Here’s the latest filter comparison. This channel is awesome.
Latest filter comparison.
- Thread starter Nuclear_42
- Start date
- Joined
- May 19, 2022
- Messages
- 82
What I got out of this:
Amsoil = Fram endurance (which was known already)
Amsoil filters the best but flows the worst
M1, k&N are rock catchers
Mann filter = cool
Project Farm reference
S&M host
Amsoil = Fram endurance (which was known already)
Amsoil filters the best but flows the worst
M1, k&N are rock catchers
Mann filter = cool
Project Farm reference
S&M host
Comparatively, meaning it makes a bit more dP vs flow compared to the others tested. But with a positive displacement oil pump it still flows the same oil volume as long as the pump isn't in relief.
- Joined
- May 19, 2022
- Messages
- 82
Yeah I understand that. I just thought the comparison was a little ridiculous, then the PF comment came out, which made things more rediculous. It’s entertaining to watch but the only kind of (sort of) meaningful thing they did was the filtration test in my opinion.
I don't expect that the filtration test is very repeatable. The problem with the test design is that they don't seem to be tightly controlling for the number of passes the particulate makes through the filter.
The smallest particles they're measuring are 21-38 micron. If a filter is 99% efficient for these particle sizes, a single extra pass through the filter would reduce the particle count by a factor of 100. So the best in test Amsoil filter at 6 particles, may have measured at 600 particles if the test were stopped a bit sooner. The difference could actually be even greater, since the oil pump will also be pulverizing those large particles into undetectable sizes.
The contaminant is premixed, then flows into the system over a 2 minute period. This is done 4 times. If larger particles settle towards the bottom of the container, the last bit of contaminated oil could be relatively clean, which is important since it's mostly the last pass of the contaminate through the filter that will determine the particle count reading. This factor may not be consistent between tests.
They should really be doing an single pass test without recirculating the oil through the filter, since it would eliminate these poorly controlled variables. They should also do a particle count test on each sample of contaminated oil before it's introduced to make sure there's not a lot of variance. It's also odd that they're not measuring particles under 21 micron, when any lab would have this capability.
I'd trust a particle count test on a UOA a lot more than these test results. I do like the dP test though, and the capacity test should be pretty accurate.
The smallest particles they're measuring are 21-38 micron. If a filter is 99% efficient for these particle sizes, a single extra pass through the filter would reduce the particle count by a factor of 100. So the best in test Amsoil filter at 6 particles, may have measured at 600 particles if the test were stopped a bit sooner. The difference could actually be even greater, since the oil pump will also be pulverizing those large particles into undetectable sizes.
The contaminant is premixed, then flows into the system over a 2 minute period. This is done 4 times. If larger particles settle towards the bottom of the container, the last bit of contaminated oil could be relatively clean, which is important since it's mostly the last pass of the contaminate through the filter that will determine the particle count reading. This factor may not be consistent between tests.
They should really be doing an single pass test without recirculating the oil through the filter, since it would eliminate these poorly controlled variables. They should also do a particle count test on each sample of contaminated oil before it's introduced to make sure there's not a lot of variance. It's also odd that they're not measuring particles under 21 micron, when any lab would have this capability.
I'd trust a particle count test on a UOA a lot more than these test results. I do like the dP test though, and the capacity test should be pretty accurate.
In their previous video they made the comment:
"We're by no means are implying we're conducting and ISO 4548 test here, those tests would require million dollar equipment, a lab we just don't have. But we want to make sure we incorporate best practices to make this testing as fair and repeatable as possible."
Therefore I don't understand what they are really doing with this testing and how the results can be credible. I also don't understand the need to be loud, fast and the attempts at entertainment.
"We're by no means are implying we're conducting and ISO 4548 test here, those tests would require million dollar equipment, a lab we just don't have. But we want to make sure we incorporate best practices to make this testing as fair and repeatable as possible."
Therefore I don't understand what they are really doing with this testing and how the results can be credible. I also don't understand the need to be loud, fast and the attempts at entertainment.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2022
- Messages
- 5,579
There attempting to generate youtube clicks, which is why I have not clicked on the link.
They tested each filter similarly so it was repeatable & fair as possible. We should be cautious yes but they've put more money into their testing equipment so maybe they'll keep getting better at their testing. We should commend them for trying to get through the marketing hype of these companies. It's fun data!
I say check the M+H Spec Sheet and do the logical math. BR tested the Boss PLB10241. The Spec Sheet shown below says its ISO 4548-12 efficiency is 99% >46u. How could a filter with that kind of official ISO efficiency come in better in the PC testing than filters rated much higher in ISO efficiency without something weird going on? The Boss that Ascent tested (PLB22500) came in around 99% @ 30u in official ISO 4548-12 testing.
Last edited:
I'm sure the ISO 4406 particle count data they get shows the whole particle size spectrum, but they choose not to show the bottom three ranges of the ISO 4406 test data (4u, 6u and 14u). I think they should at least show the 14 micron and above ranges. If you go watch their other videos, they use that 10u absolute filter to clean-up the dust loaded test oil so they can reuse it because it's expensive. So maybe that's why they only show the 21u and above PC data.
BTW, for those who don't know, the particle count data below means that there is 2,447 particles per mL that are 4u and larger, which also includes all the particles above 4u shown in the table. So the number of particles between 4u and 6u is 2,447-1,032 = 1,415/mL.
Last edited:
Sure, it all depends on the efficiency of the filter in that range of particles. Here's Ascents ISO 4548-12 test data. If you look at the filter's efficiency between 21 and 38 microns (range shown by the red lines), and passed 4.4 grams of test dust through each filter, I'd expect them to show a resulting particle count as follows from best to worse as follows.Is this variation possible across the four filters?
1) Fram Ultra
2) Royal Purple
3) AC Delco
4) Purolator Boss
I knew someone would bite..HA! J/K. It's PBL22500 not PLB22500 LOL. I'd like to see the Puro spec sheet for PBL22500. So, I've put in a request for those sheets. I'm a little surprised you've not put in this filters spec sheet request since that Ascent test is your most referenced bookmark LOL. I'm going to speculate a little bit & say that the spec sheet for that filter might show worse efficiencies than the Ascent test results. I'll post up when I get them back for us to discuss further.
Last edited:
That's all ya got?
I'll leave the Spec Sheets up to you since you mention them so often. 
Of course I had to point it out, because its tech data that doesn't correlate with BR testing.That's all ya got?
I'm posting them in a few I just got them...That was quick!Ascent Filtration test shows better efficiency than the Purolator spec sheet. Ascent shows 99%@34um while the spec sheet shows 99%@46um. Maybe these Purolator filters are better than advertised.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...0-classic-l22500-specification-sheets.377503/
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...0-classic-l22500-specification-sheets.377503/
Last edited:
The difference could be due to filter size, and/or test parameters used within the ISO 4548-12 test procedure.
I still think that many of the M+H Spec Sheets are based on computer modeling to determine efficiency for different models & sizes. No way they are going to test 100s of different filter models.
But those results are using the exact same filter & size. I'd say it's similar to what you've stated about the Fram testing better in Ascent's test than what Fram advertises. And you could be right about them just simulating a round about efficiency that errors on the side of caution. Not so bad after all eh? Do I hear crickets again...
Last edited:
