Patman
Staff member
I was under the impression that the Endurance was just as good if not better than the OG Ultra. If not, what makes the Endurance inferior?
Fram Endurance vs Purolator Boss oil filters
- Thread starter Scott S
- Start date
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
the OG ultra slightly edged out the royal purple(Endurance) in the ascent test.
Larry Leadfoot has never met a red line he doesn’t want to reach, a speed limit he doesn’t want to break. He drives 35 miles to work each way in an area prone to sandstorms and uses a “high performance” air filter known to allow fine particles into his intake. On the weekends he street races.
Molly Milquetoast drives 1.2 miles to work each way to her job at the library, drives 5 mph below the speed limit, goes to the store and church on weekends.
Somehow the interplay between physical filter construction, efficiency, flow, and capacity would seem to play out differently in each case using the same filter.
ISO 4548-12 was devised for specific purposes, none of which were filter selection by users.
Fleet managers know this. They know what vehicles are used, what conditions they operate under, and if the fleet is large enough or the engines big enough do at least sampling oil analyses.
You made an argument for why a controlled and repeatable test is required to compare filters. ISO 4548-12 takes out the variables to get an accurate result.
Exactly. What else are people going to use in order to measure the performance of oil filters under the same controlled conditions. People won't even believed a controlled field study like shown in post 56. That clearly shows that oil filters tested for efficiency in the lab correlated the same with how they performed in the field ... the more efficient filters resulted in cleaner oil and less wear. Seems they believe home made "testing" on YouTube, but can't accept an actual controlled test like ISO 4548-12 that's used Internationally around the world by filter makers and users for the last 25 years. Bet if some people on YT did some homemade experiments showing the Earth was flat that some people would actually believe it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 1,374
Not really interesting in any sense of the word. People say that because the oils meet certain specs for various manufacturers and approvals. Oil filters don’t do the same and you can have 10 different filters from different manufacturers with different specs.
Not even remotely close to the same thing.
What do you think they would use as criteria to chose a filter? You think they are going to conduct an extensive program in their spare time to try and determine what oil filter to use if the filter efficiency was the top priority? Even it they tried to conduct a test program using the fleet, it would have to be pretty controlled, and by the time they went through many different filters it would take a very long time to conduct such a field test. You know what's a simpler starting point? Chose filters that have a high ISO 4548-12 efficiency and go from there.
So what would you base your decision on to choose an oil filter to use on your fleet? Would you use one with horrible efficiency just because you saw a spec sheet from M+H? You never answered me why you aren't using the Boss yourself, and did you get a spec sheet for that Pronto filter showing the ISO efficiency? I highly doubt one is availiable. Does Pronto even show an ISO efficiency anywhere?
I don't bash Purolator, I used Purolators for years until they started tearing media left and right. If you've been paying attention I simple point out the facts as posted. If you can't take the facts and get all belligerent like in this post, then your fanboyism is obviousness being triggered. It's also obvious that you put down Fram any chance you get.
Sure, many OEM filters aren't on the high end of filter efficiency. Ford uses the USCAR-36 spec which say the filter must be 95% @30u or better. Many aftermarket filters like SuperTech seem to have the same type of efficiency. We all know there are many other factors involved in engine maintenance that can effect longevity. But it doesn't mean that a more efficient filter would be better in the long run for reducing wear - it especially matters for those who do longer OCIs these days. The whole OEM filter is "good enough" (which it is for the most part) then degrades into the logic of "your car will rust out or get t-boned and totaled before the engine wears out". I really don't care what other people do with their stuff, they could run no oil filter if they want. I post data and point out differences, and people can believe it or not, or instead just go watch YT and make decisions from that ... I really don't care what people do as long as it doesn't effect me somehow.
But anyone who actually takes some time to dig into some of the controlled studies about wear vs oil cleanliness will always see the conclusion that higher efficiency filters result in cleaner oil which correlates to less wear. There is no other outcome, and you will never find a study that shows dirtier oil results in the same or less wear.
Last edited:
He made an argument that a controlled repeatable test may not correlate well to actual field experience in a wide range of vehicles under a wide range of circumstances.
Yes, the ISO 4548-12 protocol if performed correctly will yield comparable results in different labs with the same filter.
That was the purpose of devising it in the first place. The SAE J726 test using AC Fine dust (devised in the '40sto test air cleaners) was not reliably repeatable.
The two tests uses different sized particles distributed differently.
The protocol was not intended for selecting filters by users. It is a design tool.
Please reference study in post 56.
Last edited:
The only standard oil filter efficiency spec I've seen it the USCAR-36, which says the efficiency has to be 95% @ 30u or better, along with a bunch of other specs. Not many filter makers reference that spec except for the big three OEM filters I believe. Many filter manufacturers reference ISO 4548-12 because it's a well used industry standard. Some don't reference anything, so who knows what your getting unless you can find an independent ISO test that's been done by someone (ie, the old Amsoil ISO 4548 test on some OEM filters). You are right, all the oils on the shelf have an API and ILSAC and maybe a dexos spec on the bottle, and list manufacture's specs they meet. Way more transparency in the oil world as far as the performance specs the oils meet.
Last edited:
The Cummins field study correlates as expected. Run different efficiency oil filters on the same machines used under the same conditions, and the more efficient filters resulted in cleaner oil and less wear. It's really not hard to see why that is the end result.
The bottom line is under the same use conditions, a more efficiency filter is going to result in cleaner oil in the sump and less wear over the OCI, especially if it's a pretty long OCI. It's been pointed out many times that the longer the OCI, the more benifical a higher efficiency filter will be in terms of keeping the oil cleaner over the OCI.
The purpose of the ISO 4548 test standard is to measure the performance of oil filters. As mentioned before, yes it can and is used to help verify a filter design, but once that design is completed it can and is also used by the filter manufacture to measure and determine the final performance of the filter before it's sold or put into use.
So the bottom line when you see 10 different oil filters all having an ISO 4548-12 efficiency, it tells you how those filters ranked in efficiency, all tested the same way. It also means if all 10 of those filters were used in the field under the same use conditions, the highest efficiency filter in the group is going to filter the oil more efficiently than the lower efficient filters in the group. And that's exactly what the Cummins study showed.
Last edited:
You never heard of the company Cummins? You do realize that study was done by Cummins to show that better oil filtration resulted in less engine wear, and the testing was a controlled test in the field.
Last edited:
Until they see the low efficiency in the Purolator/M+H spec sheets.
How else is someone who's main focus in choosing an oil filter's efficiency going to chose a filter? They going to conduct a long and expensive field test like Cummins did?
So now there is zero use in comparing ISO 4548-12 efficiency specs - wouldn't be the first flat earth logic here, lol. But yet people will latch on and believe data from homemade "efficiency" testing on YouTube. Classic BITOG stuff.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
One would assume he's referring to the fact that it's "Cummins" (no "g" in the name).
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2024
- Messages
- 89
I'm thinking there are people on here that work for Fram. I mean they fight like they have a financial interest. It's just an oil filter, boys
Honestly I’m not happy with First Brands or M+H at this point.
LoL, yeah ... I'm sure he knew what I meant.
Last edited:
Some people apparently work for Purolator too.
Keep in mind there are many people here that go by data and facts, not feelings.
A wise man once said in another thread, “People don't believe controlled studies anymore?”How else is someone who's main focus in choosing an oil filter's efficiency going to chose a filter? They going to conduct a long and expensive field test like Cummins did?
So now there is zero use in comparing ISO 4548-12 efficiency specs - wouldn't be the first flat earth logic here, lol. But yet people will latch on and believe data from homemade "efficiency" testing on YouTube. Classic BITOG stuff.
