Fram Ultra--Any Real Competition?

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by UncleDave
No one takes purolater seriously - at least here.
Purolator Boss isn't bad. Not as good as a Fram Ultra though. The Boss ranks about where the Wix XP (Napa Platinum) is, a well-built oil filter that doesn't filter as well as the the Ultra, or Royal Purple & Amsoil's filter for that matter.
Originally Posted by RyanY
Has anyone conducted a more recent comparison of filters, like the study described at http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilterstudy.html where RP, Amsoil, and Fram came out on top? I would like to see how the newish STP models, the wix XP, and Puro Boss compare. Otherwise we are left with marketing claims that are sometimes misleading.
Fram Ultra used to be called the XtendedGuard back when that study was done, and the current Ultra actually filters better. Notice the old XtendedGuard version, while similar in construction to the current Ultra, got 97% on 4548-12
The Boss and WixXP(napa platinum cloned) would likely perform in the middle of the pack in the old study's dirty paper tests, as their efficiencies aren't that great. Acceptable, not great though.

A test comparison conducted by a removed no interest party, involving everyday real life conditions would be a most appropriate test. Like a taxi cab service. It would suffice best if it included different test at different stages such as a 5k 10k, 15k and 20k interval. someone was hitting on the idea that some the full synthetic type filters do not preform to their potential until many miles into ise. Otherwise would be good to compare synthetic, blended and cellulose filters at multiple matching intervals to see what is really best for each situation

 

[kschachn]

The reality is that for nearly anything you wish to test there is no such thing as a "real world" test. There are too many variables in everyday vehicle operation and it is impossible to control all of them so that the only variable observed in your results is the one under test (in this case the filter). Operating conditions, driving habits and other uncontrollable variables make the results statistically unreliable.

People on here often talk about real world tests but in the vast majority of cases that would not yield results that would be meaningful. The only way to get repeatable results that can be compared against other results is in a laboratory.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by kschachn
The reality is that for nearly anything you wish to test there is no such thing as a "real world" test. There are too many variables in everyday vehicle operation and it is impossible to control all of them so that the only variable observed in your results is the one under test (in this case the filter). Operating conditions, driving habits and other uncontrollable variables make the results statistically unreliable.

People on here often talk about real world tests but in the vast majority of cases that would not yield results that would be meaningful. The only way to get repeatable results that can be compared against other results is in a laboratory.


Closest thing you're going to get in "real world" use that would show filtering performance is ISO particle count data. Like I showed earlier (page 3 of this thread), comparing a 99% at 40u vs a 99% at 20u filter can be seen in the ISO PC data.

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by kschachn
The reality is that for nearly anything you wish to test there is no such thing as a "real world" test. There are too many variables in everyday vehicle operation and it is impossible to control all of them so that the only variable observed in your results is the one under test (in this case the filter). Operating conditions, driving habits and other uncontrollable variables make the results statistically unreliable.

People on here often talk about real world tests but in the vast majority of cases that would not yield results that would be meaningful. The only way to get repeatable results that can be compared against other results is in a laboratory.


Closest thing you're going to get in "real world" use that would show filtering performance is ISO particle count data. Like I showed earlier (page 3 of this thread), comparing a 99% at 40u vs a 99% at 20u filter can be seen in the ISO PC data.

I mean a test performed by a party with no interest or care about which or what preforms best. And in several units so as to rules out coincidence. Not a couple hand picked examples some person found on the internet.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by kschachn
The reality is that for nearly anything you wish to test there is no such thing as a "real world" test. There are too many variables in everyday vehicle operation and it is impossible to control all of them so that the only variable observed in your results is the one under test (in this case the filter). Operating conditions, driving habits and other uncontrollable variables make the results statistically unreliable.

People on here often talk about real world tests but in the vast majority of cases that would not yield results that would be meaningful. The only way to get repeatable results that can be compared against other results is in a laboratory.


Closest thing you're going to get in "real world" use that would show filtering performance is ISO particle count data. Like I showed earlier (page 3 of this thread), comparing a 99% at 40u vs a 99% at 20u filter can be seen in the ISO PC data.

I mean a test performed by a party with no interest or care about which or what preforms best. And in several units so as to rules out coincidence. Not a couple hand picked examples some person found on the internet.


It's pretty evident that a filter that tests best in the lab will also most likely give the best filtering performance in real world use (ie, better ISO PC) - why wouldn't it? I've posted a lot of info about that with the SAE "Bus Study" test data, which was a real world test.

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by kschachn
The reality is that for nearly anything you wish to test there is no such thing as a "real world" test. There are too many variables in everyday vehicle operation and it is impossible to control all of them so that the only variable observed in your results is the one under test (in this case the filter). Operating conditions, driving habits and other uncontrollable variables make the results statistically unreliable.

People on here often talk about real world tests but in the vast majority of cases that would not yield results that would be meaningful. The only way to get repeatable results that can be compared against other results is in a laboratory.


Closest thing you're going to get in "real world" use that would show filtering performance is ISO particle count data. Like I showed earlier (page 3 of this thread), comparing a 99% at 40u vs a 99% at 20u filter can be seen in the ISO PC data.

I mean a test performed by a party with no interest or care about which or what preforms best. And in several units so as to rules out coincidence. Not a couple hand picked examples some person found on the internet.


It's pretty evident that a filter that tests best in the lab will also most likely give the best filtering performance in real world use (ie, better ISO PC) - why wouldn't it? I've posted a lot of info about that with the SAE "Bus Study" test data, which was a real world test.

Oh really, a bus study? That sounds interesting. What are all the details on that?

 

[UncleDave]

In regards to the purolater "boss" the media, and general availability - are pretty good.

The performance is really unknown but likely "pretty good"- what is 99% dirt removal power? What does that exactly mean?
Nice thick can - good if location is exposed to damage.
It's rated to 15K vs 20 like an Ultra or Amsoil.
Its typically few bucks more than an Ultra.

In cut and pastes I keep seeing cuts, or chunks, or tears on the ADBV on these. Somehow the ADBV is getting damaged.
In my dome end down vehicles this isnt a big deal - in dome up vehicle a damaged ADBV can cause dry(ish) starts.

All in- why bother when you can get an Ultra for less?

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by UncleDave
In regards to the purolater "boss" the media, and general availability - are pretty good.

The performance is really unknown but likely "pretty good"- what is 99% dirt removal power? What does that exactly mean?


Purolator Tech Line told me the Boss was 99% at 40u. Purolator dropped all the "@xx microns" with the efficiency ratings on their website. You have to call them to get that info now.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by UncleDave
In regards to the purolater "boss" the media, and general availability - are pretty good.

The performance is really unknown but likely "pretty good"- what is 99% dirt removal power? What does that exactly mean?


Purolator Tech Line told me the Boss was 99% at 40u. Purolator dropped all the "@xx microns" with the efficiency ratings on their website. You have to call them to get that info now.


In that case performance would be marginal.

Thanks.

UD