Rethinking idea that Fram Ultra is the best filter

[CharlieBauer]

Ever since discovering the microgreen filters are not what they're claimed to be, I've spent a bit of time researching particle count results.

Firstly, I went to Dr Dave's Amsoil EA15K51 particle counts. He ran one filter for 22k miles and another filter for 43k miles.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4131246/1

From this, somewhere after 14.4k is when the particle count drops dramatically. At 14.4k, the ISO cleanliness code was 19/18/16. By 22k, it became 15/14/11 which is a big improvement.

The improvement lasts for a 20k miles or so which is excellent. But it was necessary to wait sometime after 14.4k miles to begin getting the benefit.

Compare this to btanchors particle counts with Mobil 1 filters.

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/btanchors/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxODIyNDE3NQ==/?ref=1

At 5k miles, he got a cleanliness code of 16/15/13.

There is another case with an Mobil 1 and a FilterMag where the cleanliness code after just 2.5k miles was 15/14/12.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2531272/1



While the Ultra has tested in ISO tests as having very high filtering efficiency along with high capacity / life, it seems that high efficiency and lower capacity / life cellulose filters may in the real world end up producing lower particle counts and provide the benefit of that sooner.

With the Mobil 1 now 99% efficient at 30 microns, it may be that a ToughGuard or a PureOne, optionally with magnets, would actually be much more effective than a Ultra at reducing the real world particle counts.

 

[Motorking]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Ever since discovering the microgreen filters are not what they're claimed to be, I've spent a bit of time researching particle count results.

Firstly, I went to Dr Dave's Amsoil EA15K51 particle counts. He ran one filter for 22k miles and another filter for 43k miles.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4131246/1

From this, somewhere after 14.4k is when the particle count drops dramatically. At 14.4k, the ISO cleanliness code was 19/18/16. By 22k, it became 15/14/11 which is a big improvement.

The improvement lasts for a 20k miles or so which is excellent. But it was necessary to wait sometime after 14.4k miles to begin getting the benefit.

Compare this to btanchors particle counts with Mobil 1 filters.

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/btanchors/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxODIyNDE3NQ==/?ref=1

At 5k miles, he got a cleanliness code of 16/15/13.

There is another case with an Mobil 1 and a FilterMag where the cleanliness code after just 2.5k miles was 15/14/12.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2531272/1



While the Ultra has tested in ISO tests as having very high filtering efficiency along with high capacity / life, it seems that high efficiency and lower capacity / life cellulose filters may in the real world end up producing lower particle counts and provide the benefit of that sooner.

With the Mobil 1 now 99% efficient at 30 microns, it may be that a ToughGuard or a PureOne, optionally with magnets, would actually be much more effective than a Ultra at reducing the real world particle counts.


So your making assumptions and speculating on something you have no test data for?

 

[ZeeOSix]

How can you make any conclusion about this if you don't have any similar particle count and cleanliness code for the Ultra? Not all full synthetic media performs the same.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: Motorking
So your making assumptions and speculating on something you have no test data for?


Kind of. I using what data I can find to make a decision.

Same thing I did when I purchased Fram Ultras.

Now I'm simply exploring other decision making criteria. I'm entertaining the possibility that filter media type (cellulose or blend) that loads up faster may result in lower particle counts sooner in an oci. I seem to have data that supports that possibility.

That may mean switching to the Tough Guard. Who knows. As the title says, I'm "Rethinking". I did actually find one particle count for the Ultra which is pretty good at 5k miles but it was just a single UOA.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
If there were good particle count data on the Fram Ultra, then I'd use that. But there isn't. So I'm entertaining the possibility that a filter media type that loads up faster may result in lower particle counts sooner in an oci

Total assumption. Like said, not all media performs the same - especially if some are dual layer and some are not.

For a real conclusion you need actual cleanliness code data fron each filter used in the same conditions with the same motor oil on the same engine. Even the PC data you found and listed in your first post are not apples to apples.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
If there were good particle count data on the Fram Ultra, then I'd use that. But there isn't. So I'm entertaining the possibility that a filter media type that loads up faster may result in lower particle counts sooner in an oci

Total assumption. Like said, not all media performs the same. For a real conclusion you need actual cleanliness code data fron each filter jsed in the same conditions with the same motor oil. Even the PC data you found and listed in your first post are not apples to apples.


Yes I understand that.

What do you do in the absence of data that is pertinent to your decision criteria?

And of course, we're not going to ever get this data in a format that is comparable enough. In the real world, we always end up having to make decisions with incomplete data. Doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the Fram Ultra! It's a great filter and I'm using it now!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
What do you do in the absence of data that is pertinent to your decision criteria?

I don't make any conclusions because the "theory" is not validated with solid evidence.

Go read my last post above again, added some info.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
What do you do in the absence of data that is pertinent to your decision criteria?

I don't make any conclusions because the "theory" is not validated with solid evidence.

Go read my last post above again, added some info.


Like I said, there isn't going to be solid enough evidence on this, so some inferring and assumptions is all I have.

If you have some actual information to provide, then that is welcome. But apart from that, what you're telling me is very very obvious.

And in any case, this is simply a case of deciding between using a Tough Guard or an Ultra. Kind of like choosing between M1 and Mobil 1 Extended Performance. Not going to go wrong with either unless you run one longer than specified.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And wouldn't you think that a filter that tests better in ISO 4548-12 would also have a better cleanlines code in real use? Lots of people think filters magically become super efficient in real use even though their 4548-12 test sucked.

But the SAE bus study test showed that the oil filters that tested best in the lab for efficiency also showed to result in less engine wear (which means cleaner oil, better cleanliness code) when used in feild tests.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
And wouldn't you think that a filter that tests better in ISO 4548-12 would also have a better cleanlines code in real use? Lots of people think filters magically become super efficient in real use even though their 4548-12 test sucked.

But the SAE bus study test showed that the oil filters that tested best in the lab for efficiency also showed to result in less engine wear (which means cleaner oil, better cleanliness code) when used in feild tests.


Ok I'll go lookup the bus study.

There is some info out there that the ISO test and real world results may differ.

One of the links I provided shows that Mobil 1 filters consistently achieved a better cleanliness code than the higher ISO test rated Amsoil filter, in the same equipment at the same mileage of 5k. And the long life Amsoil filter had not caught up at 10k in that same application.

 

[HangFire]

Sorry Charlie, thinking is NOT allowed on this sub-forum. You must submit to the opinion of the most rabid poster here.

 

[UNC151]

So...you take:

1. Filters from different manufacturers
2. Filters with and without filter magnets
3. Test data from two different labs
4. Input data from different vehicles/drivers/maintenance schedules

"Analyze" it and from this you cobble together a "conclusion"? I assume you realize that nothing has been proved or disproved and this would not even qualify as a SWAG.

 

[Kruse]

I was in an auto parts store the other day and a guy put down a Fram filter, picked up a competitor's filter and proceeded to the check out counter.
Suddenly, two guys came out of nowhere and beat the guy senseless!

Zee and Motorking, what do you guys do for a daytime job?

 

[zrxkawboy]

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Sorry Charlie, thinking is NOT allowed on this sub-forum. You must submit to the opinion of the most rabid poster here.


Well said, HF.

Charlie, I completely understand what you're saying. You're not claiming to have all the data/answers, just using what you have, and exploring new possibilities. Unfortunately, you've triggered the forums Fram reps, and as you can see, that's not a pretty sight.

 

[Old Mustang Guy]

I submit that your car will last just as long on the OE filter. AC Delco on the Acadia and Toyota on my Avalon.

 

[DuckRyder]

So would you think that particle generation is a constant across multiple engines?

 

[btanchors]

I contributed to one of the studies mentioned. I tried really hard to have meaningful tests and data, but in retrospect, I don't think it was as useful as I was hoping. I could not get very consistent results, in my opinion. I was simply trying to determine if one particular brand of filter was "better" in terms of particle counts, at filtering than the other. Since I was doing this on my personal vehicle, I didn't want to use any filters that I suspected were of poor quality, so I stuck with "premium" filters. I could not really tell any significance between them. The possible exception was the earlier results in the study with the Amsoil filters. But I have no explanation for why they did "worse" than the others. Plus, later on in the study, I re-tested another sample of the same model Amsoil filter, and it gave essentially the same results as other premium filters.

I would *love* to be able to do a test like this in controlled conditions, in a lab, but I don't have the funds.

Having said all this, I welcome CharlieBauer's - or anyone's effort to look at data from older studies and offer new ideas and possible explanations.

 

[Donald]

Does this really matter in getting the engine to last longer or just improved test results?

My guess is most any filter will get an engine to over 100k miles.

 

[Snagglefoot]

This would be a simple project for a third year mechanical engineering student. Hope there’s one reading this.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: Old Mustang Guy
I submit that your car will last just as long on the OE filter. AC Delco on the Acadia and Toyota on my Avalon.
All that really matters is that the oil filter doesn't fail and a quality air filter is used and there is no intake leaks. Change the oil.