Premium Guard Ext Life - 99% at 25 microns, but micron rating is 42-60?

[mitsuman47]

Need a sanity check here. Based on the recent Fram QC issues, I’m looking for another high efficiency filter for my cars.

Premium Guard Extended Life (and its rumored twin the Microgard Select from O’reilly) claim a rating of 99% at 25 microns. But, on the same page show a “micron rating” of 42-60.

What’s the difference between these ratings?


https://www.pgfilters.com/product-catalog/product-page/PG4612EX/2023-Honda-Accord/Oil-Filter/

 

[fantastic]

Their wording gives me reservations. Well of course the filter removes particles as small as 25 microns but at what efficiency is it at 25 microns. It would look as though that is 99% but if you read it carefully it's basically useless jargon. Does it remove 1 25 micron particle or 99% of 25 micron particles.

• "99% Multi-Pass efficiency and removal of particles as small as 25 microns"

It appears this filter is rated 99% efficient between 42-60 microns not 25 microns. But it will remove SOME 25 micron size particles but not 99% of that size. 51 microns is the average between those two numbers so you could assume 99% @ 51 microns to be the best guess on this filter.

Need more transparent data from PG to really know for certain... Either way you can safely disregard the 99%@25 microns.
Also, just FYI some Microgards are M+H products of sorts.

 

[EvoMan]

Here’s a thread from earlier this year that talks about the Premium Guard oil filters.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/whats-the-new-top-filter.382794/

 

[ZeeOSix]

Need a sanity check here. Based on the recent Fram QC issues, I’m looking for another high efficiency filter for my cars.

Premium Guard Extended Life (and its rumored twin the Microgard Select from O’reilly) claim a rating of 99% at 25 microns. But, on the same page show a “micron rating” of 42-60.

What’s the difference between these ratings?

This non-clear wording on the PG website has been brought up before. Leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but if it doesn't specifically say "xx% at yy microns per ISO 4548-12" like it says for the Microgard, then take it with a grain of salt. I emailed PG about the wording and asked for clarity on the efficiency ... never heard anything back. In fact, I've emailed PG three times for a couple more things I wanted clarification on ... again, never any responds. Their customer service is non-existent.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Either way you can safely disregard the 99%@25 microns.

That efficiency statement is from O'Reilly on the Microgard Select ... not from PG.

Also, just FYI some Microgards are M+H products of sorts.

I don't think the Microgard Selects are, but rather some of their low tier base filter.

 

[Glenda W.]

This is why I like the Microgard Select. Clearly states ISO 4548-12 90% 25 microns. My gut says you pay a couple bucks more for the iso blessing and possibly slightly better media.

 

[factorytuned2012]

Premium Guard Extended Life (and its rumored twin the Microgard Select from O’reilly) claim a rating of 99% at 25 microns. But, on the same page show a “micron rating” of 42-60.

42-60 at what percentage?

 

[fantastic]

That efficiency statement is from O'Reilly on the Microgard Select ... not from PG.

OP's image is straight from PG's website. I'm referring to the statement shown in the picture (2nd bullet point down).

I don't think the Microgard Selects are, but rather some of their low tier base filter.

Could be, don't remember the exact specifics just that PG warned me that the lower tiered Microgard filters were not always sourced from PG.

 

[ZeeOSix]

OP's image is straight from PG's website. I'm referring to the statement shown in the picture (2nd bullet point down).

You said in post 2, and what I was commenting on: "Either way you can safely disregard the 99%@25 microns."

The 2nd bullet in that screen shot does not say that. So which filter are you referring to when you said?: "Either way you can safely disregard the 99%@25 microns."

 

[fantastic]

You said in post 2, and what I was commenting on: "Either way you can safely disregard the 99%@25 microns."

The 2nd bullet in that screen shot does not say that. So which filter are you referring to when you said?: "Either way you can safely disregard the 99%@25 microns."

The premium guard filter is not rated 99@25 microns & if there was any confusion about the PG's statement, in which the OP seems to have, some folks would read that as saying the filter is 99% @25 but it's not hence my clarifying statement. You can read it as "This filter is not actually rated like that so disregard". I'm not saying "Disregard X statement". Hopefully, that makes more sense & we can move on from here.

 

[mitsuman47]

This non-clear wording on the PG website has been brought up before. Leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but if it doesn't specifically say "xx% at yy microns per ISO 4548-12" like it says for the Microgard, then take it with a grain of salt. I emailed PG about the wording and asked for clarity on the efficiency ... never heard anything back. In fact, I've emailed PG three times for a couple more things I wanted clarification on ... again, never any responds. Their customer service is non-existent.

I’m even questioning the microgard select since these are rumored to be twins. I picture someone who has been tasked with typing up the description for the website, who doesn’t know enough to question it. And, would any customers test it to find out otherwise?

 

[ZeeOSix]

The premium guard filter is not rated 99@25 microns & if there was any confusion about the PG's statement, in which the OP seems to have, some folks would read that as saying the filter is 99% @25 but it's not hence my clarifying statement. You can read it as "This filter is not actually rated like that so disregard". Hopefully, that makes more sense & we can move on from here.

Two things are going on here. My comment was to clarify that the Mircogard Select on O'Reilly's website specifically says it's 99% @25u per ISO 4548-12. Yes, I agree that the PG efficiency claim in the screen shot is nebulous, but the O'Reilly statement isn't. For all we know the Mircogard Selects may be made more efficienct than the PG's, maybe per O'Reilly specs. If the PGs and MGS were the "same" filter, then why doesn't PG specifically call out the efficiency with an ISO 4548-12 reference like O'Reilly? PG never answers emails, so that's a bit concerning too since it might be a sign that they are trying to hide something.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I’m even questioning the microgard select since these are rumored to be twins. I picture someone who has been tasked with typing up the description for the website, who doesn’t know enough to question it. And, who would test it to find out otherwise?

Just because the media "looks the same" doesn't mean they are the same. Why would O'Reilly have an ISO 4548-12 efficiency spec and PG (who supposedly makes them) doesn't? That seems pretty strange to me.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Their wording gives me reservations. Well of course the filter removes particles as small as 25 microns but at what efficiency is it at 25 microns. It would look as though that is 99% but if you read it carefully it's basically useless jargon. Does it remove 1 25 micron particle or 99% of 25 micron particles.

• "99% Multi-Pass efficiency and removal of particles as small as 25 microns"

It appears this filter is rated 99% efficient between 42-60 microns not 25 microns. But it will remove SOME 25 micron size particles but not 99% of that size. 51 microns is the average between those two numbers so you could assume 99% @ 51 microns to be the best guess on this filter.

Need more transparent data from PG to really know for certain... Either way you can safely disregard the 99%@25 microns.
Also, just FYI some Microgards are M+H products of sorts.

I have interpreted this the same way as you. I emailed them and no response.

If you look at the Ecoguard website, they do claim that it is 99% at 25 microns. Ecoguard was acquired by PG several years ago. I emailed them and no response. A few years back a member here got very responsive answers from Ecoguard.

So are some of the filters out there as rebranded PGs / Ecoguards the PGs and are some of them Ecoguards?

Or are PGs and Ecoguards fungible now?

PG say that they have the ability to source the same filter from more than 1 location, presumably Vietnam and China. They are most definitely a very large volume filter supplier and supplying multiple private label filters.

My understanding is that Napa are very particular about their filter quality so it might be worth asking Napa what efficiency their PG supplied filter is.

I am getting very annoyed with all the filter manufacturers to some degree and may lodge a complaint with the FTC and whoever regulates this in California. The efficiency and micron ratings are being obfuscated and misleading and whether filters meet OE requirements and the quality is suspect. I've had suspect answers from Wix and no answer from Fram and no answer from PG. The WIX XP does not meet USCAR36 despite Wix saying it does. It is not a coincidence that Wix have lost Napa's business.

 

[fantastic]

I have interpreted this the same way as you. I emailed them and no response.

Seems silly but they get away with it b/c how many really care about ISO testing outside of BITOG. Least they could do is tell you a canned response or "It's proprietary".

If you look at the Ecoguard website, they do claim that it is 99% at 25 microns.

Good to know.

So are some of the filters out there as rebranded PGs / Ecoguards the PGs and are some of them Ecoguards?

Or are PGs and Ecoguards fungible now?

From what I collect there are some overlapping filters (consolidation) but other than that I'd still treat them differently until you have evidence they're the same filter.

I am getting very annoyed with all the filter manufacturers to some degree and may lodge a complaint with the FTC and whoever regulates this in California. The efficiency and micron ratings are being obfuscated and misleading and whether filters meet OE requirements and the quality is suspect. I've had suspect answers from Wix and no answer from Fram and no answer from PG. The WIX XP does not meet USCAR36 despite Wix saying it does. It is not a coincidence that Wix have lost Napa's business.

Word! No response when seeking transparency leaves us all scratching our heads.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I have a Ecogard Synthetic here that the box says 99% with a * - and on the other side it says *Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns". So 99% @25 microns

I have a Carquest Premium that says absolutely nothing. Their website says "Synthetic blend media provides 99.5% efficiency at 20 microns and 2X capacity vs. Standard filters" Based on what I have no idea. https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p...rotection-up-to-10-000-miles-84356/10555794-P

Both are Premium Gard Made in China variants with the "Leak Tested" logo.

I agree its 100% possible they use different media for different brand label customers. However there build quality is excellent and they use a silicon ADBV at a price that is tolerable, So right now it would be my go to - except I need to use up a few years of earlier stock first

 

[Glenda W.]

Here’s the Microgard Select official ISO results. The question we don’t know is whether the media is different vs other PG filters that lack the *ISO blessing

 

[CharlieBauer]

I have a Ecogard Synthetic here that the box says 99% with a * - and on the other side it says *Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns". So 99% @25 microns

I have a Carquest Premium that says absolutely nothing. Their website says "Synthetic blend media provides 99.5% efficiency at 20 microns and 2X capacity vs. Standard filters" Based on what I have no idea. https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p...rotection-up-to-10-000-miles-84356/10555794-P

Both are Premium Gard Made in China variants with the "Leak Tested" logo.

I agree its 100% possible they use different media for different brand label customers. However there build quality is excellent and they use a silicon ADBV at a price that is tolerable, So right now it would be my go to - except I need to use up a few years of earlier stock first

If you type "Carquest <part number>" into google, you get a filter specific link as the first result. In your case:

http://weblink.carquest.com/acl/?mfgName=CFI&partNumber=84356

And it says: "99% filtration efficiency at 30 microns"

But that might be an older filter since the gasket is black.

And when the spec is written in the generic area, I don't take it to be accurate for that specific filter. If it is written in the "Specifications" area, I take it to be for that filter along with the dimensions and bypass psi.

In my opinion, it is false advertising how they do it. All of them.

 

[Glenda W.]

Here’s the latest Carquest Premium specs. But lacks *ISO

 

[bullwinkle]

Short of coughing up several grand and sending a couple of filters (Premium Guard & Ecogard XLs) to Ascent to be tested like they did the PH10575 sized ones, it's all conjecture anyway-PG isn't giving out consistent, otherwise verifiable info anyway!