency of a filter. The upstream vs down stream ratio of particles getting past the Boss, either from the media not able to capture the debris the first time it hits the media, or some already captured debris sloughing off, is huge on the Boss vs the AC Delco, Royal Purple and Ultra - that's why BR ranking the Boss as the 3rd best in efficiency isn't believable. Yet people that don't see this level of test data watch a YT video and take it as accurate info, which it really can't be when it doesn't correlate well with ranking filters with an official ISO efficiency test like Ascents. The only BR testing that IMO has some good validity is the hot oil flow vs dP testing. The cold oil flow vs dP testing is only good for the first 1 or 2 GPM (ie, a cold engine at idle), but flow any higher just opens the bypass valve in a cold oil scenario like that.
Could be, but Ascent used the same Boss model as BR, that being the Boss PBL22500.
The WIX XP with the leaky bypass valve was found in the bubble test, and nobody can say for certain that the other WIX XP used in the efficiency and holding capacity testing also had a leaky bypass valve. Andrew fiddled around with the bypass valve and retested in the bubble point test showed it sealed better after being actuated a few times. Also, it was interesting how much the glued seam on the AC Delco leaked in the bubble point test.
Last edited:
Plots of filter Efficiency % vs the associated Beta Ratio. On linear scales it's useless. Even on linear vs Log10 scales you can see how none linear the association is. Comparing the filter efficiency % at a specific micron size is the best way to compare and comprehend. Anytime a filter efficiency is stated as a beta ratio, people convert that to efficiency % to see it more clearly.
Last edited:
As far as I am aware the ISO 4548-12 test procedure was devised to correct deficiencies in previous SAE protocols and to allow better comparison of certain parameters between filters primarily for design purposes.
I have never seen an actual correlation done between that test and field performance.
There have been a few engine wear studies that tested filters in the lab to determine their efficiency, then ran all those same filter models on vehicles in the field. The more efficient filters resulted in cleaner oil verified by UOA particle counts, and also showed less wear metals in the UOAs. Every wear study shows that cleaner oil results in less wear in every machine that uses oil for lubrication.
I see no reason why a filter that shows better efficiency in the ISO 4548-12 test wouldn't also show better filtering performance on an engine used on the roads compared to a lower efficiency ISO tested filter. What's going to make them rank differently in real use under similar conditions than how they ranked in the ISO test? A filter that ranked low in efficiency in the ISO test isn't going to magically become the best performing filter in the field. The ISO test may be used to improve a filter's design during the design phase, but it's also used to qualify the final design. ISO 4548 has been around for 25 years, and used internationally by the filtering manufactures, so it has some good validity to it.
Last edited:
LOL then you'd better do most of your driving on Sundays.
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
i use a filter that beats both of them. OG wire backed ultras on anything i own.
Two thoughts. The Ascent tests were done at least 3 years ago. It's possible filter designs have changed and a retest with filters bought today would yield different results.
Second thought, the YouTube ranks you posted, were done consistently across all filters. So whatever metrics they used for their tests did show the BOSS being close to the Endurance for those metrics. Here they are (values are particle counts at particular micron ranges):
| Fram Endurance | Purolator BOSS |
Filtering | | |
21-38 microns | 17.9 | 31.6 |
38-70 microns | 2 | 0.3 |
>70 microns | 0.3 | 0 |
Edit: So under the same conditions, the Endurance came in 2nd place (just behind the Amsoil) in particle counts, while the BOSS came in 3rd place. Different test than %efficiency at 20 microns. But the fact that the BOSS had the 3rd least total particles out of 20 filters tested under the same conditions, and that it was not that far behind the Endurance gives me enough confidence that today's BOSS is very good at filtering, almost as good as today's Endurance.
Last edited:
“There have been a few engine wear studies that tested filters in the lab to determine their efficiency, then ran all those same filter models on vehicles in the field.”
One would be sufficient for discussion. That performance in the field is highly correlated to efficiency in the ISO test is a hypothesis. Without confirmation by test it is only a hypothesis.
I do know that in large vehicle fleets where wear = dollars, they don’t select oil filters by ranking them by ISO 4548-12 test results. There are too many variables.
That is not what the test was designed for.
Enjoy your day.
A fleet manager would be lacking judgment IMO if he didn't choose oil filters based on their ISO 4548-12 ratings. How's he going to determine which ones are better filters otherwise. He'd have to run his own "test program" (which would probably be flawed due to not being able to control the variables in real use) to try and determine which filters are better. Who's going to do that when the ISO test compared filtering efficiency under the same constant test conditions to make it an apples-to-apples comparison as best as possible.
The ISO 4545-12 efficiency test certainly is used to compare and rank the filtering efficiency of oil filters using a well adopted (Internationally used) test procedure to compare filtering performance under the same test conditions. If you don't do it that way, you'll never get a good performance comparison. Some parts of ISO 4548 (there are now 13 parts) have been around since the early 1980s. ISO 4548-12 (part 12) has been around since around 1999. They have added sections over the years as the ISO standard is tweaked as time goes on. As mentioned earlier, sure ISO 4548 can and should be used to validate/qualify a filter design - how else are you going to determine the performance? But once a filter's design if finalized, then the final ISO testing defines the product's end configuration and performance. ISO 4518 is not just used to "design" oil filters ... it's more than that.
Last edited:
It's not ... you can do some research (anyone can use Google) and go find information of testing showing that better oil filtration results in cleaner oil and less wear. It's not a huge leap in logic to conclude that.
You’re correct.
This thread has turned into a series of goofy protests making nonsensical “arguments”. As is typical.
Here's a piece out of a Cummings engine wear study. You can go find the full PDF with Google, I'm sure it's still out there somewhere.
Conclusion is as stated ... better oil filtration results in cleaner oil which results in less engine wear. It's very simple to understand the logic. I'm still waiting for the study that shows that better filtration doesn't keep oil cleaner, or doesn't decrease wear. That will be the next BITOG claim: "Less efficient oil filters reduce wear".
Conclusion is as stated ... better oil filtration results in cleaner oil which results in less engine wear. It's very simple to understand the logic. I'm still waiting for the study that shows that better filtration doesn't keep oil cleaner, or doesn't decrease wear. That will be the next BITOG claim: "Less efficient oil filters reduce wear".
Last edited:
And note this in the article. If they would have use a UOA analysis that saw a much larger range of wear particles, the wear difference would most likely have been even greater. Only measuring wear metals that are 5u and smaller is like looking at the world through a drinking straw and trying to get the whole picture.
ISO 4548 consists of the following parts, under the general title Methods of test for full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines. It's used to determine the operational performance. How else are you going to do it ... test all this in your garage?
— Part 1: Differential pressure/flow characteristics
— Part 2: Element by-pass valve characteristics
— Part 3: Resistance to high differential pressure and to elevated temperature
— Part 4: Initial particle retention efficiency, life and cumulative efficiency (gravimetric method)
— Part 5: Cold start simulation and hydraulic pulse durability test
— Part 6: Static burst pressure test
— Part 7: Vibration fatigue test
— Part 8: Inlet anti-drain valve test - withdrawn, covered in Part 9
— Part 9: Inlet and outlet anti-drain valve tests
— Part 10: Life and cumulative efficiency in the presence of water in oil
— Part 11: Self-cleaning filters
— Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity
— Part 13: Static burst pressure test for composite filter housings
— Part 1: Differential pressure/flow characteristics
— Part 2: Element by-pass valve characteristics
— Part 3: Resistance to high differential pressure and to elevated temperature
— Part 4: Initial particle retention efficiency, life and cumulative efficiency (gravimetric method)
— Part 5: Cold start simulation and hydraulic pulse durability test
— Part 6: Static burst pressure test
— Part 7: Vibration fatigue test
— Part 8: Inlet anti-drain valve test - withdrawn, covered in Part 9
— Part 9: Inlet and outlet anti-drain valve tests
— Part 10: Life and cumulative efficiency in the presence of water in oil
— Part 11: Self-cleaning filters
— Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity
— Part 13: Static burst pressure test for composite filter housings
I find it interesting that whenever someone asks for an oil recommendation, the standard response is "Pick an oil that is rated for your application and don't worry too much about the brand."
Pretty much all the oil filters on the market go through their own testing before put on the market. Filter makers don't want their product being blamed for engine damage. A good reputation leads to more sales. I'd trust any oil filter on the shelf to protect my engine sufficiently. Yes, some will do a better job, but that would be beyond sufficient. Nothing wrong with that, but also nothing wrong with sufficient if one wants to go that route.
Pretty much all the oil filters on the market go through their own testing before put on the market. Filter makers don't want their product being blamed for engine damage. A good reputation leads to more sales. I'd trust any oil filter on the shelf to protect my engine sufficiently. Yes, some will do a better job, but that would be beyond sufficient. Nothing wrong with that, but also nothing wrong with sufficient if one wants to go that route.
Have you considered instead of putting down fleet managers perhaps considered there is a lack of data available & they have to choose on known criteria instead? You still haven't provided ISO testing data for any Fram filter yet. Until then many will choose Purolator as the logical choice because they ARE USING GOOD JUDGEMENT BASED ON ISO 4548-12 STANDARDS!
Think about what you're saying... You bash Purolator users on here but they are using them exactly how you just laid out. Sounds like I know who's really lacking judgement...
It's funny how so much goes into some efficiency hysteria here w/no ISO filter testing data to back it up. Ford recently upgraded/updated to use the Boss media for their prized 6.7L Power Stroke Diesel engine. They've done a lot to protect their own reputation on that engine after the 6.0/6.4L reputation. Real world heavy duty hauling stuff. Toyota being one of the lowest efficiency filters on the BR test over time along with many using basic filters one realizes some want you to chase your tail in 99%@20 efficiency claims that can't be backed up with ISO testing data w/Fram. Purolator meets OEM requirements & does not void your warranty. Never heard of Cummings.
