I figured you were since it seems you are way out of context with what you're thinking ... so what else would I conclude, lol.
That article has absolutely nothing to do with oil filters that are leaking internally - go read that article. It's talking about test calibration and standards for ISO 4406 particle count tests ... you know, the method that BR uses to rank the efficiency. You think maybe their PC data has some "extrapolation with assumptions". 
The ISO 4548-12 test is the only valid efficiency test. And a filter with a big leak isn't going to be at 99+% @ 20u in an ISO test with a big internal leak going on ... it's impossible.I didn't run with anything. You can't even follow the context of the discussion in that particle count article I linked in post 104. I'll ask again ... would you rather have a filter with a big leak gap like thatThere’s always the “ad hominem argument” to deflect
Bottom line
You took an observation and ran with it …
AKA …extrapolated with ASSUMPTIONS that have not been substantiated. In fact, all test (Brand Ranks) and observations of particle counts in used oil to date have shown this filter to be superior.
All you have are assumptions based on a sliver of light. You’ve got NOTHING.. but arm chair calculations based on this
or one with no big gap to leak past the media? Do you understand that there's no way a filter could be 99% @ 20u if it has a big leak going on inside. If it was 99% @ 20u with no leakage, then a 10% leak would make it 89% efficient and a 15% leak would make it 84% efficient.But you keep trying to convince people that a leaky filter is still the "best" on the market.
"I don't usually choose leaky oil filters, but when I do I choose high efficiency leaky filters".
Last edited:
