dnewton3
Staff member
I think this topic is getting confused by the lack of delineation between efficiency versus that of capacity. They are not linked and can be mutually exclusive. I'll stick to the to topic of filters ...
Efficiency is the description of how often a particle of some size is caught relative to it's presenation occurence.
Example: filter A is 95% efficient at catching particles at 20um or larger
Capacity is a description of how much particulate a filter can hold before becoming overwhelmed; it's a quantity thing.
Example: filter A can hold 30 grams of particulate suspended in the media before it becomes blinded off to a point where the BP would open regularly. (Typically marketed as an OCI distance and not a weight by grams; though grams is far more accurate, you'll not see that comparitively on the box in the store).
Depending upon design for the intent of market targeted, you can have any manner of filter for an application
- high efficiency but low capacity
- high efficiency with high capacity
- low efficiency with low capacity
- low efficiency with high capacity
Most folks would say "I want the "best" and the "best" must be the filter with the highest efficiency and highest capacity !!!"
Well, maybe so, but that only depends on how you define what "best" means to each unique person for any one application.
Having excess product abilities that ultimately go unused is a waste of a resource, meaning it's a also waste of money.
Example ....
If you plan to run 5k mile OCIs, and you have a 3.5L n/a Ford Cyclone engine (known to be very clean running), then you could easily run a Fram EG as it is 95% efficient at 20um and is rated for 10k miles. If you chose to run a Fram Ultra (99% at 20um and rated for 20k miles), but still pull it off at 5k mile intervals, you're paying for a lot of product (about 2x more money) and getting absolutely nothing tangible in return. The EG is more than able to do the job, and using the Ultra will not keep the engine cleaner, nor reduce wear in a discernable sense. Both filters are more than capable in a sense of efficiency, and you'd never be able to tell the difference in wear. Both filters have more than enough capacity (the EG is 100% oversized and the Ultra is twice that), which means neither filter would ever come close to being compromised in that 5k mile interval. So paying for the XG gives absolutely no benefit over the EG; the product goes wasted, and so does your money.
Pick a filter based on two things:
- efficiency good enough to sustain the desired wear rates (typically anything 85% or greater at 20um will suffice)
- capacity enough to sustain the OCI distance
Efficiency is the description of how often a particle of some size is caught relative to it's presenation occurence.
Example: filter A is 95% efficient at catching particles at 20um or larger
Capacity is a description of how much particulate a filter can hold before becoming overwhelmed; it's a quantity thing.
Example: filter A can hold 30 grams of particulate suspended in the media before it becomes blinded off to a point where the BP would open regularly. (Typically marketed as an OCI distance and not a weight by grams; though grams is far more accurate, you'll not see that comparitively on the box in the store).
Depending upon design for the intent of market targeted, you can have any manner of filter for an application
- high efficiency but low capacity
- high efficiency with high capacity
- low efficiency with low capacity
- low efficiency with high capacity
Most folks would say "I want the "best" and the "best" must be the filter with the highest efficiency and highest capacity !!!"
Well, maybe so, but that only depends on how you define what "best" means to each unique person for any one application.
Having excess product abilities that ultimately go unused is a waste of a resource, meaning it's a also waste of money.
Example ....
If you plan to run 5k mile OCIs, and you have a 3.5L n/a Ford Cyclone engine (known to be very clean running), then you could easily run a Fram EG as it is 95% efficient at 20um and is rated for 10k miles. If you chose to run a Fram Ultra (99% at 20um and rated for 20k miles), but still pull it off at 5k mile intervals, you're paying for a lot of product (about 2x more money) and getting absolutely nothing tangible in return. The EG is more than able to do the job, and using the Ultra will not keep the engine cleaner, nor reduce wear in a discernable sense. Both filters are more than capable in a sense of efficiency, and you'd never be able to tell the difference in wear. Both filters have more than enough capacity (the EG is 100% oversized and the Ultra is twice that), which means neither filter would ever come close to being compromised in that 5k mile interval. So paying for the XG gives absolutely no benefit over the EG; the product goes wasted, and so does your money.
Pick a filter based on two things:
- efficiency good enough to sustain the desired wear rates (typically anything 85% or greater at 20um will suffice)
- capacity enough to sustain the OCI distance
