is fram's extra guard 95% efficiency worrysome? or is it fine for low OCI?
- Thread starter apollo18
- Start date
Just because the numbers were verified accurate for the Ultra doesn't mean they are accurate for all their filters.
So they might be lying? Do you have any evidence to back that up? If not then I’ll add it to the long string of falsehoods you’ve posted in this thread.
Either put up or stop the nonsense.
Why would Fram's claims be wrong for their other models when they were all tested to the same ISO 4548-12 standard?
There will probably never be a discernible difference.
Change your oil at appropriate intervals and filter efficiency doesn't matter much IMO.
Exactly, and in independent tests a defective filter would be tested showing way worse performance.
For example if oil was bypassing the element in the BR test. This is likely what happened to the Toyota one as well since there was a lack of evidence that the filter was actually loaded with 13 g of material.
In the Ascents tests the WIX was defective so its not a crazy to think the Fram could be as well, especially knowing how shoddy the workmanship is.
Filtering is filtering. There will be discrepancies due to the methodology, but to me the magnitude difference for the Fram results are not explainable by mere methodology, assuming both tests were correctly executed.
In the last BR test for OEM vs Bosch the filtering correlated exactly with the published efficiency. It doesn't appear their methodology is bad.
Last edited:
It seems that the FRAM Extraguard and Toyota filters were both bypassing some oil. The Extraguard test had 200 times more 70+ micron particles compared to the FRAM Toughguard, but only 3 times more small particles. This is consistent with a filter leaking/bypassing oil, since the filtration for large particles will be affected much more than for smaller ones. It's similar for the Toyota filter.
The filters in these tests never seem to look clogged up to the naked eye, since the dust is about the same colour as the media. For a filter used on an engine, it's more useful to do a visual, since it's mostly dark organic material that clogs oil filters, not dust or wear metals.
I've never noticed anything of note in the filters I've cut open, but I don't think any of them were anywhere close to clogging.
According to a paper I've read, typically a large majority of the material that gets filtered from engine oil is carbon-based. It's also the smaller microscopic particles that cause dP to increase, not the macroscopic stuff, so I would assume that a darkening of the media is best indicator of filter loading, not the presence larger chunks of carbon deposits. I've seen plenty of photos posted on this forum where the filter media was very dark, even after it was dried out.
If an unusually high amount of dust clogs the filter, I don't think that would be obvious, but this shouldn't be very common. If there's enough small wear metal particles to clog a filter, you're going to notice a lot of larger metal bits in the filter as well.
Thats true. It may be visually hard to see.
13 g is a decent amount that you should be easily able to see, but its also spread over the surface area of the filter. If you unfold the media its a large area.
I've replaced air filters that looked completely fine, but the car ran much better afterwards.
I've heard similar stories from other BITOGers. That inspecting filters is useless because of this.
13 g is a decent amount that you should be easily able to see, but its also spread over the surface area of the filter. If you unfold the media its a large area.
I've replaced air filters that looked completely fine, but the car ran much better afterwards.
I've heard similar stories from other BITOGers. That inspecting filters is useless because of this.
We don't know if the WIX XP that Ascent ISO 4548-12 tested actually had a leaky bypass valve like the one seen in the bubble point test. If Andrew would have cut the filter he ISO tested, then did a bubble test on it that would have verified it leaked or not, but he didn't do that step. It very well could be that all WIX XP filters have a leaky bypass valve (that's a design problem), and therefore that's why their efficiency is low. Their bypass valve is metal-on-metal, so not the best sealing method out there. Same could be true about the Toyota filters ... ie, there is some kind of diry oil leakage going on, and the reason they have low efficiency is because they all can bypass dirty oil due to a bad design. Yes, "filtering is filtering" by the filter as an assembly ... and that includes any bad design aspects that allow some dirty oil to bypass the filtering media.
And as I pointed out in another thread (link below), the AC Delco, Motorcraft and Toyota ranking by BR correlated with the ranking in the official ISO 4548-12 test results.
Latest BR Video Comparing 3 OEM Oil Filters & Bosch
I personally feel particle size and for the quantity of them in the oil is not as concerning as you would think. Most will be under suspension anyway Particles in suspension doesn't remove particles from the oil and keep them from circulating through the engine. Only an oil filter can do that...
bobistheoilguy.com
IMO, the only decent data in the BR tests is the dP vs Flow comparisons, but the "efficiency" and "holding capacity" tests are no more than just a ranking order, and the measured numbers are only for ranking comparison. For instance, the holding capacity of the Toyota filter is way out in the weeds, because they just kept adding dust while looking for the filter to it the +8 PSI of dP. They apparently didn't try to measure the amount of dust left over in the test fluid to determine exactly now many grams of test dust added to the fluid was actually filtered out by the filter under test.
Last edited:
The other 3 filters in the last BR video increased the dP by 8 PSI with only 4.4 to 7 grams of test dust. Yet, none of those filters inspected after the test showed any visible test duct in the media. It's all too small in size to really be seen with the naked eye unless it so huge of an amount that it would start building up a cake layer on the surface of the media, which it didn't do with only 4.4 to 7 grams spread over the whole media area.
Just because BR added 13 grams in the test to make the Toyota filter increase the dP by 8 PSI doesn't mean the filter caught all 13 grams. But on the other hand, if the filter was not bypassing dirty oil (which is possible), then the filter efficiency of the meida itself is so bad that it took that much dust build-up in the media to increase the dP by 8 PSI. And as mentioned before, how much test dust was still left over in the test fluid at that point? If there was say 5 grams of test dust still in the fluid after adding 13 grams of dust to the clean fluid, then only 8 grams of dust was captured by the filter.
Last edited:
This is the last filter I cut open after a 7,000 km OCI. It was wrapped in paper towel a few times over a day or two. The tips of the pleats are still dark since that's where the oil was wicking to I guess, but the rest of the media looks almost new.
Now, I've only ever cut filters open that were from this engine, and maybe it just runs really clean. Maybe filters typically darken much more quickly, and this might happen well before they become clogged, in which case the colour of the media might not tell you a whole lot.
You could save money on a lower efficiency filter and your engine probably wouldn't know the difference, probably. Fram has really stepped up the XG product in recent years. But personally, I would spend more for a high efficiency, high capacity filter and run it longer (multiple OCIs, not extended OCIs).
The Japanese OEs prove the air filter > oil filter, they aren’t the most efficient but many Toyondas, Nissans and Subarus crank out the miles on Chinesium jobber/lube shop or Fram orange cans. You’ll be fine with a Fram EG.
I’d only spend the money on a Fram XG/FE or similar if you’re running long drains with an oil that can do so.
I’d only spend the money on a Fram XG/FE or similar if you’re running long drains with an oil that can do so.
I would think a lower efficiency filter would be a safer choice for longer intervals because it is less likely to block flow or go into bypass as it loads up and becomes more efficient. A high-efficiency filter loads up quickly and has the potential to become a bottleneck sooner. Why is that wrong?For an OCI of 5K or less, a filter with 95% @ 20u efficiency is fine. If doing higher OCI miles, a more efficient filter will help keep the sump cleaner as the miles increase on the oil than a less efficient filter. Some people like to use a higher efficiency filter regardless of OCI miles, because they can.
Many high efficiency oil filters have long use ratings, meant for long OCIs. Can't assume that a lower efficiency filter can go longer without actually knowing it's use rating and/or holding capacity. Very possible that a lower efficiency rated filter can't do a longer OCI. Look at how Fram rates their line of filters. The lower efficiency filters have the lowest mileage use ratings. And pretty much all oil filters actually become less efficiency as they load up to near full capacity because the increased dP due to loading causes already captured debris to start soughing off the media as the dP keeps increasing. Ascents ISO testing even showed that phenomena. If you want a high efficiency filter for a longer OCI, chose one that's rated for a long OCI.
Thanks!
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2024
- Messages
- 15
A few days ago I planned on making a thread comparing the 10k oil filters the next time I log on. Now I see it here, lol, thanks! Where did you find this?
Does anyone know the average size of particles in engine oil reports? I don't see many reports but I don't normally see particle size instead particle amounts.
I would think the particle size is as much important as amount, we can tell the performance of the engine filter.
