Help With Oil Filter Data Analysis

Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
Hey folks, I was looking up a data sheet for an filter for my wife's vehicle and had a couple questions. Some of this stuff I understand just fine, some of it I'm not so sure on. It's supposed to cross with an FL500S and the specs for that are different. I'm not concerned about the valve opening pressure, but the flow and efficiency seem off to me. It almost looks like that should be GPM, not L/min to match the FL500S. The efficiency I'm also unsure about. Can you help me figure this out?

Anti Drain Back Valve Yes
Valve Opening Pressure 144.8 kPa
Element Collapse/Burst Minimum 0ISO 4548-3
Hydrostatic Burst Minimum 0ISO 4548-6
Capacity 11.8 ISO 4548-12
Rated Flow 11.4 L/min ISO 4548-12

Efficiency 30.8 @ 21.0 micron (c)
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
What oil filter brand is this, and where is this specification info coming from, got a link?

The flow is in metric units like the bypass valve opening pressure.

The efficiency is horrible, I wouldn't use it.
 

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
What oil filter brand is this, and where is this specification info coming from, got a link?

The flow is in metric units like the bypass valve opening pressure.

The efficiency is horrible, I wouldn't use it.
Since I already bought Fleetguards for my vehicle, I thought I'd double down and get some for my wife's vehicle too. After searching for the data sheet on that corresponding filter, I decided to request a sheet for the filters I just bought. I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting the information or what. It sounds like most oil filters have a flow rate of 10-12 GPM (I think) and if you convert the L/min, it's 2.85 GPM. That can't be right. And the efficiency also seems like it's got to be a typo or something.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
11.4 L/min is actually 3.0 GPM. But keep in mind that the "Rated Flow" is pretty nebulous and doesn't mean much unless you know what that spec is based on.
 

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
11.4 L/min is actually 3.0 GPM. But keep in mind that the "Rated Flow" is pretty nebulous and doesn't mean much unless you know what that spec is based on.
Good point. I can't wrap my head around that efficiency, though. That seems really low at 21μm, unless it just has a steep drop off from 25-30μm or something, but that's not clear.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
Good point. I can't wrap my head around that efficiency, though. That seems really low at 21μm, unless it just has a steep drop off from 25-30μm or something, but that's not clear.
Yeah, efficiency of 30.8% @ 21.0 micron is pretty dismal. You could email them and get some clarification. If it's that low, it wiuld probabky be around 90 to 95% @ 50 or 60 microns.
 

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
Science alert.

I figured I'd come back in to my thread here with an update on that data I shared earlier.

"Efficiency 30.8 @ 21.0 micron (c)"

This is not the typical % efficiency at (numerical figure) micron rating we're familiar with. Instead, based on my research, the first number, 30.8 is actually the βₓ value at 21.0 microns. When you convert this to the traditional filter efficiency we're accustomed to using, it becomes 96.75 at 21.0 microns. On an estimated sliding scale, I'd say that suggests a 95% efficiency at 20 micron rating, which is comparable to the old, standard WIX.

1658864553919.jpg


Regarding the "Rated Flow 11.4 L/min ISO 4548-12," I'm not sure. I think that about 3 GPM is probably fine for standard road vehicles, since the oil filter isn't necessarily going to be the greatest point of restriction, unless it's completely clogged. In which case, you have other problems. I'm also not familiar with the ISO 4548-12 testing parameters, although I might investigate further, if only for my own curiosity's sake.

I'll continue to buy, and use, Fleetguard oil filters with confidence.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
Science alert.

I figured I'd come back in to my thread here with an update on that data I shared earlier.

"Efficiency 30.8 @ 21.0 micron (c)"

This is not the typical % efficiency at (numerical figure) micron rating we're familiar with. Instead, based on my research, the first number, 30.8 is actually the βₓ value at 21.0 microns. When you convert this to the traditional filter efficiency we're accustomed to using, it becomes 96.75 at 21.0 microns. On an estimated sliding scale, I'd say that suggests a 95% efficiency at 20 micron rating, which is comparable to the old, standard WIX.

1658865127312.png
That makes sense. They should have wrote it: "Efficiency: Beta 30.8 @ 21.0 micron (c)" to make it more clear.

Regarding the "Rated Flow 11.4 L/min ISO 4548-12," I'm not sure. I think that about 3 GPM is probably fine for standard road vehicles, since the oil filter isn't necessarily going to be the greatest point of restriction, unless it's completely clogged. In which case, you have other problems. I'm also not familiar with the ISO 4548-12 testing parameters, although I might investigate further, if only for my own curiosity's sake.

I'll continue to buy, and use, Fleetguard oil filters with confidence.
Like mentioned earlier, the "Rated Flow" is totally nebulous unless there are some qualifiers involved with the specification. They do include the statement "ISO 4548-12" in the spec, so what that could mean is that is the flow rate that was used in the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test, which is about the normal flow rate they used in the ISO test. It has nothing to do with the maximum flow the filter can handle, nor has anything to do with the filter's "flow vs delta-p" performance curve.
 
Last edited:

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
Well shoot.

I just got off the phone with one of the gentlemen on the technical assistance line for Cummins Filtration. He told me that typically, hydraulic lube filters are rated in βₓ the other filters (oil, fuel, etc) are stated at a percentage-based efficiency rating. I'll post a picture of the data sheet for the filters I'd gotten and inquired upon. If I'm reading the sheet correctly, coupled with what the gentleman on the phone said, I'm not sure I want to use these filters. I'm open to input and insights, but either way I wanted to follow up as my good deed for the day.

2022-11-02 09_30_22-https___mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com_attachment_u_0__ui=2&ik=4ecd...jpg
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
I just got off the phone with one of the gentlemen on the technical assistance line for Cummins Filtration.
So he verified it was actually efficiency of 30.8% and not a βₓ of 30.8% ?

If so, then 30.8% efficiency @ 21μ is pretty bad.
 

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
So he verified it was actually efficiency of 30.8% and not a βₓ of 30.8% ?

If so, then 30.8% efficiency @ 21μ is pretty bad.
Unless the guy on the phoneline misunderstood what I was asking, that is pretty awful. I'm going to send a contact to them directly just to make sure this is actually correct.
 

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
@ZeeOSix since you've been putting in your $0.02, maybe you can help me make heads or tails of the response I got when I inquired directly with the manufacturer regarding my question on the efficiency as discussed earlier:

"I confirmed the information is 21 microns @ 30.8%. The filter was crossed from a Wix filter, and meets the specifications of that filter."

:unsure:
 
Last edited:

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
@ZeeOSix since you've been putting in your $0.02, maybe you can help me make heads or tails of the response I got when I inquired directly with the manufacturer regarding my question on the efficiency as discussed earlier:

"I confirmed the information is 21 microns @ 30.8%. The filter was crossed from a Wix filter, and meets the specifications of that filter."

:unsure:
If the Cummings Tech Line says it's 30.8% efficiency at 21u and not a Beta of 30.8 at 21u, then I guess you have to believe them. It's either one or the other.
 

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
If the Cummings Tech Line says it's 30.8% efficiency at 21u and not a Beta of 30.8 at 21u, then I guess you have to believe them. It's either one or the other.
That's true. I double checked the cross reference and it looks like it crosses to a WIX 57502 (or a Baldwin B7449). I don't have access to those efficiency reports, so I can't speak on how they perform. Wish I could compare apples to apples.

EDIT:

Did my own search like a big boy and found this thread. The numbers for the cross referenced filter seems to suggest that it's a beta ratio rating. I'm so confused:

 
Last edited:

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
That's true. I double checked the cross reference and it looks like it crosses to a WIX 57502 (or a Baldwin B7449). I don't have access to those efficiency reports, so I can't speak on how they perform. Wish I could compare apples to apples.

EDIT:

Did my own search like a big boy and found this thread. The numbers for the cross referenced filter seems to suggest that it's a beta ratio rating. I'm so confused:

WIX uses it's own Beta Ratio format, which makes it even more confusing. The only info that's going to be worth believing is the info directly from Cummings Tech Line by someone who knows what they are talking about.
 

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
WIX uses it's own Beta Ratio format, which makes it even more confusing. The only info that's going to be worth believing is the info directly from Cummings Tech Line by someone who knows what they are talking about.
I almost wish I had $400 to burn on that company offering to analyze oil filters here for BITOGers. Don't take offense, but I'm going to make a post that ties all this together in hopes of getting some additional perspectives.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,075
Location
PNW
I almost wish I had $400 to burn on that company offering to analyze oil filters here for BITOGers. Don't take offense, but I'm going to make a post that ties all this together in hopes of getting some additional perspectives.
WIX uses their own Beta Ratio format that does not conform to the filter industry way to describe Beta Ratio. Many people get confused by it, and there have been quite a few threads explaining how WIX does it vs how the filter industry typically does Beta Ratio.

Filter efficiency is either expressed in the industry Beta Ratio format (except for WIX and their own made-up format), or it's just simply expressed as "xx% efficient at yy microns" (like Fram, Purolator, etc show), which is just another way to express a Beta Ratio.
 
Last edited:

mphilleo

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
204
Location
North Dakota
WIX uses their own Beta Ratio format that does not conform to the filter industry way to describe Beta Ratio. Many people get confused by it, and there have been quite a few threads explaining how WIX does it vs how the filer industry typically does Beta Ratio.

Filter efficiency is either expressed in the industry Beta Ratio format, or it's just simply expressed as "xx% efficient at yy microns" (like Fram, Purolator, etc show), which is just another way to express a Beta Ratio.
Thank you for your insight. I was unaware of that information.
 
Top