Spec sheets for Purolator One & Boss, Mobil 1, and Fram Ultra Synthetic oil filters that fit Honda/Acura, not sure how to interpret some specs

[qingcong]

I asked and without any drama received the spec sheets for the Purolator One PL14610, Purolator Boss PBL14610, Mobil 1 M1-110A, and Fram Ultra Synthetic XG7317. We are a Honda family so I asked about the specific models that fit our Hondas. Purolator and Mobil 1 all appear to be made by Mann Hummel so they have the same spec sheet format. Fram just gave me what looks like a screenshot of an excel sheet.

I understand efficiency and holding capacity, but I don't understand flow rate or flow restriction. In the Mann Hummel spec sheets, I understand item 4.1 to be the flow restriction spec where a higher pressure would translate to a more restrictive filter. But then item 1.1 is a spec for nominal flow rate, so I don't understand how that relates with item 4.1.

It looks like item 1.4 on the PL14610 spec sheet is a typo, off by a factor of 10.

 

[BrendanC]

ouch that M1-110, 99% at 50um. the big thing you’re going to be looking for is the ISO-4548-12 value for 99% efficiency. best in this case would be the PL14610 with 99% @ 30um

edit, i didn’t see the fram screenshot, the XG7317 is the best here with 99% @20um but i would step up to the endurance for wire backing. the new ultra’s are not the same as they were in the past.

 

[twX]

I understand efficiency and holding capacity, but I don't understand flow rate or flow restriction. In the Mann Hummel spec sheets, I understand item 4.1 to be the flow restriction spec where a higher pressure would translate to a more restrictive filter. But then item 1.1 is a spec for nominal flow rate, so I don't understand how that relates with item 4.1.

The pressure drop tests for the Mobil and PurolatorOne are done at a flow rate at 11.35 L/min (3 GPM), and an oil viscosity of 24 cST. If they had tested with a higher flow rate or higher viscosity oil, the pressure drop would have measured higher.

For some context, these pressure drops (1.75-2.0 psi) are quite good, with lower dP than your average filter.

The FRAM Ultra's restriction is higher at 2.5 psi at the same flow rate, and this was probably with lower viscosity oil (ISO 4548 tests are supposed to use thinner oil than what Purolator uses).

For your average Honda, this difference in restriction won't matter, but some of the performance models like the S2000 and Civic Si have high flow oil pumps and restrictive filters might be prone to bypassing on those engines.

It looks like item 1.4 on the PL14610 spec sheet is a typo, off by a factor of 10.

Yes, this is an typo. The bypass rating should be 107 kPA (15.5 psi), which is similar to the 14-18 psi value given on the website.

 

[bullwinkle]

I actually can't believe the M1 filter is as bad as the Boss for efficiency! Why anyone would spend the extra money on an M1 filter is beyond me, marketing at it's finest...

 

[ZeeOSix]

...

 

[paulri]

The other numbers I've come across in regards to the M1 are higher. Not quite as high as Fram with 99% @ 20 microns, but still a lot higher than 50%. I'm suspecting that that low an efficiency is just for this filter. Still, it is very very low...

lly can't believe the M1 filter is as bad as the Boss for efficiency! Why anyone would spend the extra money on an M1 filter is beyond me, marketing at it's finest...

 

[ZeeOSix]

I actually can't believe the M1 filter is as bad as the Boss for efficiency! Why anyone would spend the extra money on an M1 filter is beyond me, marketing at it's finest...

It's now a M+H ... so most likely switched to a different less efficiency media.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I understand efficiency and holding capacity, but I don't understand flow rate or flow restriction. In the Mann Hummel spec sheets, I understand item 4.1 to be the flow restriction spec where a higher pressure would translate to a more restrictive filter. But then item 1.1 is a spec for nominal flow rate, so I don't understand how that relates with item 4.1.

Already explained for the most part above, but adding a little info. Others have been confused on this before reading these Spec Sheets.

1.1 shows the the "nominal" flow rate that section 4.1 is referring to. 24 mm^2/s is the Kinematic viscosity, and those units are "centistokes" ... so 24 cSt is the viscosity. So the 14 kPa of dP is at a flow of 11.35 l/min and a viscosity of 24 cSt.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The other numbers I've come across in regards to the M1 are higher.

From what source?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Don't worry about a few PSI of dP difference between oil filters. At normal street driving engine RPM the difference is very small (less than a PSI in most cases). It won't really matter unless you're running the engine so high in RPM with pretty thick oil that it might put the oil pump in pressure relief ... like on a race track near redline.

 

[paulri]

Mobil, for one:

Wayback Machine

See page 2, although yes that is an older document. Test dates to 2007.

From what source?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Mobil, for one:

Wayback Machine

See page 2, although yes that is an older document. Test dates to 2007.

Way before (2012) M+H took over Mobil filters.

 

[paulri]

So do you think that M-H reduced the efficiency of their filters that much? Or that this was done just for this one filter model #? I just sent them an email asking for the info for the 102A, which is what fits my Highlander & Sienna.

 

[ZeeOSix]

So do you think that M-H reduced the efficiency of their filters that much? Or that this was done just for this one filter model #? I just sent them an email asking for the info for the 102A, which is what fits my Highlander & Sienna.

Could be model specific ... the Spec Sheet will tell for your model. For the Boss, all the Spec Sheets I've seen for them all show the same efficiency. The PureONEs are all over the place.

 

[bullwinkle]

Ever since M1 went to the Mann suffix "A" filters, workmanship hasn't been very good, there's been some media issues-but I never would imagined efficiency numbers this bad. A Purolator One is roughly half the price, and TWICE as good!

 

[bullwinkle]

Mobil, for one:

Wayback Machine

See page 2, although yes that is an older document. Test dates to 2007.

Those are the good old days-no "A" on the back of those part numbers, so Champion Labs produced (pre-First Brands as well).

 

[paulri]

I am not going to argue for M-H here. But wouldn't they only make the filter to the specs given by Mobil? I'm not sure why Mobil would have across the board, lowered their efficiency requirements just because they changed suppliers for their filters.

 

[Vern_in_IL]

Man, Mobil 1 is what happens when you have something great(filtration, strong can stamping, backed by a major MO supplier, marketer) and just let it sit, sit with no innovation.

I would say Mobil 1 is well past it´s prime, and only being sold still, based on reputation and premium branding. I sure hope they are not doing the same for the oil!!!!!

 

[Plawan]

I am not going to argue for M-H here. But wouldn't they only make the filter to the specs given by Mobil? I'm not sure why Mobil would have across the board, lowered their efficiency requirements just because they changed suppliers for their filters.

Just get specifications for other M1part #s to see how much they vary.
I’d bet that filter is model specific.

 

[paulri]

I would agree with that. Well I'll see how long it takes them to give me the info I requested in the email.

Just get specifications for other M1part #s to see how much they vary.
I’d bet that filter is model specific.