Use the ultra its a more quality filter in my book... Also Fram seems to be a little more honest and upfront with things...With that other company they pretended nothing was wrong with their filters although the information was everywhere about all their quality issues including all those torn filters. Im not a fram lover by any means but they do build 1 really good ultra!
How does Bosch Distance-Plus compare to Ultras??
- Thread starter SOHCman
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Depending on the filter design, a filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns could be worse than another filter rated 50% @ 20 microns. The media of the "higher" rated filter may cut off at 20 microns while the "inefficient" filter may trap contaminants right on down to 5 microns or less.
I highly doubt that. If you look at the efficiency curve vs micron size there is no way a filter that is 50% @20 microns is going to filter any sized particles better than the 99% @ 20 microns filter.
That's an assumption on your part.
You're imagining a filter media that is single stage and homogeneous.
Synthetic medias and filter construction provide for much more versatility than that.
Look at a Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter to understand this concept.
Right now, you're already seeing auto filters with multi-layered synthetic media.
They can be manipulated to yield whatever single pass efficiency you want.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Depending on the filter design, a filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns could be worse than another filter rated 50% @ 20 microns. The media of the "higher" rated filter may cut off at 20 microns while the "inefficient" filter may trap contaminants right on down to 5 microns or less.
I highly doubt that. If you look at the efficiency curve vs micron size there is no way a filter that is 50% @20 microns is going to filter any sized particles better than the 99% @ 20 microns filter.
That's an assumption on your part.
You're imagining a filter media that is single stage and homogeneous.
Synthetic medias and filter construction provide for much more versatility than that.
Look at a Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter to understand this concept.
Right now, you're already seeing auto filters with multi-layered synthetic media.
They can be manipulated to yield whatever single pass efficiency you want.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Depending on the filter design, a filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns could be worse than another filter rated 50% @ 20 microns. The media of the "higher" rated filter may cut off at 20 microns while the "inefficient" filter may trap contaminants right on down to 5 microns or less.
I highly doubt that. If you look at the efficiency curve vs micron size there is no way a filter that is 50% @20 microns is going to filter any sized particles better than the 99% @ 20 microns filter.
That's an assumption on your part.
You're imagining a filter media that is single stage and homogeneous.
Synthetic medias and filter construction provide for much more versatility than that.
Look at a Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter to understand this concept.
Right now, you're already seeing auto filters with multi-layered synthetic media.
They can be manipulated to yield whatever single pass efficiency you want.
Not an assumption. In the chart below, it shows that an oil filter that the more efficient is basically more efficient throughout the whole range of particle sizes. It does show that Filters D and F do cross over slightly below 10 microns, but you can pretty much bet that a filter that is 99% @ 20 microns will also be more efficient everywhere compared to a filter that is 50% @ 20 microns.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Depending on the filter design, a filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns could be worse than another filter rated 50% @ 20 microns. The media of the "higher" rated filter may cut off at 20 microns while the "inefficient" filter may trap contaminants right on down to 5 microns or less.
I highly doubt that. If you look at the efficiency curve vs micron size there is no way a filter that is 50% @20 microns is going to filter any sized particles better than the 99% @ 20 microns filter.
That's an assumption on your part.
You're imagining a filter media that is single stage and homogeneous.
Synthetic medias and filter construction provide for much more versatility than that.
Look at a Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter to understand this concept.
Right now, you're already seeing auto filters with multi-layered synthetic media.
They can be manipulated to yield whatever single pass efficiency you want.
Not an assumption. In the chart below, it shows that an oil filter that the more efficient is basically more efficient throughout the whole range of particle sizes. It does show that Filters D and F do cross over slightly below 10 microns, but you can pretty much bet that a filter that is 99% @ 20 microns will also be more efficient everywhere compared to a filter that is 50% @ 20 microns.
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
I disagree when this statement is taken into account
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
That's an assumption on your part.
You're imagining a filter media that is single stage and homogeneous.
Synthetic medias and filter construction provide for much more versatility than that.
it shows what high efficiency synthetic media behavior looks like graphically, and alongside what traditional media looks like graphically. Quite relevant to the discussion.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
They can be manipulated to yield whatever single pass efficiency you want.
I'm still lost on this considering the ISO 4548-12 test used for benchmarking is a multipass efficiency test.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
I disagree when this statement is taken into account
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
That's an assumption on your part.
You're imagining a filter media that is single stage and homogeneous.
Synthetic medias and filter construction provide for much more versatility than that.
it shows what high efficiency synthetic media behavior looks like graphically, and alongside what traditional media looks like graphically. Quite relevant to the discussion.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
They can be manipulated to yield whatever single pass efficiency you want.
I'm still lost on this considering the ISO 4548-12 test used for benchmarking is a multipass efficiency test.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
I disagree when this statement is taken into account.
My irrelevance comment was about the corresponding table to the graphs having some mistakes in it. Forget about that and just look at the curves.
It doesn't really matter what the media or construction is, because if Filter X is more efficient at 20 microns than Filter Y, then it's most likely also going to be more efficient than Filter Y at all particle sizes. That's basically what the curves I posted shows. If you can find efficiency vs particle size curves that show the opposite, where one filter is way more efficient in one particle size range and not so much in another particle size range, then post up those curves.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
I disagree when this statement is taken into account.
My irrelevance comment was about the corresponding table to the graphs having some mistakes in it. Forget about that and just look at the curves.
It doesn't really matter what the media or construction is, because if Filter X is more efficient at 20 microns than Filter Y, then it's most likely also going to be more efficient than Filter Y at all particle sizes. That's basically what the curves I posted shows. If you can find efficiency vs particle size curves that show the opposite, where one filter is way more efficient in one particle size range and not so much in another particle size range, then post up those curves.
Looks like a group of single stage filters with homogeneous media in your chart.
You should ask your buddies at FRAM about the Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter I mentioned.
It tackles the broad filtration/flow requirements in one section of the filter while providing small contaminant filtration in its stacked disk section.
At single pass, a much different curve than you offer here.
Likely result in a stepped curve illustrating my point.
You should ask your buddies at FRAM about the Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter I mentioned.
It tackles the broad filtration/flow requirements in one section of the filter while providing small contaminant filtration in its stacked disk section.
At single pass, a much different curve than you offer here.
Likely result in a stepped curve illustrating my point.
It's common sense that if a company says their filter is 99.9% @40, it's lower @20, otherwise they would say @20 because it looks better. I don't know about that graph, more lines than items on legend and what filters are 100% efficient at 6 microns single pass, bypass filters? I think it is fair to assume the new Purolators are @40 microns until they say otherwise.
who knows what the new purolaters are they look very very restrictive and seem to be a little secretive on the specs. Stay away from junky filters that you are assuming are good because certain filter companies act very shady sometimes.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Looks like a group of single stage filters with homogeneous media in your chart.
You should ask your buddies at FRAM about the Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter I mentioned.
It tackles the broad filtration/flow requirements in one section of the filter while providing small contaminant filtration in its stacked disk section.
At single pass, a much different curve than you offer here.
Likely result in a stepped curve illustrating my point.
The Fleetguard LF9080 is a different animal, since it basically uses a built-in bypass filtering scheme.
The finer filtering is rated at 60% @ 10 microns and the coarser filtering is rated at 98.7 @ 30 microns. The bypass section might change the lower end of the efficiency curve some, but I doubt it's "stepped" since this is still a full flow filter (ie, 100% of the flow to the engine gets filtered by just the oil filter).
If I recall correctly, the Ultra still filters better at 10 microns than 60%.
https://www.fleetguard.com.au/sites/defa...20Datasheet.pdf
https://jandmparts.com/specifications-filters/fleetguard-venturi-combo-lube-filter_jm.pdf
Looks like a group of single stage filters with homogeneous media in your chart.
You should ask your buddies at FRAM about the Fleetguard Venturi Combo LF9080 filter I mentioned.
It tackles the broad filtration/flow requirements in one section of the filter while providing small contaminant filtration in its stacked disk section.
At single pass, a much different curve than you offer here.
Likely result in a stepped curve illustrating my point.
The Fleetguard LF9080 is a different animal, since it basically uses a built-in bypass filtering scheme.
The finer filtering is rated at 60% @ 10 microns and the coarser filtering is rated at 98.7 @ 30 microns. The bypass section might change the lower end of the efficiency curve some, but I doubt it's "stepped" since this is still a full flow filter (ie, 100% of the flow to the engine gets filtered by just the oil filter).
If I recall correctly, the Ultra still filters better at 10 microns than 60%.
https://www.fleetguard.com.au/sites/defa...20Datasheet.pdf
https://jandmparts.com/specifications-filters/fleetguard-venturi-combo-lube-filter_jm.pdf
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If I recall correctly, the Ultra still filters better at 10 microns than 60%.
https://www.fleetguard.com.au/sites/defa...20Datasheet.pdf
Holy PDF File, Batman! Nice specs, although the 60% and other percent efficiencies might have been a test run with one size of powder, and single-pass, not 4548-12, right?
Therefore, the Ultra may get 80% >5microns, yet that's a 4548-12 of various powder sizes, so the Fleetgaurd probably beats an Ultra, but look at the beast, its got stacked discs.
Makes you want to set up a remote filter mount on a passenger car using the Fleetguard. Cool.
If I recall correctly, the Ultra still filters better at 10 microns than 60%.
https://www.fleetguard.com.au/sites/defa...20Datasheet.pdf
Holy PDF File, Batman! Nice specs, although the 60% and other percent efficiencies might have been a test run with one size of powder, and single-pass, not 4548-12, right?
Therefore, the Ultra may get 80% >5microns, yet that's a 4548-12 of various powder sizes, so the Fleetgaurd probably beats an Ultra, but look at the beast, its got stacked discs.
Makes you want to set up a remote filter mount on a passenger car using the Fleetguard. Cool.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If I recall correctly, the Ultra still filters better at 10 microns than 60%.
https://www.fleetguard.com.au/sites/defa...20Datasheet.pdf
Holy PDF File, Batman! Nice specs, although the 60% and other percent efficiencies might have been a test run with one size of powder, and single-pass, not 4548-12, right?
In the 2nd link (PDF) is says:
"In addition to genuine testing, each filter is designed & tested using a battery of filtration industry test methods including ISO 4548-12, SAE J1858, SAE HS-J806 and ISO 2942."
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If I recall correctly, the Ultra still filters better at 10 microns than 60%.
https://www.fleetguard.com.au/sites/defa...20Datasheet.pdf
Holy PDF File, Batman! Nice specs, although the 60% and other percent efficiencies might have been a test run with one size of powder, and single-pass, not 4548-12, right?
In the 2nd link (PDF) is says:
"In addition to genuine testing, each filter is designed & tested using a battery of filtration industry test methods including ISO 4548-12, SAE J1858, SAE HS-J806 and ISO 2942."
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
I disagree when this statement is taken into account.
My irrelevance comment was about the corresponding table to the graphs having some mistakes in it. Forget about that and just look at the curves.
So you quote my post, say it's irrelevant, then say your irrelevance comment is not connected to my post you quoted?
If you'd paid attention to the colors of the lines that actually crossed in the graph, you wouldn't have posted incorrect / misleading info to begin with regarding what the graph shows.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I think Filter D is the red line at the top left of the graph - the high efficiency short curve. The magenta line is filters B & H.
Correct ... I should have said Filters B&H instead of Filter D in my post. Colors looked close at the time.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
IIRC the data table that goes with this chart has some additional info on media type, and that filters C, D, & G had synthetic media?
Yes, but that is irrelevant for what the curves are showing ... that being that if a filter is more efficient at microns size X, then it will be more efficient at any particle size.
I disagree when this statement is taken into account.
My irrelevance comment was about the corresponding table to the graphs having some mistakes in it. Forget about that and just look at the curves.
So you quote my post, say it's irrelevant, then say your irrelevance comment is not connected to my post you quoted?
If you'd paid attention to the colors of the lines that actually crossed in the graph, you wouldn't have posted incorrect / misleading info to begin with regarding what the graph shows.
^^^ I'm saying that the media type in this discussion is irrelevant. My whole point of the graph (regardless of media type) is to show that if oil filter A is much more efficient at 20 microns than filter B, then it's going to me more efficiency than filter B at all particle sizes.
Go find a graph that shows that's not true.
Go find a graph that shows that's not true.
- Status
