Yeah, the BITOG standard seems to be "If it doesn't blow-up, it must be good", or "The body will rust out before the engine fails". Might as well just put an empty can on the filter mount and same money not buying oil filters.
Fram ultra old vs new efficiency?
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
Do you know where I can find those high-flow empty cans? Would love to give one a shotYeah, the BITOG standard seems to be "If it doesn't blow-up, it must be good", or "The body will rust out before the engine fails". Might as well just put an empty can on the filter mount and same money not buying oil filters.
Maybe I should get a supplier to make some up and offer them for sale ... could brand them as "BITOG Signature Series" filters.
He he id order a box for sureMaybe I should get a supplier to make some up and offer them for sale ... could brand them as "BITOG Signature Series" filters.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Welcome to Bitog, I see you are (very) new & unfamiliar with the nature of this site, but you're sure posting a lot today. I suspect you'll troll a few discussions, get bored & leave......Really? We’re gonna worry about that extra fraction of a percent?
Hello fellow oil buddy! Thanks for the kind welcome. I like it here so I will do my best to stick around.
Just like all the times before, right? Yet here you are, a new member again.
Who hurt you brother? Feel free to DM me if you’d ever like to chat
Nah I’ll just wait for the inevitable.
Not sure what that means but hope you have a good rest of the day bro!
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Well, DUI/DWI attorneys will argue that point with you, the difference between 0.08% & 0.07% is one hundredth of one percent.Really? We’re gonna worry about that extra fraction of a percent?
At BITOG, 0.01% matters!! Lol
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
All 3 top end Fram filters, Endurance, Titanium, & Ultra, are rated at 99+% efficiency @ 20u (per the website).
Endurance is rated for 25K, Titanium & Ultra are rated for 20K. Would it follow that the Endurance would start at a higher rate than the other two, simply because it has a longer life rating, & would be expected to get lower than the 20K counterparts? I realize they are all rated at 99+, which is incredible, but that would also imply good ratings for smaller particles, which are likely to drop off faster than 20u rating.
All 3 have to average at least 99.0001% to qualify, so if one is expected to go 5K longer it would probably have to start higher. For example, 99.80 start & 98.25 end would average to 99.025. If the extra 5K drags the end number down to 98.10, the starting point would have to be 99.91%.
Endurance says:
"Metal Screen Back construction for enhanced durability. Fully synthetic blend media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*"
Titanium says:
"Metal Screen Back Synthetic Blend Media™ increases dirt-trapping and dirt-holding capacity for higher levels of engine protection and longer filter life, exceeding today’s synthetic oil change intervals. Stronger, more durable synthetic blend media provides an outstanding 99%+ dirt-trapping efficiency.*"
Ultra says:
"Dual layered synthetic blend media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*"
So it comes down to "filtration efficiency" vs. "dirt-trapping efficiency"?
Last edited:
I think you are trying to connect the holding capacity (ie, the "up to X miles" use rating) to the efficiency. If the Endurance has more holding capacity (ie, rated at 25K miles instead of 20K miles), then it's most likely loaded more during the ISO 4548-12 test to achieve the desired dP that defines the end of the test. Ascent also did that in his testing, because some filters had higher holding capacity than others.
So, that means if the ISO efficiency is based on the level of loading, and the filter can take more loading over the test time, then the ISO efficiency represents the efficiency from new to near fully loaded to holding capacity. That's the only way that the efficiency and holding capacity are related.
It does not mean that based on the holding capacity, that one starts off better or worse, or ends better or worse efficiency. If they are all rated with an ISO 4548-12 efficiency of 99% @>20u, then that's what their average efficiency is from new to near fully loaded. The "up to X miles" use rating is simply assigned by the filter designer based on the filter's holding capacity. A filter could be 99% @ 20u and have a super low holding capacity, so the "up to X miles" use rating would therefore be very low compared to a filter with 99% @ 20u efficiency with a high holding capacity.
Like I tried to explain in a previous post, without seeing the actual efficiency vs time and particle size raw data (like Ascent showed some of that in the long thread), you couldn't tell exactly how the efficiency starts and ends. But again, the ISO 4548-12 is the average efficiency from new to near fully load - example explained in post #15. The bottom line is that's all that really matters ... the overall average efficiency from new to loaded, and the total holding capacity.
As said before, for a filter to have an average ISO efficiency of 99% @>20u from new to loaded is about as good as it gets. It captures and hold debris very well. If it was a big "debris slougher", it would not maintain an average new to loaded efficiency that high.
Those two terms IMO pretty much mean the same thing - they relate to the filtering efficiency. Purolator likes to use the term "Dirt Removal Power" ... it's even trademarked (see below). I didn't know oil filters had a power source.
Oil filters:
1) Filter/remove debris.
2) Hold that trapped debris (except for what they might slough off as loading and the dP increase).
3) Produce dP across the media based on the oil viscosity, flow rate and debris loading.
4) Bypass some oil around the media if the dP exceeds the bypass valve setting due to factors in #3 above.
That's pretty much all they really do.
Last edited:
If Titanium "says" that, then Titanium is full of it-they are mostly sprayed on synthetic over blend like the new Ultra. There are a few renegade wire-backed Titaniums around, but you'll have to look for them. The original wire backed Ultra outperformed all the others tested in the Ascent testing, and our dear, departed Jay Buckley/@Motorking provided micron ratings in the single digits. For those of us that will drive it until the body rusts off... Or until one of the insane locals runs into us & totals it...
I would add:
5) Don't disintegrate & launch media throughout the engine.
6) Don't get holes in media or center tube to allow unfiltered oil through.
7) Don't get holes in can or crimp & launch oil all over the place...
Amazing how many filters fail at these crucial issues!
The old mobil 1 filters were blended media not wire backed and they were great and didn't tear. I ran them for 20k.
I use acdelcos and super tech for 10k and never a tear. Honestly I never had a torn Purolator either though. Even during the "tearolator" years so??
They are both still rated upto 20K miles by Fram, believe it or not. The new construction without the wire backed media uses more media area, so that would help the holding capacity.
The items I listed were normal expected filter functions. But yeah, the possible failures you listed are things you don't want filters to do, and something they shouldn't do if designed and manufactured correctly.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Yes, I am connecting the holding capacity to the efficiency rating. You have posted the "hockey stick" graph many times, so it can be assumed that every filter follows this pattern. The "rating" is taking an average of the high & low points, just before the efficiency shoots up to 100% due to clogging. The "holding capacity" can be reached in x hours, or 2x hours or 3x hours, depending on estimated mileage rating. I agree we don't know what the curve is, & we don't have data points for each time increment. Granted it could be a sharp drop, or the line could be flat until it reaches the end of the "stick", but past results indicate that filter media efficiency drops in similar fashion in every one that has been tested. We can safely assume that the efficiency will drop linearly until the final spike. It only goes to reason that a longer interval will have a longer drop. Maybe not a drastic drop, or a fairly flat drop, but a drop nonetheless.
So my point is a filter, any filter, will have a higher efficiency than it's rating for the first part of it's life. The question is would a 25K filter perform at a higher efficiency through, say, the first 3,000 miles of it's life than a 10K filter through the same 3,000 miles, with both filters having the same ISO rating?
Apparently all filters are "debris sloughers" as evidenced by the hockey stick graph patterns. Once again it's reasonable to think the filter will have exceptional efficiency above its ISO rating during the first part of it's life.
What I was eluding to is that a filter's efficiency and holding capacity don't always correlate to each other the same way. A filter with high holding capacity doesn't automatically mean it has a direct corresponding its efficiency, either high or low efficiency. The Ultra is a good example, as seen in Ascent's ISO testing. It had the highest efficiency and also had a pretty high holding capacity (2nd highest in the group of filters tested). The WIX XP had the highest holding capacity, but the worse efficiency. So the example of the Ultra shows that you can have high efficiency and high holding capacity, or you could also have low efficiency and high holding capacity like the XP. And another efficiency/holding capacity combo example is the Royal Purple in Ascents' testing ... that shows high efficiency and pretty low holding capacity. Here's the link to the Ascent testing graphs.
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.
bobistheoilguy.com
The drop in efficiency does look pretty linear as seen is the Ascent test data. Here's a link to where the loss in efficiency as the loading and filter dP increased is discussed in that thread. Start reading from this post forward. You've probably read this thread a few times, but posting the link for others following this discussion.
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
Andrew, thank you very much for posting this. I hope this means you're feeling better. The Wix XP going longer before clogging is likely due to it letting so much through. Those results for the XP are very disappointing. It's no wonder they are shy to release the numbers.
bobistheoilguy.com
As mentioned in the Ascent thread, if the overall ISO 4548-12 efficiency is high, that means by the very definition of how the ISO efficiency is calculated, that the filter is a very low slougher of debris as the dP increases from loading. If the efficiency vs dP of the XP was plotted, the decrease in efficiency curve would be much steeper than say on the Ultra or the one shown for the AC Delco in post #391 in that thread.
Yes, pretty much all oil filters will have a higher efficiency when they are new vs their efficiency when really loaded up. Some loose efficiency faster than others as they load up, and that depends a lot on the design of the media in terms of how it captures and holds debris. Even if it can catch it, it may not hold it all as the dP across the media keeps increasing. But filters with a very high ISO efficiency rating can not by definition be big debris slougher because it would not have such a high ISO efficiency if it sloughed badly.
If they both had the same ISO efficiency rating, then yes the filter with the higher holding capacity would have a smaller rate of efficiency loss from new to fully loaded. As you mentioned, it would therefore take 25K miles to be fully loaded vs 10K miles to be fully loaded and result in the same loss of efficiency from new to fully loaded. Also, for both filters in this case to have the same exact ISO efficiency, they would both have to start and end up at the same efficiency from new to fully loaded. The chances of that actually happening in and ISO efficiency test would be very unlikely IMO. But I get the jist of the question, which was a good question to get the insight.
Yes ... and as touched on above, if a filter has a high ISO efficiency (like 99% @ 20u) then it can't be much of a debris slougher as the filter loads up and the dP increases. By definition of how the ISO efficiency is calculated, it would be impossible for a badly debris sloughing filter to obtain a 99% @ 20u ISO efficiency.
Last edited:
