List of oil filters with 99% efficiency at 20 microns.

From the RoyalPurple website:
  • ß25 = 100 (at 25 or greater micron, media is 99% efficient.)
  • ß20 = 75 (at 20 or greater micron, media is 98.7% efficient. Also considered absolute rating.)
  • ß10 = 5 (at 10 micron or greater, media is 80% efficient.)
 
The only Chrysler products I recall burning oil were the early 90s minivans with the Mitsubishi engine. And those have long disappeared from the roads around here. Probably has been 20 years or more since I've seen one.
And Neons, and K-cars, and the 4-cyl Dusters… and probably others as well.

At least they kept mosquitoes in check during summer…
 
From the RoyalPurple website:
  • ß25 = 100 (at 25 or greater micron, media is 99% efficient.)
  • ß20 = 75 (at 20 or greater micron, media is 98.7% efficient. Also considered absolute rating.)
  • ß10 = 5 (at 10 micron or greater, media is 80% efficient.)
So you’re agreeing that RP filters are not 99%@20u, correct?
 
You guys are worried about 99, or wait 97.3556%. I've been working on engines and cars trucks etc,since high school auto mechanics.Not once have I had an oil related failure worrying about such ridiculous miniscule difference between oil filters is a waste of time 😂
 
You guys are worried about 99, or wait 97.3556%. I've been working on engines and cars trucks etc,since high school auto mechanics.Not once have I had an oil related failure worrying about such ridiculous miniscule difference between oil filters is a waste of time 😂
So you’re good with a manufacturer lying to you about its products specs, or with how it honestly compares to the competition?

If it’s ok for oil filters to cheat & cut corners, where does it end?
 
Its definitely insignificant for the average owner and only for the useless arguments in forum threads.

If anyone cared about filtration, they'd use a bypass filter or an ancient Frantz with a some toilet paper.

Without gram holding capacity, the OP's list compilation is a meaningless list. And, one would need the soot loading amount coming from the engine manufacturer. Some of us know already what engines Amsoil filters don't like.
 
Has nothing to do with research. I’m not even arguing for a specific filter. If specs are meaningless in the long run, why have them?
There representative specs to compare one brand to the other - as published by marketing. I can guarantee you the media changes slightly from batch to batch for every manufacture, so it could be 99.3% this week and 98.7 next week anyway. Also the ratings are for some specific filter size or format, not necessarily the one your buying.

So yes, 99% at 20um is different than 99% at 30um for sure.

99% vs 97% for the same particle size is a meaningless difference both statistically and practically in my opinion.
 
99% vs 97% for the same particle size is a meaningless difference both statistically and practically in my opinion.
Depends on the total amount of debris in that micron range, and the amount of time that liquid is circulated thru said media.

I agree in short time cycles (admittedly, “short” is a nebulous guess), let’s say 5 minutes, 99% and 97% may be statistically similar. Over a 20k mile, hundreds of hours OCI, we’d have to run at least 30 samples from each filter to be able to accurately say there’s no difference.
 
There representative specs to compare one brand to the other - as published by marketing. I can guarantee you the media changes slightly from batch to batch for every manufacture, so it could be 99.3% this week and 98.7 next week anyway. Also the ratings are for some specific filter size or format, not necessarily the one your buying.

So yes, 99% at 20um is different than 99% at 30um for sure.

99% vs 97% for the same particle size is a meaningless difference both statistically and practically in my opinion.
I call B.S. 99 percent at 20u will have better efficiency at 5u compared to 95 at 20u. Most wear comes from the finer particles.
 
Back
Top