Don't know what part of SAE study you don't comprehend. Those are not my "theories and graphs".
NAPA Platinum vs Fram Ultra
- Thread starter umungus1122
- Start date
I guess it is my experience of being the one given the hardest problems to solve in crystal optics. Assume nothing and think outside the box. The sae test is what it is and it isn't an engine running 10,000 miles or more to capacity, it’s an engine running four hours. That’s 240 miles to capacity at 60 mph, versus about 10,000 in real life. Is that the same test conditions? They have no test yet that duplicates real world conditions, it has to be assumed, but particle counts by members dont show it. When the Ultra loses a particle count test, it is quickly spun by the board controller as meaningless, something was wrong with Blackstone, with no evidence of course, blah blah blah. Total brand bias. It is what it is.Because last time I checked there was no policy on who could wade into a discussion here.
Well, in this case, he's talking about the lab test, and specifically mentioned the standard that determines filter efficiency.
Yes, it tests filter efficiency at a given particle size.
No, it doesn't. Real world use generates myriad particles of various sizes, some of which will pass through the filter, some of which won't. The efficiency of the filter directly correlates with how much of that particulate is captured by the media. A more efficient filter will result in fewer contaminants in circulation, that's why bypass filtration with even finer media is often employed on heavy duty truck applications.
It's not "better", it's just a different test that essentially demonstrates the same thing. A filter with an extremely high efficiency rating will result in fewer particles in circulation. Compare a FRAM Ultra to a filter that's 80% efficient at 30 microns and you'll see very different particle counts.
Not sure what you are trying to say hereFor OTS filters for passenger car applications the most efficient media is what's found in the FRAM Ultra followed closely by the AMSOIL EaO and Royal Purple offerings. All use synthetic glass depth filtration media to reduce the amount of material in circulation and Cummins has posted a ton of material, which I've shared on here in the past, as to how that works and its effects, as has Donaldson.
Good luck and safety to all in these times.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
?
It's not an engine running at all, it's a bench test of the filter using a specific contamination stream as I noted earlier to gauge efficiency:
ISO said:
Some more details here:
It measures filter performance of 10 microns and larger, as noted, in a controlled environment, giving one a clear perspective on the filter's efficiency at that level. If you are trying to compare it to bypass filtration and effectiveness at capturing 2 micron particles, you are in the wrong washroom.
Can you point me to a Blackstone UOA that shows particle count data at specific micron sizes that supports what you've stated? I found this one:
Which shows excellent performance at 14 microns and above, which makes sense for a filter rated at 99% at 20 microns.
Last edited:
ISO 4548-12 is not an SAE test. It's an "International Organization for Standardization" (ISO) test, which is a worldwide organization that comes up with and agrees to the test standards. It's been used for over 20 years and is still the industry standard, so one would think it has some validity in comparing the efficiency of filters.
There are SAE tests that have shown that filters that tested more efficient in the lab test also showed to give cleaner oil in real world use. So that correlates a standard world wide used ISO test to real world results. There are way more UOA PCs on this board that show more efficient filters give better PCs than not. You just latch on to one that you think blows up the whole idea that more efficient filters keep oil cleaner and discount a world wide accepted efficiency test that's been around for over 20 years.
Just a few SAE studies. Go do some of your own research ... all you will find is that a more efficient oil filter will keep the oil cleaner, which results in less engine wear if all other factor are constant.
Last edited:
I wasnt being perfectly accurate with words not wanting to spend all day, but the idea is the same. Loading for 4 hours is not the same test as loading for 150 hours or whatever the calculation comes up with given the parameters. Using motorkings 1 gram per 1000 mile contamination rate, calculate the amount of particles sprinkled in the oil every mile. One milligram per mile on average. Mixed with 5 qts of oil and passed through the filter i dont see how anyone can say that’s the same as the lab bench test. The tests were done by a member here and a couple others had tests. The fun one was the no name toyota look alike filter beating the Ultra in fewer particles In the oil.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It's a controlled test, it's perfectly capable of emulating a much longer OCI cycle by increasing the rate at which contaminants are introduced. The important part is that this is a controlled test so that filters are all subject to the same contaminants and conditions, something that is incapable of being executed by you or any other Joe Average via UOA's with particle counts.
Anyways, we are going in circles here, you are willfully shrugging off the validity of standardized testing because it doesn't support whatever perversion of filtration efficiency you've invested in and are clearly unwilling to entertain that your position may be without merit.
Have a good weekend, I'm done here.
Hit the nail on the head.
@Farnsworth , if you’re not going to be open to the knowledgeable input many users here have, you’re doing yourself and this forum a disservice.
If you recall, I plotted that no name filter's PC you latched on to, and plotted it against other Ultra PCs, and it showed to be way more inefficient than the Ultras. There was even a Fram TG (which is not much less efficiency than the Ultra) that smoked the no name filter badly.
Like said before, using PCs from multiple OCIs from differnent people will have some skewed data, but for the most part I found that more oil efficient filters resulted in cleaner PCs. Basically what every SAE study on oil filtration concludes ... who would have thought.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Napa doesn't thrill me.
Ultra does and you can get it anywhere. Even the basic improved EG. Is great for one oci up to 10k miles.
Ultra does and you can get it anywhere. Even the basic improved EG. Is great for one oci up to 10k miles.
Nope, it is what it is, your plotting other engines into it, or not. I latched onto nothing, it was a posted particle count comparison done on the same engine. When you say I latched on, that is blaming the messenger and off topic. Another common tactic of those desiring to control the narrative. Quite a few other examples where the Ultra wasn’t better, and you know about every one of them.
Have a good weekend. Agreed, done here. When people start saying someone is shrugging at or latching on, it is no longer about the topic . It is the particle loading test sprinlling test dust in oil the same over 240 miles versus 10,000 miles? No answer to that yet. I think they just can't do a longer test, and so someone decided this would emulate it. Maybe, maybe not is what I am saying. No agenda, no disruption, just looking at all possibilities as to why pc;'s are lower for an Ultra than other filters or about the same. None are standing out as terrific over another.
Post up that thread showing the same exact engine was tested with multiple filter brands if that's what your claim is.
Same could be said about latching on to one test, which BTW was not stellar by any means when plotted against other filters besides other Ultras. That filter you talk about was in line with others rated around 99% at 40u IIRC. Therefore it's also no longer about the topic. I can post the graphs back up if you want.
Well one more word since the spin is so off the charts. You said above "If you recall, I plotted that no name filter's PC" You are fully aware it was that filter versus the Ultra on the same car. The Ultra lost. You were in the thread. What are you trying to pull? There have been a number of threads and PC tests with the Ultra not showing well. You were in all of them.
Which is why I say the one milligram per mile real contamination rate cannot be assumed to work the same as the lab bech test where they load the filter rapidly. It is not the same conditions. The particles are far more randomly caught when the sample is so small like under real world conditions.
^^^ Fact is, the "no name" Rock Auto filter you keep latching on to plots out the PC in the range of many other filter PCs rated in the 99@ @ 40u level. Regardless if an Ultra on the same car came out worse doesn't prove anything except the Ultra might have been defective in some way or the oil sample botched because the majority of the Ultras plotted come out with better PCs than filters having a worse ISO efficiency rating.
If you want to look at just one PC, then how do you explain this one? The UOA on a shared sump motorcycle running a Fram TG (99% @ 20u) with 5,000 miles on the oil had a better PC than the new virgin oil that was put in the bike to start with. Maybe it was actual a Frantz ...
From thread link:
Ref Post #1
UOA
4 mic 13238
6 mic 89
14 mic 6
21 mic 3
38 mic 1
70 mic 1
ISO 21/14/10
Ref Post #4
Virgin Oil
4 mic 29178
6 mic 9931
14 mic 497
21 mic 131
38 mic 16
70 mic 6
ISO 22/20/16
If you want to look at just one PC, then how do you explain this one? The UOA on a shared sump motorcycle running a Fram TG (99% @ 20u) with 5,000 miles on the oil had a better PC than the new virgin oil that was put in the bike to start with. Maybe it was actual a Frantz ...
Honda NC700X Red Line 10W30, ~5,000 miles
This is Red Line's 10W30 motorcycle (shared sump) oil. It has around 5,000 miles on it, best I can recall/figure. Somehow, I didn't get the miles entered when I changed it. My NCX has 40,000 miles on it now. I bought it new in '12. It's a great bike that returns me great mpg and never breaks...
bobistheoilguy.com
From thread link:
Ref Post #1
UOA
4 mic 13238
6 mic 89
14 mic 6
21 mic 3
38 mic 1
70 mic 1
ISO 21/14/10
Ref Post #4
Virgin Oil
4 mic 29178
6 mic 9931
14 mic 497
21 mic 131
38 mic 16
70 mic 6
ISO 22/20/16
Why would you say this?
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,249
I'm simply not a fan of that black texture that they use on the end of the filter.For me it's harder to remove the filter,just me
Thanks for the reply
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I think it depends on the application and filter. My cup wrench fits the Jeep filter (XG) no problem and you can't use anything other than a cup wrench (realistically) to remove the filter, so it's not a big deal. I know in other applications, people have had problems with cup wrenches fitting, in which case I could definitely see that being a problem.
- Joined
- May 28, 2014
- Messages
- 2,249
It's not a very secure feeling knowing a cup wrench is too big to be used in a tight spot,so then you have to resort to other methods.I told myself after the last mess I dealt with I'll never install another '**** Ultra
