"High end" oil filters

[dnewton3]

Thank you for that reference.
It's not current, as I typically use website info.
But it sort of makes my point; the info varies as much as the actual performance does!

It's all good!

I really have come to embrace the TGs; excellent value and perforance.

 

[justalubetech]

Most engines only ever see ecores / cheap jobber filters and still go on to run forever. There are much better things to worry about than oil filters lol

 

[Sayjac]

lol A single google entry that takes one to an outside link below.* Null. And the entry can only be found by typing the specific noted spec, and then it's not confirmed by the link. Not what I'd consider to be an authoritative link except that it's not authoritative. All in a vain attempt to find/prove .5%.

The only other similar notation is again unconfirmed and falls under the category described in my previous post. And of course now there's one leading here. I'll go by the official website information and consider that to be an authoritative link. And as the link below describes, I'll place the other references under the term used...Null.

http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/wcsstor...tml5/index.html

 

[Nate1979]

I think the 80% @ 5 microns is the more impressive performance info of the Fram Ultra.

 

[dnewton3]

Yup - as if AAP was "the" authority on all things motor driven ...
Were not they the ones that had a link about "Dextron" ATF? Can't even spell the product right, for Pete's sake. Could have been ORs or AZ, but I think it was AAP.

I generally take the OEM (in this case, filters) website info as the most specific, although at times even they leave much to be desired (enter my assessment of Wix white-washing beta data, but I digress ....)

 

[seekingbuddha]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Ultra is higher efficiency than the tough guard, it's 99.5% efficient quoted for some models while all tough guards are 99% efficient at 20 microns. In other places they just quote the Ultra as 99%+ while the TG is always 99%.


A careful look at the bottom of FRAM website will show that 99+ % efficiency quoted for Fram Ultra is for >20 microns, not @20 microns, as you misunderstand. That simple > sign has loaded meaning.

Also, refer to some info i posted regarding efficiency in my previous post. Efficiency is a moving target that keeps changing every few years. For example, the stats given at Noria Message boards regarding Amsoil Vs PureOne is outdated and inaccurate. I figured out all the marketing hype only after spending few days in research about Oil/Air Filter efficiency, ISO standard specifications, particle sizes and filtration technology. A bit of overkill, but then, what do you expect from a member of this forum ?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: seekingbuddha
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Ultra is higher efficiency than the tough guard, it's 99.5% efficient quoted for some models while all tough guards are 99% efficient at 20 microns. In other places they just quote the Ultra as 99%+ while the TG is always 99%.


A careful look at the bottom of FRAM website will show that 99+ % efficiency quoted for Fram Ultra is for >20 microns, not @20 microns, as you misunderstand. That simple > sign has loaded meaning.


Not this again.

It basically means at 20 microns or greater as the particle size approaches 20 microns (ie, 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns).

 

[Paul_Bell]

This was posted on another website also discussing this (but certainly not to the level here):

Amsoil EA 15K32 20 micron
Wix 51042 10 micron

However the Wix stated it captures more 10-12 micron particles than other cellulose/synthetic blend medias. Not that it had 10 micron mesh.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: seekingbuddha
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Ultra is higher efficiency than the tough guard, it's 99.5% efficient quoted for some models while all tough guards are 99% efficient at 20 microns. In other places they just quote the Ultra as 99%+ while the TG is always 99%.


A careful look at the bottom of FRAM website will show that 99+ % efficiency quoted for Fram Ultra is for >20 microns, not @20 microns, as you misunderstand. That simple > sign has loaded meaning.


Not this again.

It basically means at 20 microns or greater as the particle size approaches 20 microns (ie, 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns).




Yup - time for me to check out ...

We've come full circle right back into the cess pool; no matter how hard we try to climb out, someone always pulls us back in.

Outta here.

 

[CrawfishTails]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Not this again.

It basically means at 20 microns or greater as the particle size approaches 20 microns (ie, 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns).


Agreed, its not an issue at all. All you have to do is realize that if you get a pile of dust to use in a standard 4548-12 oil filter test, your "20 micron pile" is going to have some (not a lot) of statistical variation among the individual speck particle sizes. Or, when you do particle counts and size measurements of what escapes (flows thru) the oil filter in that test, your measurements of particles has statistical variation as well.

 

[901Memphis]

IIRC I got the 99.5% rating which was posted on the website in the past. It doesn't really matter, it's still very high even at 99.0% @20 microns and 80% @5 microns. I wish other manufacturers would post the 5 micron rating as industry standard.

 

[seekingbuddha]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: seekingbuddha
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Ultra is higher efficiency than the tough guard, it's 99.5% efficient quoted for some models while all tough guards are 99% efficient at 20 microns. In other places they just quote the Ultra as 99%+ while the TG is always 99%.


A careful look at the bottom of FRAM website will show that 99+ % efficiency quoted for Fram Ultra is for >20 microns, not @20 microns, as you misunderstand. That simple > sign has loaded meaning.


Not this again.

It basically means at 20 microns or greater as the particle size approaches 20 microns (ie, 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns).


I am confident in my research, and also understand the meaning of > sign

When a company conducts a test, there are multiple ways to test. For example, on Amsoil website you can see the statment of efficiency at 15 micron (not > 15 micron). Search Amazon for Royal Purple oil filter and you can see the statement 99 percent filtration efficiency at 25 microns (not >25 micron). In addition, the test conducted at GMTruckCentral, quoted in previous posts, is a random test, but telling about a random sample at 5 micron. That test was conducted in 2011, and it is likely that filters have improved a bit in past 4 years. BTW, Amsoil quote : "Engine wear is caused by dirt particles larger than 5 microns". I am not totally sure, because i have also seen statements on web about long term effects of sub-5micron dust.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Is 20.001 microns >20? Ans: Yes

Is 20.0000001 microns >20? Ans: Yes

Therefore, as particle size approaches 20 microns, one can safely say that ">20 microns or larger" is close enough to meaning the same thing as "@20 microns or larger".

Motorking himself has chimed in on this and said the Ultra meets the "@ 20 micron" spec.

In other words, the Ultra filter will do 99% @ 20 microns, and for any particles larger in size, it's even better than 99% efficient.

But you can keep on believing what ya want.

 

[Nate1979]

Apparently this has to be explained once a month and the Fram rep explicitly explaining it is not enough......

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Apparently this has to be explained once a month and the Fram rep explicitly explaining it is not enough......
Originally Posted By: seekingbuddha
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: seekingbuddha
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Ultra is higher efficiency than the tough guard, it's 99.5% efficient quoted for some models while all tough guards are 99% efficient at 20 microns. In other places they just quote the Ultra as 99%+ while the TG is always 99%.


A careful look at the bottom of FRAM website will show that 99+ % efficiency quoted for Fram Ultra is for >20 microns, not @20 microns, as you misunderstand. That simple > sign has loaded meaning.


Not this again.

It basically means at 20 microns or greater as the particle size approaches 20 microns (ie, 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns).


I am confident in my research, and also understand the meaning of > sign

When a company conducts a test, there are multiple ways to test. For example, on Amsoil website you can see the statment of efficiency at 15 micron (not > 15 micron). Search Amazon for Royal Purple oil filter and you can see the statement 99 percent filtration efficiency at 25 microns (not >25 micron). In addition, the test conducted at GMTruckCentral, quoted in previous posts, is a random test, but telling about a random sample at 5 micron. That test was conducted in 2011, and it is likely that filters have improved a bit in past 4 years. BTW, Amsoil quote : "Engine wear is caused by dirt particles larger than 5 microns". I am not totally sure, because i have also seen statements on web about long term effects of sub-5micron dust.



Wear/metal abrasion occurs when particulate is larger than the oil film is thick. So if the oil film is 5 microns thick then a 5 micron carbon/silica particle can increase abrasion which may increase wear.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm merely expanding on you're thought.

 

[seekingbuddha]

Originally Posted by seekingbuddha
As part of my research into oil filters, i came across the following observations:

• The quoted GM central study is useful, when you look at the images of filteration abilities that he published in the link here. The images are ordered in the filtration ability, and it totally makes sense to see the "synthetic" technology as the top 3. As the technology inside the filter degrades to "blends" (like #4 rated mobil) we see darker images.
  
• Even though this study is unscientific, i have to say this is one of the best studies on net. It also correlates with what i expected as the filteration lineup, based on the technologies used inside the filters.
  
• I came across studies that showed that engine damage occurs (in long term) due to sub 20 micron particles (like city smog particles). And this study is focused on 30 micron particles.
  
• It is strange that he tested only top 2 filters in 5 micron, while rated the Fram Xtended guard as "A" even though 5 micron test was not performed on it. There were only three A for filtration ability
  
• No comments were made about how "build quality" was judged or "filter volume" was measured. These are tough things to measure scientifically.
  
• The take away from this study should be the common sense - Synthetic filter material protects better. As long as one changes the filter according to directions (or UOA), volume and surface area play minimal role, in my opinion.
  
• I also found that not every manufacturer makes high quality / synthetic filter for my cars. So, brand choices may be limited for a simple consumer like me.

Regarding my previous post about efficiency of Mobil Extended Vs Royal purple:
i realized the morning after my post that Mobil is testing with ISO standard dust particle, whereas Royal purple is testing with dust particles @ 25 microns. ISO dust particles are a mix of various microns, and hence the marketing hype by Mobil. In reality, Royal purple has better efficiency for sub 30 micron particles, as witnessed in the GM central test.


Giving this old thread a bump, since this contains some useful research i did spending several hours on this topic to understand and select my filter.

 

[seekingbuddha]

I have been wondering about the "holding capacity" of Mobile 1 Extended Performance filter, RP and Bosch Premium FILTECH. I can not find anything on net about RP but M1 has been quoted as the biggest holding capacity of 28 grams and Bosch at 14 grams. Anyone know the capacity of RP Extended filter ?

 

[seekingbuddha]

Since some of the old oil stays behind in the engine (and in the oil filter, in case someone is using the same filter for 2 oil changes), there is likelihood that the sub 20 micron particles will stay behind in the engine for long time. So, in the case of an old car (say over 100 k or over), does it make sense to run at least one oil change with the best of the breed (Amsoil) filter even though it would cost more than twice as much as a M1 or RP ? Would this take out the sub 20 micron particles that are hanging around in the engine of an old car ? Does it really matter, if one keeps up with the recommended OCI ?
Maybe the new oil would neutralize the old residue in the engine ?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by seekingbuddha
Since some of the old oil stays behind in the engine (and in the oil filter, in case someone is using the same filter for 2 oil changes), there is likelihood that the sub 20 micron particles will stay behind in the engine for long time. So, in the case of an old car (say over 100 k or over), does it make sense to run at least one oil change with the best of the breed (Amsoil) filter even though it would cost more than twice as much as a M1 or RP ? Would this take out the sub 20 micron particles that are hanging around in the engine of an old car ? Does it really matter, if one keeps up with the recommended OCI ?
Maybe the new oil would neutralize the old residue in the engine ?


If any sub 20 micron particulate is left over and "hanging around" after draining the oil, it's only in the remaining oil that didn't drain, which isn't much. I'd say it's a non issue. If you want the cleanest oil possible, then use a high efficiency filter and change the oil and filter at the same time.

 

[dnewton3]

People whom don't understand the ISO efficiency test protocol and reporting methodology are making a mountain out of a non-existent mole-hill.

The argument centers around the semantics of the written statement used in advertising. But the reality of actual ISO test compliance leaves no doubts.

Zee is right about this topic; always has been.