The M1 tech I spoke to claimed 99% "at" 20 microns (not 99.9 as claimed on the website). I asked for additional info but that's all he had.
Replacement filter for PureOne?
- Thread starter OilAnalyzer
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OilAnalyzer
I do frequent oil changes so my goal is maximum cleanliness not longevity.
1. Your engine really, really doesn't care about the tiny differences in filter selection.
2. You're over-thinking this way too much.
By the way, what is "frequent"? 5k miles? 3k?
I do frequent oil changes so my goal is maximum cleanliness not longevity.
1. Your engine really, really doesn't care about the tiny differences in filter selection.
2. You're over-thinking this way too much.
By the way, what is "frequent"? 5k miles? 3k?
I'll stick with Mobil. Their tech says 99% AT 20 instead of greater than (not the same thing). I'm skeptical of Fram selling the cheapest synthetic filter ($8) without any loss in efficiency. Where are they cutting corners?
Originally Posted By: OilAnalyzer
I'll stick with Mobil. Their tech says 99% AT 20 instead of greater than (not the same thing).
I basically is the same thing (hair splitting), as 20.00001 microns is greater than (>) 20 microns.
I'll stick with Mobil. Their tech says 99% AT 20 instead of greater than (not the same thing).
I basically is the same thing (hair splitting), as 20.00001 microns is greater than (>) 20 microns.
Except the ISO sample doesn't have 20.001 sizes. It has 20 and 25 sample sizes with no value between, so Fram is probably 99% at 25 micron and some less value at 20 (unreleased).
I see Purolator does that same trick with PSF where they say 99% at 25 micron, but don't reveal the 20 statistic.
I see Purolator does that same trick with PSF where they say 99% at 25 micron, but don't reveal the 20 statistic.
Originally Posted By: OilAnalyzer
Except the ISO sample doesn't have 20.001 sizes. It has 20 and 25 sample sizes with no value between, so Fram is probably 99% at 25 micron and some less value at 20 (unreleased).
I see Purolator does that same trick with PSF where they say 99% at 25 micron, but don't reveal the 20 statistic.
Do you have a copy of the ISO test spec that says exactly what sized particles they use during efficiency testing?
Motorking (FRAM Tech Rep who posts here) says their filters are basically @20 microns, even though the FRAM website says ">20 microns".
Except the ISO sample doesn't have 20.001 sizes. It has 20 and 25 sample sizes with no value between, so Fram is probably 99% at 25 micron and some less value at 20 (unreleased).
I see Purolator does that same trick with PSF where they say 99% at 25 micron, but don't reveal the 20 statistic.
Do you have a copy of the ISO test spec that says exactly what sized particles they use during efficiency testing?
Motorking (FRAM Tech Rep who posts here) says their filters are basically @20 microns, even though the FRAM website says ">20 microns".
Honda (the one japan use)or the honda one made by fram if the one honda use in japan is tough to get.honda is the measuring stick ,dont sweat it if it was bad it would not be on the car.
Okay I decided to bite the bullet and called Fram whose tech told me the [Ultra] filter is:
99% at 25
98% at 20
50% at 10 (aka nominal)
For comparison the PureOne had 50% as low as 5 micron. Amsoil Old filters were 50% at 7 micron. I don't know what nominal is for Amsoil Redesign or M1 so I'll call them next.
99% at 25
98% at 20
50% at 10 (aka nominal)
For comparison the PureOne had 50% as low as 5 micron. Amsoil Old filters were 50% at 7 micron. I don't know what nominal is for Amsoil Redesign or M1 so I'll call them next.
Iso?probably is : iso/ts-16949 certification i would venture?
Amsoil has a published chart showing OEM-branded filters (including Honda) are basically poor.
Originally Posted By: yvon_la
Iso?probably is : iso/ts-16949 certification i would venture?
No, ISO 4548-12.
Q: How are filters tested?
A: Filter Engineering Measurements. Measuring efficiency must be based on the premise that the filter is present on the engine to remove harmful particles and thus protect the engine from wear. Filter efficiency is the measurement of the filter’s performance in preventing harmful particles from reaching the wearing surfaces of the engine. The most widely used method of measurement is Multi-Pass Efficiency test developed by the ISO (International Standards Organization). This and other standard industry tests used to evaluate filters are described below.
1. Multipass Efficiency. This procedure is specified in ISO 4548-12 and is the most recently developed. It involves a newer test technology in that automatic particle counters are used for analysis instead of simply weighing the dirt. The advantage of this is that the particle removal performance of the filter can be found for different size particles throughout the filter’s life. The efficiency determined in this test method is an "instantaneous" efficiency, because the number of particles before and after the filter are counted at the same instant. These numbers are then compared to generate an efficiency measurement.
2. Filter Capacity is also measured in a the ISO 4548-12 test method. To create a successful filter, a balance must be found between high efficiency and long life. Neither a long life filter with low efficiency nor a high efficiency filter with short life is useful in the field. The contaminant holding capacity as defined in ISO 4548-12 is the amount of contaminant removed and held by a filter from the oil during a constantly recirculating flow of contaminated oil. The test is terminated when a predetermined pressure drop across the filter is reached, typically at 8 psid. This pressure drop is associated with the setting of a filter by-pass valve.
3. Mechanical and Durability tests. Oil filters are also subjected to numerous tests to assure the integrity of the filter and its components during vehicle operating conditions. These tests include Burst Pressure, Impulse Fatigue, Vibration, Relief Valve and Anti-Drainback Valve operation, and Hot Oil Durability specified in other ISO and SAE test methods.
Iso?probably is : iso/ts-16949 certification i would venture?
No, ISO 4548-12.
Q: How are filters tested?
A: Filter Engineering Measurements. Measuring efficiency must be based on the premise that the filter is present on the engine to remove harmful particles and thus protect the engine from wear. Filter efficiency is the measurement of the filter’s performance in preventing harmful particles from reaching the wearing surfaces of the engine. The most widely used method of measurement is Multi-Pass Efficiency test developed by the ISO (International Standards Organization). This and other standard industry tests used to evaluate filters are described below.
1. Multipass Efficiency. This procedure is specified in ISO 4548-12 and is the most recently developed. It involves a newer test technology in that automatic particle counters are used for analysis instead of simply weighing the dirt. The advantage of this is that the particle removal performance of the filter can be found for different size particles throughout the filter’s life. The efficiency determined in this test method is an "instantaneous" efficiency, because the number of particles before and after the filter are counted at the same instant. These numbers are then compared to generate an efficiency measurement.
2. Filter Capacity is also measured in a the ISO 4548-12 test method. To create a successful filter, a balance must be found between high efficiency and long life. Neither a long life filter with low efficiency nor a high efficiency filter with short life is useful in the field. The contaminant holding capacity as defined in ISO 4548-12 is the amount of contaminant removed and held by a filter from the oil during a constantly recirculating flow of contaminated oil. The test is terminated when a predetermined pressure drop across the filter is reached, typically at 8 psid. This pressure drop is associated with the setting of a filter by-pass valve.
3. Mechanical and Durability tests. Oil filters are also subjected to numerous tests to assure the integrity of the filter and its components during vehicle operating conditions. These tests include Burst Pressure, Impulse Fatigue, Vibration, Relief Valve and Anti-Drainback Valve operation, and Hot Oil Durability specified in other ISO and SAE test methods.
Originally Posted By: OilAnalyzer
For comparison the PureOne had 50% as low as 5 micron. Amsoil Old filters were 50% at 7 micron. I don't know what nominal is for Amsoil Redesign or M1 so I'll call them next.
PureOne Beta Ratios
For comparison the PureOne had 50% as low as 5 micron. Amsoil Old filters were 50% at 7 micron. I don't know what nominal is for Amsoil Redesign or M1 so I'll call them next.
PureOne Beta Ratios
The Fram rep has posted in the past it's really 20 microns, but they use the greater than for some lawyer legal speak reason.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
The Fram rep has posted in the past it's really 20 microns, but they use the greater than for some lawyer legal speak reason.
Yep, reference these two posts by Motorking.
Motorking Posts on FRAM Efficiency Tests
The Fram rep has posted in the past it's really 20 microns, but they use the greater than for some lawyer legal speak reason.
Yep, reference these two posts by Motorking.
Motorking Posts on FRAM Efficiency Tests
Motorking here,
Let me clear something up.
FRAM uses the ISO 4548-12 test. We use dirt particle sizes from 10-20 microns in the test. That is the ISO recommendation. We publish all claims for efficiency at 20 microns or greater, meaning that the published efficiency is particle sizes 20 microns and larger.
That being said- publishing efficiency has become a huge marketing buzzword in the filter industry and many companies will say 99+% efficiency WITHOUT stating the particle size. Any filter is that good when you use big particles for testing, just using 25 micron particles gets many of the filters out there to 99%. Many publish at 30 microns.
FRAM efficiency is as follows
Extra Guard- 95.7%@ particles 20 microns and larger
Tough Guard- 99% @ particles 20 microns and larger
Ultra- 99+%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
All of these filters are above 90% @ 10 microns.
The Extended Guard is an older version of the Ultra filter that is 97.9%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
Why it matters-
"Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in filter SPE(MP). Compared to a 40 micron filter, engine wear was reduced by 50% with 30 micron filtration." (98% point) "Likewise, wear was reduced by 70% with 15 micron filtration." (SAE TPS 881825 p5 - David R. Staley, General Motors Corp. 1988)
Let me clear something up.
FRAM uses the ISO 4548-12 test. We use dirt particle sizes from 10-20 microns in the test. That is the ISO recommendation. We publish all claims for efficiency at 20 microns or greater, meaning that the published efficiency is particle sizes 20 microns and larger.
That being said- publishing efficiency has become a huge marketing buzzword in the filter industry and many companies will say 99+% efficiency WITHOUT stating the particle size. Any filter is that good when you use big particles for testing, just using 25 micron particles gets many of the filters out there to 99%. Many publish at 30 microns.
FRAM efficiency is as follows
Extra Guard- 95.7%@ particles 20 microns and larger
Tough Guard- 99% @ particles 20 microns and larger
Ultra- 99+%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
All of these filters are above 90% @ 10 microns.
The Extended Guard is an older version of the Ultra filter that is 97.9%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
Why it matters-
"Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in filter SPE(MP). Compared to a 40 micron filter, engine wear was reduced by 50% with 30 micron filtration." (98% point) "Likewise, wear was reduced by 70% with 15 micron filtration." (SAE TPS 881825 p5 - David R. Staley, General Motors Corp. 1988)
Thanks Motorking Jay. Yep, that ToughGuard info is on the box. Is Mobil1 Extended Performance the same media as ToughGuard? They are in the same factory now that one owner now owns both products at least. I think the media has always been comparable, glass fibers blended with cellulose anyway.
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Motorking here,
Let me clear something up.
FRAM uses the ISO 4548-12 test. We use dirt particle sizes from 10-20 microns in the test. That is the ISO recommendation. We publish all claims for efficiency at 20 microns or greater, meaning that the published efficiency is particle sizes 20 microns and larger.
That being said- publishing efficiency has become a huge marketing buzzword in the filter industry and many companies will say 99+% efficiency WITHOUT stating the particle size. Any filter is that good when you use big particles for testing, just using 25 micron particles gets many of the filters out there to 99%. Many publish at 30 microns.
FRAM efficiency is as follows
Extra Guard- 95.7%@ particles 20 microns and larger
Tough Guard- 99% @ particles 20 microns and larger
Ultra- 99+%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
All of these filters are above 90% @ 10 microns.
The Extended Guard is an older version of the Ultra filter that is 97.9%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
Why it matters-
"Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in filter SPE(MP). Compared to a 40 micron filter, engine wear was reduced by 50% with 30 micron filtration." (98% point) "Likewise, wear was reduced by 70% with 15 micron filtration." (SAE TPS 881825 p5 - David R. Staley, General Motors Corp. 1988)
Someone did a study in 1988?? Come on man!!
Motorking here,
Let me clear something up.
FRAM uses the ISO 4548-12 test. We use dirt particle sizes from 10-20 microns in the test. That is the ISO recommendation. We publish all claims for efficiency at 20 microns or greater, meaning that the published efficiency is particle sizes 20 microns and larger.
That being said- publishing efficiency has become a huge marketing buzzword in the filter industry and many companies will say 99+% efficiency WITHOUT stating the particle size. Any filter is that good when you use big particles for testing, just using 25 micron particles gets many of the filters out there to 99%. Many publish at 30 microns.
FRAM efficiency is as follows
Extra Guard- 95.7%@ particles 20 microns and larger
Tough Guard- 99% @ particles 20 microns and larger
Ultra- 99+%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
All of these filters are above 90% @ 10 microns.
The Extended Guard is an older version of the Ultra filter that is 97.9%@ particles 20 microns and larger.
Why it matters-
"Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in filter SPE(MP). Compared to a 40 micron filter, engine wear was reduced by 50% with 30 micron filtration." (98% point) "Likewise, wear was reduced by 70% with 15 micron filtration." (SAE TPS 881825 p5 - David R. Staley, General Motors Corp. 1988)
Someone did a study in 1988?? Come on man!!
- Status
Similar threads
