The only thing that I would be interested in at Walmart is the Fram Endurance.
Fram Endurance vs Purolator Boss oil filters
- Thread starter Scott S
- Start date
You have to "equalize" things, meaning look at the effect of only one factor by holding all other factors constant, or the effect of the variable will never be understood. Hold all other effecting parameters constant, and only focus on the one variable for the resulting effect. In this case the only variable should be the filter efficiency while holding all other possible effecting factors as constant as possible. This is the basic way the standardized ISO 4548-12 test works, or any other SAE/ASTM, etc test works. It's designed to test the performance of filters all ran under the same operating conditions.
Same thing I've always said. The longer the OCI, the more important it is to use a higher efficiency oil filter to keep the oil cleaner over that longer OCI. Because wear from particulate in dirty oil is basically proportional to the cleanliness level of the oil times how long the oil has been circulated through the oiling system.
Of course ... I've always said the same in every one of these discussions. Obviously, the closer that two filters are in filtering efficiency, the less difference they will make in use. We just say the same things in different ways, been that way for years.
Still has to be done if you really want to see the effect of only the variable parameter you're interested in. If you want to see the effect of every variable, then you'd have to repeat the same testing and hold each other variable constant and look at the effect of whatever other variable you're interested in. If you had a system where 4 variables had an effect, you'd have to run the test 4 different times, while holding everything constant besides variable 1, then variable 2, 3 and 4 to see how each one effects the outcome. Just basic test logic.
True ... but as an example, the Cummins field study showed there was a clear correlation between oil filtration and engine wear. Every wear study shows that cleaner oil results in less wear. Nobody can prove otherwise. The "level" of difference is certainly there, and people can argue that all day long, but the bottom line is that better oil filtration results in cleaner oil, which results in less wear. That's good enough for me to use filters that are more efficient than not, regardless of my OCI or use conditions. I cover all bases and unknown "ifs" by just using filters that have higher rated efficiency. It's a no brainier and doesn't require your own test program and science project to try and out think test information that's already there.
You either have to assume or test to verify that those things are going on, or just cover it in the simple way ... by using a relatively high efficiency filter. I'd rather spend a few bucks more for a filter than spend lots of money doing my own "test program".
Also, all the wear studies basically say the particles 20u or smaller cause the most engine wear. So using a higher efficiency filter will remove more of those sub 20u particles than a much lower efficiency filter. If someone wants to go a level above that, then they'd have to go with a bypass filtering system.
Anytime you have multiple variables effecting a system, if you can hold all but one variable constant you're going to see the effect of that variable. You have to hold a constant state of the system, except for the variable your looking at. This is how the ISO 4548-12 is meant to work. Of course, doing testing in the field is much more difficult to do, but if done reasonably well it will show the effect of one variable changing, just like shown in the in-field Cummins filter testing.
Of course if a controlled test where the sump was always pretty clean, it would be harder to see the difference of the filter efficiency that if the sump was really dirty. But regardless, it's still a fact that a higher efficiency filter will always keep the oil cleaner than a lower efficiency filter - regardless of the resulting difference level.
If someone wants to spend lots of time and money doing their own "test program" to try and determine what the level of difference is between filters to decide what filter to use, then go for it and please post the test results here for all to see. Looking at particle counts in UOAs posted here show that the ISO particle count data difference between 99% @ 20u vs 99% @ 40u (or 50% @ 20u) filters is pretty significant. How much difference in wear does that result in? ... certainly not enough to "blow-up" the engine, but it could make a difference over the long run. Of course the car might rust out or get T-boned and totaled, so who cares about oil and filters?
Zee you just like to argue…,
A whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, whole, LOT.
I do appreciate what you say on here and think you add a lot of good content.
^^^ LoL ... "arguing" is the vehicle that leads to deeper thinking, and possibly learning something new from all who argue their viewpoints. When did arguing become a thing? When there were two people on Earth.
Argue: 1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory.
Argue: 1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory.
Last edited:
I've politely bowed out of this debate since @dnewton3 posted. I defer to his knowledge and experience. I ask you not to stir the pot. You are misrepresenting my point.
I will just say this, my point can be boiled down to that IMO the importance of a high efficiency filter was being overstated.
I will just say this, my point can be boiled down to that IMO the importance of a high efficiency filter was being overstated.
Last edited:
If you read the rest of the thread, you will see that their data sheet says 46 microns and the Ascent data says 34 microns. I'm not sure if the datasheet is out of date or what. But this has been part of the debate here.
I apologize. I will try to remove my comment.
I will say IMO having a cleaner oil is always better than dirtier, no matter what circumstance and for more than just wear.
Last edited:
The website for BOSS used PBL30001 in a test, but Ascent test used another model it seems. Could efficiency vary based on part number?
How about a Prime Guard filter, such as a Carquest Premium or Microguard Select? They’re somewhere around 99% @25 to 99% @20 microns.
I am no expert, but I would imagine there would be some variance between the same filter model, and even more variance between different filter models. But because the same media is being used in all the models, that variance shouldn't be too out of whack.
Did anyone try to contact Purolator to get more information on efficiency measurements they made?
^^^ LoL ... "arguing" is the vehicle that leads to deeper thinking, and possibly learning something new from all who argue their viewpoints. When did arguing become a thing? When there were two people on Earth.
Argue: 1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory.
I think quite a lot. I definitely argue with people at times.. No doubt. I have not been perfect in my behavior at times in doing so.
However people being argumentative is a whole other matter….
And you do that…. Just slow down and ponder that…
I'd be willing if I had a good contact. I suppose I could try the same form I used to request the data sheet. If someone is aware of a better contact, post it here.
All I can say is ... please don't tell me how to behave here. What's wrong with debating/arguing/discussing technical information here ... really? If you don't like what I post, then please skip over it or put me on ignore. If you have something constructive to add to any technical discussion, or want to "argue" your technical inputs with information that backs up you argued claims, then please do that and not try to be a moderator.
Last edited:
As already pointed out in both of these on-going filter efficiency threads ... it depends on your circumstances. The main point is that the dirtier running your engine is and/or the longer the OCI, the more important that a high efficiency filter is to help keep the oil cleaner over the OCI.
Running an inefficient oil filter for relatively long OCIs isn't going in the right direction. And if someone still believes that "oil filters get more efficient as they load up" and therefore think that running a lower efficiency filter for a long OCI is making it filter better, they don't really fully understand how filters work as they load up and the filtration will decrease as it loads up - seen by info from Purolator/M+H and also in Ascent's ISO 4548-12 testing. Lower efficiency filters shed/slough off captured debris much more than high efficiency filters. It's up to the user to understand and decide if efficiency is "over-blown" or not, then chose a filter they think will make them happy and fuzzy.
The official spec sheet from Purolator/M+H for the same PBL30001 shows it to be 99% @ >46u. Ascent's ISO testing shows it more like around 99% @ 35u. Make your own decision based on the available information is all you can do unless you wan't to pay $1000s for an official ISO test on a current Boss filter or believe tests on YouTube.
Last edited:
Where can you get those specs, and what is the date on them?
Here's the PBL30001. There's a data at the bottom of the page. Contact Purolator through their website and ask for the spec sheets you want.
Exactly ... that's the simplest way to cover all the unknown "ifs" involved, unless you want to conduct your own expensive controlled "test program".
Last edited:
If you believe anyone's data, it should be the official Purolator/M+H spec sheet since they are the designers, testers and manufacture of the filter.
This is the spec sheet for the PBL22500, which is the same Boss filter model that Ascent tested.
Last edited:
Similar threads
