LoL ... 99% @ 34u (Ascent testing) and certainly 99% >46u (M+H Spec Sheet) is nothing to get too excited about. The crickets are chirping loudly about non-correlations.Not so bad after all eh? Do I hear crickets again...
Latest filter comparison.
- Thread starter Nuclear_42
- Start date
That gets me "Too" excited!LoL ... 99% @ 34u (Ascent testing) and certainly 99% >46u (M+H Spec Sheet) is nothing to get too excited about. The crickets are chirping loudly.
And since you take that Ascent test result for face value on the Fram you must accept 99%@34u on that Boss. That's like Super Tech & basically a ton of filter's efficiency level, 99%@30, with the benefit of never tearing... I'll get you excited about that last part at least. Come on Zee lets see you crack a smile for the sake of data ...Wheeee Zeeee (that's your new rap name) J/k
That gets me "Too" excited!
"Too" is correct.
Should we turn this into a spelling and grimmer thread? 
Now efficiency is ignored and low efficiency accepted because of some kind of potential media failure?And since you take that Ascent test result for face value on the Fram you must accept 99%@34u on that Boss. That's like Super Tech & basically a ton of filter's efficiency level, 99%@30, with the benefit of never tearing... I'll get you excited about that last part at least. Come on Zee lets see you crack a smile for the sake of data ...Wheeee Zeeee (that's your new rap name) J/k
<---- I've been smiling and laughing throughout this thread. 
LOL"Too" is correct.
View attachment 195285
Now efficiency is ignored and low efficiency accepted because of some kind of potential media failure?
99%@34um I don't consider low efficiency. More like Mid-Tier efficiency. I've not seen any torn Purolator Boss's but anything is possible. Going to go play cards with the RV group now.
Back from cards... I lost.
I wasn't knocking ya for any spelling just putting emphasis on my excitement level. I'm usually "too" excited about a lot of things.
What would you consider 60% @ 20μ, or how about 50% @ 20μ?
What about 25% @ 15μ? How about 99.8% @ 15μ?
Last edited:
I see where you're going with this & to be quite honest those efficiencies don't get me excited. I think that is pretty bad & I'd wish that was better. I do believe that using a good synthetic oil at reasonable intervals could hold a lot of those particles in suspension though. Using UOA's would be wise to see when the oil started getting too contaminated & started trending higher on wear.
You probably know where those came from
- actual ISO test data from a couple of those "mid-tier" filters.There's a reason the filter marketers use "99% @ xx microns". If someone saw "60% @ 20μ" or "25% @ 15μ" instead of "99% @ 35μ" do you think they would feel any different about the level of efficiency? All those efficiencies are for the same filter off the efficiency vs particle size curve.
Even if particles are in suspension, they can still get between moving parts. The only way to prevent particles from causing wear as the OCI goes on is to remove them by filtering, or dumping the sump quite often.
Yes, they were from some of the spec sheets. It all depends on the filter though. Some filters may do much better at 50% than others even though they don't have the greatest at 99%. As we see here those efficiencies are probably better than stated. If this one PBL22500 filter tested at 99%@34 then it will test better at 50% too most likely.You probably know where those came from
There's a reason the filter marketers use "99% @ xx microns". If someone saw "60% @ 20μ" or "25% @ 15μ" instead of "99% @ 35μ" do you think they would feel any different about the level of efficiency? All those efficiencies are for the same filter off the efficiency vs particle size curve.
Oil encapsulates the soot particles etc. to create a protective layer around them to prevent wear. They can do this until other factors start breaking them down like sheer, etc. Yes, eventually they have the potential to cause wear & that's where UOA trending comes in to see when that wear starts to happen. Then you can do the next ODI's within that safe mileage or hours.
Oil does not encapsulate soot particles. Dispersants do, but it’s entirely dependent upon the particle size. A dispersant deals with very tiny particles and only helps to prevent them from agglomerating into larger particles. If large particles were “encapsulated” then they would cause just as much wear whether encapsulated or not. If the filter does not remove these particles due to low efficiency then you get the same wear.
And it’s shear, not sheer.
And it’s shear, not sheer.
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
I've watched these BR filter videos and find them less than credible. They do at least disclaim that they cannot fully replicate the proper ISO testing standards, etc. Further, I don't really understand their ranking system. They are not ranking by total points; that's obvious. Are they only ranking by filtration efficiency? If so, why even bother testing or discussing the other attributes if those criteria don't count towards a total score?
So then what good are they? Mindless entertainment for the unknowing gullible masses. Which brings me to this conclusion ... These BR vids are just polished versions of the typical PF lunacy.
So then what good are they? Mindless entertainment for the unknowing gullible masses. Which brings me to this conclusion ... These BR vids are just polished versions of the typical PF lunacy.
It's 50% @ 17-18μ. Yes, some filters drop off pretty fast below around 30μ. This is why some marketers will just say their filter is "98-99% efficient" without giving a micron rating. Every filter is 98-99% efficient at some particle size - except for the WIX XP in Ascent's test which could have has some kind of leak past the media or something going on since it never made it above 90% efficiency.
Last edited:
This has been a great thread so far. So I ditched my usual Amsoil filter for a Purolator BOSS 22500 for my L84 5.3L. I made the change due to the cold flow highlighted in the comparison video. I’m not too excited about the filtration efficiency but I think it’s more important in below zero temps here in MN winters. I’m also dumping my Wix filters for the BOSS on my 21 Subaru 2.5L. Low filtration resistance and 20-30 psi bypass is looking good. Am I making a good choice in choosing cold flow over 99% efficiency at 20 microns vs say an Amsoil or Fram endurance filter ?
Last edited:
I have bought Mann filters in the past and like them. WIX used to be my go to but they seem to be less than they once were. Never tried an AMSOIL filter but then again I have never seen them on a shelf anywhere. People that are really interested in clean oil could use one of those bypass stripper filter circuits for the best of all worlds. I have recently been using Hengst on my TDI's. Seem OK. This test means less and less as more and more engines go to a cartridge style filter anyways.
dnewton3
Staff member
After some noodling around I finally figured out their convoluted scoring (ranking) system.
They have their reasons for weighting the various attributes at the magnitudes they chose; I would weigh them differently, which would alter the rankings.
No matter, as the test data is unreliable because of their inability to accurately replicate the ISO testing protocol and methodology.
Or more succinctly put .... garbage in, garbage out.
They have their reasons for weighting the various attributes at the magnitudes they chose; I would weigh them differently, which would alter the rankings.
No matter, as the test data is unreliable because of their inability to accurately replicate the ISO testing protocol and methodology.
Or more succinctly put .... garbage in, garbage out.
No, you are not making a good choice in choosing “cold flow” over efficiency. Not that you’re doing that anyway.
Of course you are..
None of those filters are going to have a problem with "flow". Efficiency is what matters since that is what is directly correlated to wear.
Filtering is what a filter is supposed to do.
Filtering is what a filter is supposed to do.
