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

[SC Maintenance]

My question is how if the filter has a 42-60 micron rating? Wouldn't that mean it passes everything below 42 micron?

I am still not believing that 42-60 micron number has any meaning. Its on one website of one of the marketing arms for these filters and doesn't even say that is the filtering spec. That is literally all it says "micron rating 42~60". Meaningless. All the other filters from the same place have actual specs and ISO references.

As for the 99% - most all of these filters use a cellulose material. Its non homogenous. There may be a small number of gaps that are greater than whatever size particle there specifying. So if something hits perfect it may sneak through. Its the same reason why a filter that specs 99% at 30um might actually catch something like 30% of 10um - its all about where in the weave it gets caught.

It may also be to a degree a CYA catch all - in case someone tries to sue, etc.

 

[Alien]

Since nobody directly answered my question, I will assume that either 42-60 micron rating is wrong or the efficiency should read 99%@42-60?

Because of the (probably carefully crafted) vagueness of the published information from PG, their unresponsiveness to questions, and the lack of any third party testing data, it is currently impossible to answer your question. All we have is assumptions and beliefs.

 

[kschachn]

Since nobody directly answered my question, I will assume that either 42-60 micron rating is wrong or the efficiency should read 99%@42-60?

It would not be a range. That’s contrary to ISO reporting requirements.

 

[Glenda W.]

My theory is this is the oem spec sheet. It lists things like filter dimensions, bypass, and an efficiency range etc. because one model can cover multiple cars/manufacturers. Of course 99%@25 exceeds oem. Again just my opinion.

 

[tmorris1]

It would not be a range. That’s contrary to ISO reporting requirements.

I get that but just trying to understand the two specs and how they would be related.

All hypothetical...
Given a micron rating of 40 micron, would it be possible to have a multi-pass efficiency rating of smaller than 40 microns?

I am assuming in the Premium Guard specs that either the micron rating or the efficiency is stated wrong, correct? Because you can't have an multi-pass efficiency rating of 25 microns if the filter is only rated for 40. Is my understanding correct?

 

[Glenda W.]

I get that but just trying to understand the two specs and how they would be related.

All hypothetical...
Given a micron rating of 40 micron, would it be possible to have a multi-pass efficiency rating of smaller than 40 microns?

I am assuming in the Premium Guard specs that either the micron rating or the efficiency is stated wrong, correct? Because you can't have an multi-pass efficiency rating of 25 microns if the filter is only rated for 40. Is my understanding correct?

Say that model fits a Honda, Mazda, and Toyota. The oem spec might be 42 for the Honda, 60 for the Toyota, and 52 for the Mazda. This gives you a range of 99%@42-60. The PG exceeds oem specs at 99%@25. Again this is my guess because 42-60 has nothing to do with ISO 4548-12 99%@25.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Read post #30

Then read post #32 and #43.

 

[ZeeOSix]

My question is how if the filter has a 42-60 micron rating? Wouldn't that mean it passes everything below 42 micron?

That's not how it works with filter efficiency performance. Go read up on efficiency testing in this thread. Even a filter that is 99% @ 42u is catching some 5 micron particles, but it's a low percentage of 5 micron particles. There efficiency vs particle size curve is what tells the whole story.

A

Post in thread 'Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?'

Jun 4, 2021

I will get a video out with more details, but at the moment I cannot. I hope you all enjoy this summery of your favorite filters! You all have waited long enough and I appreciate you patients!

• Ascent Filtration Testing

• 
• 
• 

 

[ZeeOSix]

Because of what I uncovered about the correct efficiency of the Boss, people here have rallied around the PG EXTs and its clones. But if they are both in fact in the same efficiency category (as the 40 - 60u spec indicates), then there is no relative efficiency advantage to either filter model.

I disagree with that ... the PG filters are higher efficiency than that, as shown by all the other info posted in this thread.

 

[ZeeOSix]

My question is how if the filter has a 42-60 micron rating? Wouldn't that mean it passes everything below 42 micron?

See post #68. That's how oil filter efficiency works. It has an efficiency vs particle size curve.

 

[Glenda W.]

This graph also shows an appropriate efficiency curve. Also shows why some PG’s state 99%@20 and others 99%@25. Both are correct.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I am still not believing that 42-60 micron number has any meaning. Its on one website of one of the marketing arms for these filters and doesn't even say that is the filtering spec. That is literally all it says "micron rating 42~60". Meaningless. All the other filters from the same place have actual specs and ISO references.

Agreed ... all the other efficiency information over-rides some nebulous statement on their website.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Because of the (probably carefully crafted) vagueness of the published information from PG, their unresponsiveness to questions, and the lack of any third party testing data, it is currently impossible to answer your question. All we have is assumptions and beliefs.

They clearly reference ISO 4548-12.

 

[ZeeOSix]

All hypothetical...
Given a micron rating of 40 micron, would it be possible to have a multi-pass efficiency rating of smaller than 40 microns?

See efficiency vs particle size curves posted above.

I am assuming in the Premium Guard specs that either the micron rating or the efficiency is stated wrong, correct? Because you can't have an multi-pass efficiency rating of 25 microns if the filter is only rated for 40. Is my understanding correct?

With all the info on the table, I'm going with "99% for particles as small as 25u" means it's 99% @ 25u The PG built MicroGard Select also has the same efficiency rating ... don't think it's a "coincidence".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Again this is my guess because 42-60 has nothing to do with ISO 4548-12 99%@25.

True ... but some only latch on to that regardless of all the other info that references ISO 4548-12.

 

[scoot]

I am still not believing that 42-60 micron number has any meaning. Its on one website of one of the marketing arms for these filters and doesn't even say that is the filtering spec. That is literally all it says "micron rating 42~60". Meaningless. All the other filters from the same place have actual specs and ISO references.

As for the 99% - most all of these filters use a cellulose material. Its non homogenous. There may be a small number of gaps that are greater than whatever size particle there specifying. So if something hits perfect it may sneak through. Its the same reason why a filter that specs 99% at 30um might actually catch something like 30% of 10um - its all about where in the weave it gets caught.

It may also be to a degree a CYA catch all - in case someone tries to sue, etc.

PG looks to make a basic filter , which is a biggie because most companies can't do that consistently . Filter is nothing to get excited about efficiency wise . Just a good run of the mil filter that is well made . In the Purolator boss category efficiency wise. Not in the Pure one area . Conjecture of course because that's all this is with these ongoing threads .

 

[ZeeOSix]

PG looks to make a basic filter , which is a biggie because most companies can't do that consistently . Filter is nothing to get excited about efficiency wise . Just a good run of the mil filter that is well made . In the Purolator boss category efficiency wise. Not in the Pure one area . Conjecture of course because that's all this is with these ongoing threads .

There is nothing that says the PG extended life type filters are "In the Purolator Boss category efficiency wise".

 

[Glenda W.]

There is nothing that says the PG extended life type filters are "In the Purolator Boss category efficiency wise".

And the pure one isn’t even in the PG XL league efficiency wise…build quality wise purolator is abysmal

 

[mitsuman47]

This graph also shows an appropriate efficiency curve. Also shows why some PG’s state 99%@20 and others 99%@25. Both are correct.

View attachment 262914

I need to get my mitts on some of these Service Pro EP filters. They look impressive on paper.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And the pure one isn’t even in the PG XL league efficiency wise…

True depending on which PureOne model now that M+H has been the sole owner of Purolator. The spec sheet for the popular PureOne PL14610 now shows it to be 99% @ 30u. When Purolator was in control, they claimed it was higher than that. Oil filters change all the time due to companies changing hands all the time. One thing that seems good about PGI made filters is their ownership doesn't change hands every couple of years like same filter companies have.