Michael , how about some Napa Proselect data?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Latest Filter Efficiency Data
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
As to the comment that an oil filter with better filtration shouldn't be used with long drain intervals...that's certainly counterintuitive to me. Why would anyone want to allow particles to remain in the oil stream...long drain interval or not? Isn't removal of particles the goal of filtration? Change the filter half-way in the drain interval if "plugging" is a concern.
bulwnkl
Read this:
http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-5R3.pdf
Decide for yourself.
Single pass efficiency is taken from a sample of the media sheet used.
Multi pass testing is done on a completed filter element ( cartridge or spin-on).
It is possible Purolator has the data. I personally am reluctant to believe they test oil filters to Beta 1000.
Especially when for years automotive oil filters have been rated as "nominal". 50% efficient.
"Absolute" as define by the Automotive industry is beta 75. 98.67% efficient.
To go to 99.99% efficient, or beta 1000, stretches my imagination considering that that rating is used in hydraulics where there are multiple filters for specific jobs. Suction, return, tank, etc... there can be 5 or more filters on the same system. There aren't 5 purpose filters on an oil lubricating engine. So hydraulic filters have a designed function and a specific efficiency for a specific micron size particle for a specific application.
As for Purolator..they can explain for themselves.
Read this:
http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-5R3.pdf
Decide for yourself.
Single pass efficiency is taken from a sample of the media sheet used.
Multi pass testing is done on a completed filter element ( cartridge or spin-on).
It is possible Purolator has the data. I personally am reluctant to believe they test oil filters to Beta 1000.
Especially when for years automotive oil filters have been rated as "nominal". 50% efficient.
"Absolute" as define by the Automotive industry is beta 75. 98.67% efficient.
To go to 99.99% efficient, or beta 1000, stretches my imagination considering that that rating is used in hydraulics where there are multiple filters for specific jobs. Suction, return, tank, etc... there can be 5 or more filters on the same system. There aren't 5 purpose filters on an oil lubricating engine. So hydraulic filters have a designed function and a specific efficiency for a specific micron size particle for a specific application.
As for Purolator..they can explain for themselves.
Thanks for the link. I'm familiar with hydraulics as they relate to agricultural equipment. Perhaps one of these days I'll call Purolator and ask.
BTW, Purolator's claim on the website for the PureOne is 98% efficiency multi-pass. Doesn't say at what particle size, though...
BTW, Purolator's claim on the website for the PureOne is 98% efficiency multi-pass. Doesn't say at what particle size, though...
Why not post results for the SAE806 efficiency and capacity tests? There would then be no confusion between single and multi-pass efficiency.
The MOBIL web site states the Mobil 1 EP oil filter has 99.2% SAE J1858 multi-pass efficiency rating. When I called Mobil (spoke with man from Champion) today, I was told the Mobil 1 high efficiency/high performance filter has 99.2% multi-pass efficiency rating for 10 microns and the Mobil 1 EP is 50%@10 microns. Since the EP vesion is only one on Mobil's web site, I'm assuming it's the only version now being made & it's got the higher eficiency rating.
I also called R. Hedgepeth @ PURALATOR today and was told (SAE J1858 multi-pass) testing of the PUREONE oil filter results in:
99.9% for 20 microns
99.6% " 15 "
93.5% " 10 "
Looks to me like the M1 EP is a little more efficient.
I also called R. Hedgepeth @ PURALATOR today and was told (SAE J1858 multi-pass) testing of the PUREONE oil filter results in:
99.9% for 20 microns
99.6% " 15 "
93.5% " 10 "
Looks to me like the M1 EP is a little more efficient.
100% synthetic media needs a screen to support it. Amsoil Ea and Fram XG are 100% synthetic. M1 and Pure One are Synthetic blends. I am not sure which is "better."
you said "Mobil 1 EP is 50%@10 microns" how does that beat the pure one when its 93.5% " 10 "?????
It doesn't, does it.
But go back one page and read my reply to bulwnkl. Wouldn't particle counts on used filters be a better "stat"?
In another thread I discussed testing.
A lab can do what they want to make a filter perform how they prefer.
To get greater efficiency..just slow the flow down.
But go back one page and read my reply to bulwnkl. Wouldn't particle counts on used filters be a better "stat"?
In another thread I discussed testing.
A lab can do what they want to make a filter perform how they prefer.
To get greater efficiency..just slow the flow down.
What of the K&N Gold oil filter? Any guesses?
According to oilfilterstudy.com the smallest pore on the K&N was 27um. That can't translate to very good filtration percentage at 10um.
http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/KN-3002.htm
To put it into better perspective the same study found the Mobil1 to have a smallest pore size of 16um.
http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/mobil1.htm
So if it is running 50% efficiency for 10um, the K&N should be somewhere around 25% for 10um?
http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/KN-3002.htm
To put it into better perspective the same study found the Mobil1 to have a smallest pore size of 16um.
http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/mobil1.htm
So if it is running 50% efficiency for 10um, the K&N should be somewhere around 25% for 10um?
Quoted from Mobil web site: "Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters contain synthetic fibers instead of the typical cellulose filter media. With a 99.2 percent efficiency rating (under SAE J1858 Multi-Pass Efficiency Test), the Mobil 1 filter is..."
Today, I called Mobil's oil filter hotline and was told: the "high efficency" Mobil filter is no longer made (since May of last year). The only filter currently made by (actually made for Mobil by Champion) Mobil is the extended performance filter. The 99.2% efficiency rating is at 10 microns.
Today, I called Mobil's oil filter hotline and was told: the "high efficency" Mobil filter is no longer made (since May of last year). The only filter currently made by (actually made for Mobil by Champion) Mobil is the extended performance filter. The 99.2% efficiency rating is at 10 microns.
A note about my conversation today with man @ Mobil filter hotline: He specifically said the Mobil 1 extended performance filter has a SAE J1858 multi-pass efficiency rating of 99.2% @ 10 microns. At the end of our conversation, I said, "Ok, just to confirm, you're saying the currently made Mobil 1 Extended Performance filter has a SAE J1858 multi-pass efficeincy rating of 99.2% @ 10 microns?" He answered yes.
yota4me - did he mention anything about the test parameters? that seems to be an excellent multi-pass rating. im wondering how they can get that good of results? the flow rate must be low or something. what is the restriction numbers for that efficiency, that might have something to do with it also?! just something to think about.
yota4me, just where on Mobil's web site did you get those figures? I can't find anything but general info about the filter let alone effeciency ratings.
hummmmm............very nice..........looks like im switching to mobile 1 filters
D$-- the SAE J1858 multi-pass efficiency rating of 99.2% @ 10 microns for the M1 EP filter is only thing I confirmed. I think someone more educated about the SAE J1858 procedure should be asking the more in depth questions you mentioned. The Mobil filter hotline ph # is 1-800-882-0890.
SWHeat--here's a link to page on Mobil's web site showing the efficiency rating: http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English..._1_Extended_Performance_Oil_Filters_FAQs.aspx
It's the "Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters FAQs" web page.
SWHeat--here's a link to page on Mobil's web site showing the efficiency rating: http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English..._1_Extended_Performance_Oil_Filters_FAQs.aspx
It's the "Mobil 1 Extended Performance Oil Filters FAQs" web page.
Thanks for the link yota4me.
Wow, there it is....in black and white. 99.2% @ 10 microns. I wonder what the "nominal" micron (beta 2) rating is? For that matter, I wonder what the "absolute" (beta 75) rating is?
I wonder if they would give out real beta numbers or if they would just stick to the 99.2% line (which is like...beta 125?). Which is higer than the automotive "absolute" number of beta 75 (98.67%).
Wait...don't tell me. They tested under "Real World" conditions of.....(drum roll please)... 0.025 gal/min.
Oh, wait, they won't give us THAT info!
Just an educated guess from the hints given by Filter Guy re: ALL filter manufacturers and their respective "effeciency numbers."
Can anyone say "particle count" when ordering their UOA? Sure you can...for 20 bucks!
BTW, I just received by UOA kit from blackstone. It took two months to get here! Then, it was labeled "BIO HAZARD" and I had to wait in line to pick it up from the post office. Lame USPS. I'll be doing a particle count on the UOA with a K&N oil filter soon.
Wow, there it is....in black and white. 99.2% @ 10 microns. I wonder what the "nominal" micron (beta 2) rating is? For that matter, I wonder what the "absolute" (beta 75) rating is?
I wonder if they would give out real beta numbers or if they would just stick to the 99.2% line (which is like...beta 125?). Which is higer than the automotive "absolute" number of beta 75 (98.67%).
Wait...don't tell me. They tested under "Real World" conditions of.....(drum roll please)... 0.025 gal/min.
Can anyone say "particle count" when ordering their UOA? Sure you can...for 20 bucks!
BTW, I just received by UOA kit from blackstone. It took two months to get here! Then, it was labeled "BIO HAZARD" and I had to wait in line to pick it up from the post office. Lame USPS. I'll be doing a particle count on the UOA with a K&N oil filter soon.
Mobil 1 EP wasn't tested at .025 gpm..
Besides lab testing..the filters were tested on a fleet of taxi cabs in a major city. Not to mention various other test vehicles.
Besides lab testing..the filters were tested on a fleet of taxi cabs in a major city. Not to mention various other test vehicles.
- Status
