PUREONE BETA RATES!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Hi grease monkeys,
Been gone awhile going thru two vehicles (both totaled). Been spending awhile doing a lot of catch up. Found humor in how so many argue for their brand of filter because it is 2 - 3 dollars cheaper. I spend more than that driving to/from the auto shop that carries my brand/style of filter! Lately I "discovered" Fram's new Ultra Synthetic oil filter and noticed their claim of 99+% cleaning ability. Had to look hard to find that their claim is for 20 microns and larger. No Thanks! Even Purolator's "old" Pure One filter does much better than that. Now I am looking into Purolator's latest oil filter, the Boss. They state a mileage limit of 15k vs Fram's 20k. Makes sense - a filter that stops more will be at its limits sooner than one that allows the smaller stuff through. Now, as I did once before with Purolator's engineers, I'll be trying to get their beta data. Stay tuned. (Super Busa - you listening?)


eek.gif
you have missed the holy wars that put the ultra far above the one.
eek.gif
 
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Lately I "discovered" Fram's new Ultra Synthetic oil filter and noticed their claim of 99+% cleaning ability. Had to look hard to find that their claim is for 20 microns and larger. No Thanks!


Looks like you need to also catch up on what "20 microns and larger" actually means when talking about oil filters. Here's an example of how an oil filter is performing at "82% efficient at 30 microns and larger". Which could also be said to be "82% efficient at 30 microns". Keep in mind that 30.000001 is still larger than 30. The red dot is 30 microns, and the start of the blue line is 30.000001 microns and goes larger than 30 until it hits the 100% line.

 
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Lately I "discovered" Fram's new Ultra Synthetic oil filter and noticed their claim of 99+% cleaning ability. Had to look hard to find that their claim is for 20 microns and larger.

What, precisely, is wrong with that? What will you find that is more efficient, aside from bypass filtration?

jhellwig: It wasn't a "holy" war. It was a "hole-y" war.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
jhellwig: It wasn't a "holy" war. It was a "hole-y" war.


Nice one -
lol.gif
 
Went back to Fram's web site and found where they state their efficiency rating is 99% at GREATER than 20 microns. I still do not understand how that is anything to crow about.
confused2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Lately I "discovered" Fram's new Ultra Synthetic oil filter and noticed their claim of 99+% cleaning ability. Had to look hard to find that their claim is for 20 microns and larger. No Thanks!


Looks like you need to also catch up on what "20 microns and larger" actually means when talking about oil filters. Here's an example of how an oil filter is performing at "82% efficient at 30 microns and larger". Which could also be said to be "82% efficient at 30 microns". Keep in mind that 30.000001 is still larger than 30. The red dot is 30 microns, and the start of the blue line is 30.000001 microns and goes larger than 30 until it hits the 100% line.




How many people are going to actually walk into WM with a graph like this and say to themselves,"Hmmmmmm, let me look at my BETA graph and choose an oil filter according to where it is on my chart!" How many? NONE! Maybe a hand full of BITOG members, but an average JANE DOE or JOHN Q. PUBLIC don't even know about that chart. SMH!
 
^^^ The point of the graph (with an explanation) was to show that saying "99% for particles greater than 20 microns" is basically the same for all practical purposes as saying "99% at 20 microns". 20.00001 is still greater than 20 ... that's all you need to know to understand oil filter efficiency ratings.

This might be appropriate:
 
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Went back to Fram's web site and found where they state their efficiency rating is 99% at GREATER than 20 microns. I still do not understand how that is anything to crow about.
confused2.gif


Instead of answering my previous question, you are back stating more dissatisfaction with Fram's efficiency?
 
Originally Posted By: SHAMUS
Went back to Fram's web site and found where they state their efficiency rating is 99% at GREATER than 20 microns. I still do not understand how that is anything to crow about.
confused2.gif



It's because 20 is an absolute number, there is no + and no - around it. It is impossible to have a perfect 20 micron particle. So Fram is accurate when they say greater than 20. When others say at 20 they are thinking of the 20 point on a graph. Either way is fine, just need to understand it. The problem with choosing a filter based on the multi pass efficiency test is it is not a real world test. If your engine loads the filter full in 200 miles, it's the test for you. Meanwhile another filter with cellulose finer filtration parts in it, keeps the oil cleaner than a best filter on the multi pass test.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The problem with choosing a filter based on the multi pass efficiency test is it is not a real world test. If your engine loads the filter full in 200 miles, it's the test for you. Meanwhile another filter with cellulose finer filtration parts in it, keeps the oil cleaner than a best filter on the multi pass test.


You keep to claiming this, but never show any official technical source to back it up.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The problem with choosing a filter based on the multi pass efficiency test is it is not a real world test. If your engine loads the filter full in 200 miles, it's the test for you. Meanwhile another filter with cellulose finer filtration parts in it, keeps the oil cleaner than a best filter on the multi pass test.


You keep to claiming this, but never show any official technical source to back it up.


We have a whole bypass filter section here devoted to finer filtration. Do you like hiking?
 
I'm not talking about bypass filters. You make many claims that ISO lab testing of filters is useless to determine real world performance, and that cellulose media filters better than full synthetic, but you never post up links, etc to back it up. Meanwhile, if anyone did their own search for that information, they will see those claims really don't hold any water. Just sayin' ... constantly making claims without any backup data is pretty pointless on this chat board.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm not talking about bypass filters. You make many claims that ISO lab testing of filters is useless to determine real world performance, and that cellulose media filters better than full synthetic, but you never post up links, etc to back it up. Meanwhile, if anyone did their own search for that information, they will see those claims really don't hold any water. Just sayin' ... constantly making claims without any backup data is pretty pointless on this chat board.


This technique doesn't work on me. The multi pass test represents loading in a four hour interval, real life represents appx. a two hundred hour interval. No matter how you spin and cherry pick info, ignoring real data that doesn't suit your agenda, nothing changes 4 into 200. They are not the same. It has use, the 4 hour test but I am not on the bandwagon. Keep on spinning, no matter, they are not the same. Bypass filtration is totally relevant to what I am saying. 100% efficiency relevant.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm not talking about bypass filters. You make many claims that ISO lab testing of filters is useless to determine real world performance, and that cellulose media filters better than full synthetic, but you never post up links, etc to back it up. Meanwhile, if anyone did their own search for that information, they will see those claims really don't hold any water. Just sayin' ... constantly making claims without any backup data is pretty pointless on this chat board.


This technique doesn't work on me. The multi pass test represents loading in a four hour interval, real life represents appx. a two hundred hour interval. No matter how you spin and cherry pick info, ignoring real data that doesn't suit your agenda, nothing changes 4 into 200. They are not the same. It has use, the 4 hour test but I am not on the bandwagon. Keep on spinning, no matter, they are not the same. Bypass filtration is totally relevant to what I am saying. 100% efficiency relevant.


Keep bypass filters out of the discussion, because it's not what we're talking about.

Again ... post up some links to your claims - I've asked you to show them many times because you keep claiming this "theory". There is absolutely no information that says a filter that tests with high efficiency in the ISO test doesn't do the same in real life. Go search this board for the "Bus Study" and you'll see where I posted graphs from a formal SAE controlled study that shows a direct correlation of filter lab efficiency testing to real life use oil cleanliness. Go try to search the internet for information that proves otherwise. I think I know why you don't ever post links to backup your info ... because it can't be backed up.

Discussions on this board are supposed to be technically accurate, and not spreading about bogus claims that have no technical backing. Dig up some info and links to prove your claims to have a real technical discussion - otherwise, it's just smoke.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm not talking about bypass filters. You make many claims that ISO lab testing of filters is useless to determine real world performance, and that cellulose media filters better than full synthetic, but you never post up links, etc to back it up. Meanwhile, if anyone did their own search for that information, they will see those claims really don't hold any water. Just sayin' ... constantly making claims without any backup data is pretty pointless on this chat board.


This technique doesn't work on me. The multi pass test represents loading in a four hour interval, real life represents appx. a two hundred hour interval. No matter how you spin and cherry pick info, ignoring real data that doesn't suit your agenda, nothing changes 4 into 200. They are not the same. It has use, the 4 hour test but I am not on the bandwagon. Keep on spinning, no matter, they are not the same. Bypass filtration is totally relevant to what I am saying. 100% efficiency relevant.


Keep bypass filters out of the discussion, because it's not what we're talking about.

Again ... post up some links to your claims - I've asked you to show them many times because you keep claiming this "theory". There is absolutely no information that says a filter that tests with high efficiency in the ISO test doesn't do the same in real life. Go search this board for the "Bus Study" and you'll see where I posted graphs from a formal SAE controlled study that shows a direct correlation of filter lab efficiency testing to real life use oil cleanliness. Go try to search the internet for information that proves otherwise. I think I know why you don't ever post links to backup your info ... because it can't be backed up.

Discussions on this board are supposed to be technically accurate, and not spreading about bogus claims that have no technical backing. Dig up some info and links to prove your claims to have a real technical discussion - otherwise, it's just smoke.


Not going to work on me. The 4 hour test is what it is, not more. Spin won't make it more hours. That's technically accurate.
 
I'm with goodtimes on this one. If you want efficiency, messing around with the full flow isn't the way to get it. The ISO tests are indeed quite a ways off from practical, real world engine oil filtering results. Wouldn't say they're exactly useless, as the results can be directly compared to each other using the standardized methodology, but then extrapolating those results into real world performance is dubious at best.

That said, I've never seen a Fram Ultra UOA look consistently as impressive as a bypass UOA
21.gif
 
I knew you couldn't prove your claim, and never will be able to especially since there is SAE technical info that supports correlation between lab efficiency test ranking and the same filtering effectiveness ranking in real life test data. You will never find any official study that says a filter that tested low in efficiency in the lab is going to be a better performer in the field than a filter that tested high in efficiency in the lab.
 
Originally Posted By: PeterPolyol
I'm with goodtimes on this one. If you want efficiency, messing around with the full flow isn't the way to get it. The ISO tests are indeed quite a ways off from practical, real world engine oil filtering results. Wouldn't say they're exactly useless, as the results can be directly compared to each other using the standardized methodology, but then extrapolating those results into real world performance is dubious at best.

That said, I've never seen a Fram Ultra UOA look consistently as impressive as a bypass UOA
21.gif



Again, not talking about bypass filtering. So why would anyone think just using an Ultra (or any other very high efficiency oil filter) would be better than a good bypass filtering system - no brainer. That's not my claim.

Since goodtimes can't back up his "lab efficiency test is useless" claim, maybe you can ... please post up official SAE type study info that shows filters that test low in efficiency in the lab keep oil cleaner in real world use than filters that test high in efficiency in the lab. I've never found one study that proves that, maybe you or someone else can. If so, post up the links.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: yota4me

From an Amsoil TSB on engine wear:

"The SAE paper summarizes the test results with
the following conclusions:
“Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced
with an increase in filter single pass efficiency.
Compared to a 40u filter, engine wear
was reduced by 50% with 30u filtration. Likewise,
wear was reduced by 70% with 15u filtration.
“Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the
range of 2 to 22u in the lube oil is necessary for
controlling engine wear."


This is the main reason I added bypass oil filtration.

But in the "real world" it probably doesn't matter.


This is why I change oil more frequently. No full flow filter will filter out 2u, so short of going to a by-pass filter system, frequent changes are the short and quick answer. Most vehicles don't have the room for a by-pass system anyway.

A good example is an automatic transmission. Have you dropped the pan to change it and seen all the "dust" all over everything? That shows the filter is basically just there to prevent large particles of clutch material from clogging up the valve body. An engine oil filter probably is not filtering out particles as small as this "dust" and they are being held in suspension by the engine oil so they don't end up as deposits.

The more frequently you change, the cleaner the oil left behind is, and the cleaner the fresh oil will be. I have been using PureOne filters because they are cheap and filter well. If they load up in a few thousand miles, it doesn't matter because I will have changed it out already. Purolater has changed their filter line-up so the PureOne no longer exists. I presume the Purolater One is comparable to the PureOne?

Instead of paying for expensive oil that is supposed to last 15k or more miles, I buy the low price, still good quality oil that I can change more often for the same price as a more expensive oil that's supposed to last longer.
 
Originally Posted By: garageman402
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: yota4me

From an Amsoil TSB on engine wear:

"The SAE paper summarizes the test results with
the following conclusions:
“Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced
with an increase in filter single pass efficiency.
Compared to a 40u filter, engine wear
was reduced by 50% with 30u filtration. Likewise,
wear was reduced by 70% with 15u filtration.
“Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the
range of 2 to 22u in the lube oil is necessary for
controlling engine wear."


This is the main reason I added bypass oil filtration.

But in the "real world" it probably doesn't matter.


This is why I change oil more frequently. No full flow filter will filter out 2u, so short of going to a by-pass filter system, frequent changes are the short and quick answer. Most vehicles don't have the room for a by-pass system anyway.

A good example is an automatic transmission. Have you dropped the pan to change it and seen all the "dust" all over everything? That shows the filter is basically just there to prevent large particles of clutch material from clogging up the valve body. An engine oil filter probably is not filtering out particles as small as this "dust" and they are being held in suspension by the engine oil so they don't end up as deposits.

The more frequently you change, the cleaner the oil left behind is, and the cleaner the fresh oil will be. I have been using PureOne filters because they are cheap and filter well. If they load up in a few thousand miles, it doesn't matter because I will have changed it out already. Purolater has changed their filter line-up so the PureOne no longer exists. I presume the Purolater One is comparable to the PureOne?

Instead of paying for expensive oil that is supposed to last 15k or more miles, I buy the low price, still good quality oil that I can change more often for the same price as a more expensive oil that's supposed to last longer.


Well stated. There just was someone who did a particle test using a Fram Ultra, and the oil was loaded with 4 micron particles especially. Scoring a rather poor 23 at 4 microns ISO cleanliness number. Another member compared a Fram Ultra to a no name but good quality filter, and the no name beat the Ultra in a real world oil change interval test. The no name took out more particles. Blackstone Labs results, not someone saying it.
Similar to how a bypass filter works, I believe cellulose fibers are capable of finer filtration than full flow synthetic fibers. Within the full flow filter, like Microgreen and others have devised more obviously with separate elements. Cellulose fibers along with synthetic acts the same way as a bypass system. The synthetic does not absorb particles into itself like cellulose. Oil pressure is the same against cellulose fibers and particles can imbed in them. In time, particles are captured by cellulose that would slip around a synthetic fiber. I think a blend is best, synthetic for capacity and flow and cellulose for finer filtration. My
49.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Beta Ratio and how and why to use it instead of efficiency rating
Replies
8
Views
2K
ZeeOSix
P
  • Locked
articles on beta ratio and efficiency
Replies
1
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
dnewton3
  • Locked
micron effeciency (rating) versus insolubles
Replies
4
Views
2K
daman
Back
Top