Napa golds now 99%@23um efficiency!

[JohnnyJohnson]

99% @ 23μ is probably pretty close to 95% @ 20μ.

Yes they keep changing thing up to keep us all comparing apples to oranges. Time for required documentation right on the box XX% at 20 microns make it the standard and stop the BS!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes they keep changing thing up to keep us all comparing apples to oranges. Time for required documentation right on the box XX% at 20 microns make it the standard and stop the BS!

I agree, it would be nice to have a standard "xx% @ 20u" on the box. That's kind of what USCAR-36 tries to do, define a minimum spec at least.

What filter companies like to do is use "98%" or "99%" in their efficiency statement, but not put at what microns size, or make if very hard to find the associated micron size. People who don't understand filter ratings will see the "98%" or "99%" and automatically say "Man, that's really great", when it really might not be so great.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

I agree, it would be nice to have a standard "xx% @ 20u" on the box. That's kind of what USCAR-36 tries to do, define a minimum spec at least.

What filter companies like to do is use "98%" or "99%" in their efficiency statement, but not put at what microns size, or make if very hard to find the associated micron size. People who don't understand filter ratings will see the "98%" or
"99%" and automatically say "Man, that's really great", when it really might not be so great.

Yep different same ole BS!

 

[Sayjac]

It would nice for folks frequenting this forum if ALL the OF manufactures had to publish a standard @20 um efficiency.

That said, I don't think it's a stretch to say the majority of purchasers/consumers/users don't recognize efficiency specs and/or couldn't care less about them. Just reality.

If it was to happen, one would think it should start with the OEM OFs. History being the guide, I feel safe in saying, not happening any time soon if ever.

For those that do care and/or it's a priority, fortunately there are OFs available that provide that provide information in the desired form. My .02

 

[wemay]

Those are great numbers. Hopefully, and I'm sure the vast majority will, they hold up for the given oci.

 

[IndyFan]

I agree, it would be nice to have a standard "xx% @ 20u" on the box. That's kind of what USCAR-36 tries to do, define a minimum spec at least.

What filter companies like to do is use "98%" or "99%" in their efficiency statement, but not put at what microns size, or make if very hard to find the associated micron size. People who don't understand filter ratings will see the "98%" or "99%" and automatically say "Man, that's really great", when it really might not be so great.

I'd like to see the auto manufacturers also say what the minimum spec should be in the same terms, as well. Then we'd at least have an idea of what is good enough.

 

[Blagoje]

It would nice for folks frequenting this forum if ALL the OF manufactures had to publish a standard @20 um efficiency.

That said, I don't think it's a stretch to say the majority of purchasers/consumers/users don't recognize efficiency specs and/or couldn't care less about them. Just reality.

If it was to happen, one would think it should start with the OEM OFs. History being the guide, I feel safe in saying, not happening any time soon if ever.

For those that do care and/or it's a priority, fortunately there are OFs available that provide that provide information in the desired form. My .02

It's weird because you have the 98.7% absolute rating, the 99% rating, and the 99%+ rating that Fram put out for the Ultra. We have to discern how much of this is just marketing and advertising gimmicks versus what actually occurs in the real world.

For the purposes of this thread we might be able to speculate a rough equivalency of numbers such as 99% @ 23 microns could mean that the absolute rating is closer to 98.7% @ 20 microns. Now I do not know and certainly have no ability to confirm this but that being said you have to consider what other manufacturers have put out and then also look at other variable factors like Ascent Filtration's testing.

Royal Purple publishes 99% @ 25 microns but actually tests closer to 98.7-99% @ 20 microns which is what the similar, if not same, filter media from Amsoil claims.

At the end of the day there is probably not THAT much difference in filtration efficiency between the following oil filters: Napa Gold/Wix, Fram Tough Guard/Force, Royal Purple, Amsoil, Champ XL.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'd like to see the auto manufacturers also say what the minimum spec should be in the same terms, as well. Then we'd at least have an idea of what is good enough.

That's what Ford has done when they reference their Motorcraft oil filters meeting or exceeding the specs of USCAR-36. Don't know if any other OEM filter makers reference USCAR-36 or similar ... not from what I've seen anyway.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's weird because you have the 98.7% absolute rating, the 99% rating, and the 99%+ rating that Fram put out for the Ultra. We have to discern how much of this is just marketing and advertising gimmicks versus what actually occurs in the real world.

My bet is when they show "99%" they are simply rounding the absolute efficiency of 98.7% to 99%. The "99%+" that is used by some manufactures simply means it's coming in better than 99% in the ISO 4548-12 test like shown by Andrews IOS testing. The Ultra he tested for instance came in better than 99% @ 20u.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...e-point-and-burst.334882/page-19#post-5789087

For the purposes of this thread we might be able to speculate a rough equivalency of numbers such as 99% @ 23 microns could mean that the absolute rating is closer to 98.7% @ 20 microns.

It'd say 99% @ 23u is more like 95% @ 20u. Don't think it would drop from 23u to 20u with only a 0.7% difference in efficiency.

Now I do not know and certainly have no ability to confirm this but that being said you have to consider what other manufacturers have put out and then also look at other variable factors like Ascent Filtration's testing.

As pointed out in other threads about ISO 4548-12 testing, the size of the filter being tested, and the flow rate and loading rates could cause the outcomes to vary some. That's why Fram typically specifies the ISO efficiency numbers on their website based on the avg of 2 or 3 different sized filters.

At the end of the day there is probably not THAT much difference in filtration efficiency between the following oil filters: Napa Gold/Wix, Fram Tough Guard/Force, Royal Purple, Amsoil, Champ XL.

I know WIX/NAPA Gold says they are 95% @ 20u. Fram says the TG is 99% @20u, and the EG is 95% @ 20u (same as WIX/NAPA Gold).