Question about 'performance oil filters'

Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
2,427
Location
USA
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
The 99+%20 is in the table on the left side of the Amazon link. I think Ultra is the same99+ unless they changed it. I have yet to understand the 10k along with the explanation why that may be. 10k and 15k are not weights. 15k means more loaded so the end spike would be more efficiency at 15k. . Anyway apparently Puro either changed the media or made more tests and found the filter is better than previously stated. Boss is 99+, the next one down 99 and the last one a bit lower. Too many numbers changing.
Already explained it earlier. As it's been shown before (by M+H/Purolator themselves no less) that oil filters do not get more efficient as they load up. Increased delta-p can make oil filters LESS efficient.
I don't see an explanation. If a filter is 99+ it is going to have no areas in the graph going much lower. There are no miles on an efficiency graph. If they are saying 15k means 15 grams then 10k means 10 grams.That means 10k is actually sooner on the test, not further along where efficiency bumps upward rapidly.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
11,371
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
The 99+%20 is in the table on the left side of the Amazon link. I think Ultra is the same99+ unless they changed it. I have yet to understand the 10k along with the explanation why that may be. 10k and 15k are not weights. 15k means more loaded so the end spike would be more efficiency at 15k. . Anyway apparently Puro either changed the media or made more tests and found the filter is better than previously stated. Boss is 99+, the next one down 99 and the last one a bit lower. Too many numbers changing.
Already explained it earlier. As it's been shown before (by M+H/Purolator themselves no less) that oil filters do not get more efficient as they load up. Increased delta-p can make oil filters LESS efficient.
I don't see an explanation. If a filter is 99+ it is going to have no areas in the graph going much lower. There are no miles on an efficiency graph. If they are saying 15k means 15 grams then 10k means 10 grams.That means 10k is actually sooner on the test, not further along where efficiency bumps upward rapidly.
Synthetic media=depth filtration=MORE dirt holding efficiency without blinding the media and causing extra bypass events (which can allow dirt to get into the galleries). If the engine is clean & well maintained, a synthetic media filter could go until it starts rusting off the engine, I've ran an Ultra 19,700 miles on the xB-it barely had anything in it at all, just some carbon specks. Depth/syn media is not going to get the "hockey stick" efficiency graph since it has many tiny irregularly shaped passageways through the media, it's going to stay the same until it finally gets blinded off.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,251
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
I don't see an explanation. If a filter is 99+ it is going to have no areas in the graph going much lower. There are no miles on an efficiency graph. If they are saying 15k means 15 grams then 10k means 10 grams.That means 10k is actually sooner on the test, not further along where efficiency bumps upward rapidly.
Looking at that chart again on Amazon, the footnote doesn't make sense because according to the footnote mark, it applies to all 3 filters. I think it's more likely a mistake in the footnote, and was supposed to be a reference to the ISO 4548-12 test at 20 microns (like their footnote on the Purolator website) and nothing to do with "10,000 miles".
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,251
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by bullwinkle
Synthetic media=depth filtration=MORE dirt holding efficiency without blinding the media and causing extra bypass events (which can allow dirt to get into the galleries). If the engine is clean & well maintained, a synthetic media filter could go until it starts rusting off the engine, I've ran an Ultra 19,700 miles on the xB-it barely had anything in it at all, just some carbon specks. Depth/syn media is not going to get the "hockey stick" efficiency graph since it has many tiny irregularly shaped passageways through the media, it's going to stay the same until it finally gets blinded off.
Don't really know if full synthetic media would exhibit the "hockey stick" efficiency curve or not without actually testing a specific filter. According the M+H/Purolator, the hockey stick efficiency curve is because of the increased delta-p across the media as it loads up causing already captured particles to dislodge and go down stream. I think how much "hockey stick" a particular media exhibits is more due to how the media structure is constructed, and not so much on it's material composition. Case in point, the WIX XP is full synthetic media, yet the XP efficiency rating is worse than most other full synthetic filters. The ISO 4548-12 efficiency test is based on the average efficiency from the starting point to the ending point of the test, so filters that show a lower efficiency rating in the ISO test could have more hockey stick going on than a filter that rates very high in the ISO test. By definition of the ISO efficiency rating, a filter that rates at 99% @ 20u can't have hardly any hockey stick going on.
 
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
465
Location
MD
I would use Nissan OEM filter if it was my car, been using Nissan filters for 6 years now and easily go 5k OCIs without any issues.
 
Top