Latest Filter Efficiency Data

[The Critic]

code:

---

Purolator PureONE Purolator Premium Plus Napa Gold/Wix Mobil 1 Mobil 1 EP Supertech STP Amsoil EaO Amsoil SDF*

40 microns 98%

34 microns 98.67%

30 microns 99.9% 96%

28 microns 95%

20 microns 99.9% 85% 50% 50%

15 microns 99.6% 50% 98.7% 94.3%

10 microns 93.5% 60% 50% 50%

7 microns 50% 51.2%



Notes:

Wix/Napa Gold efficiency ratings were based upon a 51085/1085 size.

Mobil 1, ST, and STP ratings were based on a ST2870A or M1-205/EP-205 size

Purolator efficiency ratings should be the same for all sizes, though I’m using a 20252 type size.

Spoke with Kempel at Purolator and Jordan at Champs. Info for M1, M1 EP, STP, ST, and Purolator filters were obtained on 1/25/06

Information for Napa Gold filters was obtained from the “Wix vs. Purolator” thread dated 1/16/06

Amsoil data was from performanceoiltechnology.com, as of 1/26/06

*= Discontinued

---

In addition, I was only given the efficiency percentages for 30, 20, and 10 microns for the Premium Plus, and 20 and 10 microns for the PureOne, by Kempel at Purolator's Filter Hotline. Any other efficiency percentages I have listed for the Purolator filters was obtained from the thread titled "New Pure 1 info, also PP & Maxlife," dated 1/2/06.

Lastly, I still have my doubts regarding the efficiency ratings of the Mobil 1, STP, and ST filters given to me by the Champs representative. I have a hard time believing the low efficiencies, especially on the M1 filter, which is suppose to be using a full syn media.

 

[LargeCarMan]

Interesting numbers and percentages. So the way I read it the EA and Pureone are neck and neck at 15 microns and anything below that is Pureone only in the 90 percentile range..What is performance oil technology do...test various oil and related products?

 

[The Critic]

quote:

---

What is performance oil technology do...test various oil and related products

---

Amsoil dealer run by an ex-Detroit Auto engineer, one of the top ones in the country.

Won't go into further detail about him...

 

[Jonny Z]

According to this, Purolator rules. The $3 P+ out filters the $9.99 M1, and the $5 P1 is king of filters. Can this be true?

 

[The Critic]

quote:

---

Can this be true?

---

I don't know...

, as I personally have a hard time believing the lame efficiency ratings of the M1...IIRC, FG said the previous generation M1 and the previous generation PureOne was on the same level in terms of efficiency.

I would agree with you on the PureOne in terms of offering the best filtration for its price range, but the service life of this filter may be shorter than comparable, less-efficient filters such as the Wix, as it may plug more quickly due to its better filtration ability. Thus, I may use a Wix for the longer drains (>10K) in hopes that it won't bypass as quickly. (No Guarantee)

But, what we do not know, is whether the M1, M1 EP, or Amsoil filters have a higher capacity than the PureOne. Also, not all of the PureOne filters you see on the shelf are of the latest redesign, some of them may still be carrying the old efficiency ratings.

 

[Filter guy]

Mobil 1 isn't a 100% synthetic media.

Neither is Mobil 1 EP.

 

[SWHeat]

What about Motorcraft? Any way to find out their rating? I like their engine side bypass valves better.

 

[Phoenix8936]

Good Info Michael...Ill stick with my Wix's though and you know why..

 

[Jonny Z]

Hey, you know the SAE said that the horse power # can be inflated by some car makers, so they changed the procedure. Is it possible that some filter company's efficiency # can be inflated too?

 

[Highroller]

it seems like for long-term usage pureone may not be the way to go. But i'd still choose it and still change it out within a reasonable interval.

 

[The Critic]

quote:

---

Mobil 1 isn't a 100% synthetic media.

Neither is Mobil 1 EP.

---

Stand corrected...

I could've sworn that I saw in Big O Dave's filter thread that the M1-301EP had a synthetic element, but I guess not.

 

[Ugly3]

I do not think the efficiency numbers are comparable. Bet there are single pass, double pass, and multiple pass numbers in there.

 

[Gary Allan]

I think you're right here, Ugly3. As Mel has told us, there's no standard to the standard tests for the single or multipass tests.

 

[Bill Plock]

FWIW, regarding M1 filters, when the M1-303 for the GM Duramax Diesel became available in the summer of 2004 I was curious how it’s micron (beta) efficiency specs compared to the Baldwin B1441's I was using. I called the Mobil-1 Filter Hot Line and was directed to a person at Champion Labs (M1 filter OEM) who quoted the following specs.

M1-303:

Nominal efficiency: 5 microns (Beta=2, 50%)
Absolute efficiency: 18 microns (Beta=75, 98.7%) (multipass)

 

[The Critic]

After all these comments, some of these % readings I posted seem hard to believe...

I personally have a hard time believing the low efficiencies of the M1 filters, even the Mobil website showed higher numbers.

I'll have to call back later next week and do more research. I probably spoke to an uninformed rep or something...as some of these numbers just don't look right to me.

IIRC, all of these efficiency #s are multi-pass.

 

[Schultz]

"I don't know... , as I personally have a hard time believing the lame efficiency ratings of the M1...IIRC, FG said the previous generation M1 and the previous generation PureOne was on the same level in terms of efficiency. "

I don't have a hard time believing it. I tested them and they performed no better than they state. Check out the website Oilfitlerstudy.com

Just because it has a full syn media, really means very little when it comes to efficiency, papers are just a good at stopping dirt. The synthetic media really only helps for dirt capacity when compared to paper/cellulose.

 

[Mighty HD]

This is quite interesting that PureOne is better than Mobil 1.

 

[Filter guy]

Most automotive filter companies rate their filters at the nominal level. 50% efficient.

However, you can get a lot of "absolute" information which is Beta 75...or 98.67% efficient. Sometimes rounded off to 98.7%.

Most hydraulic filters are rated at beta 200 which is 99.5% efficient.

99.99% efficiency is Beta 1000.

I would challenge any filter company who rates their oil filters at 99.9% to show me the multi-pass test data to confirm a 99.9% efficiency. For two reasons. One, they don't run that test. Two, because they don't run that test. As far as I know only independent labs have the lab equipment to run accurate beta 1000 test for automotive oil filters. Companies such as Pall and Parker have that equipment in house, who are leaders in the hydraulic industry. Donaldson has recently been rating thier hydraulic filters at beta 1000. Doubt Donaldson would waste valuable lab test time to run oil filters on that equipment.

It might be possible to have a media supplier run a test on a grade of media but..when one is giving results for the finished product, one should have lab testing by part number as your proof.

 

[bulwnkl]

Filterguy, are you saying that when Purolator shows efficiency percentages on their boxes and says that the results are according to SAE Jxxx (I don't recall the number) multi-pass testing conducted in-house, that they're really testing a sample of the media and extrapolating? Or that they're just lying? Or what? I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just asking the question because I don't know what it takes to run these tests.

 

[Steve S]

Filter guy ,good to have you on board.