Perhaps. Like I said though it was what was on the shelf.
For me Walmart hasn’t turned out to be my favorite for those oil filters. I’ll see if there are new design at my store.
Supertech 9972 Oil Filter is now thinner?
- Thread starter iCurious
- Start date
For me Walmart hasn’t turned out to be my favorite for those oil filters. I’ll see if there are new design at my store.
Where did you get your information from?
Because its the only way to compare the angle of the dangle. The way they have it today well frankly they are just trying to keep you from knowing how well they stack up.
He's saying all filter efficiency ratings should show the xx% efficiency at 20u so it's easy to compare them all against each other.
"White wire" must mean shiny stainless steel? That's what it looks like in post 2 anyway.
No, white media which was wire-backed. Like what you would see with the old Fram synthetic media and backing.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2024
- Messages
- 1,159
An efficiency test should be standardized to an average particle load seen in actual use, and a micron number if it makes it easier to compare. A high load efficiency test like is done in the lab doesn’t tell the efficiency on the road. Been wondering why so many makers do not provide the lab efficiency number, and imo maybe this is the reason. For sure a very low concentration of particles hitting media is not the same test as a high concentration in terms of efficiency.
Well, it seems to follow the adage "all good things must end". My opinion has been get em while you can. Never quite understood it but hey, a very nice value while they lasted. That said, the topic new one still looks decent especially for ~$3. 'As long as it fits well in the housing,' I'd be ok with it.
As for the oft repeated cry that all filters be rated @20um, sure that would great. But, it's a pipe dream imo. While we're at it make all the OEM filters publish an efficiency at 20um too. The latter ratings might be a shock to some. As it stands, need/must have a published 20um rating, buy a filter that has it. My .02
As for the oft repeated cry that all filters be rated @20um, sure that would great. But, it's a pipe dream imo. While we're at it make all the OEM filters publish an efficiency at 20um too. The latter ratings might be a shock to some. As it stands, need/must have a published 20um rating, buy a filter that has it. My .02
On the box of the SuperTech it states 30 microns.
Yes and all filters should be lists at 20 microns so they aren't talking cats and dogs do you understand that?
What would the efficiency be at 20 microns? What's the efficiency at 20u for a filter that's shown to be 99% @ 45u?
Someone who knows what the efficiency curve might look like could guess, but if all filters' efficiency were shown at the same particle size then it would be easier to compare their filtering efficency.
Last edited:
I get it.
Currently, Mobil 1, Fram and Supertech lists 99% efficiency @ 30 microns. Too bad they don't list them at 20 microns as you stated.
Knowing how most oil filter efficiency vs particle size curves look, a filter rated at 99% @ 30u is probably going to be around 90-93% @ 20u. And that's just a guesstimate. All one can firmly conclude is that the efficiency is lower at 20u and even lower at 10u, etc.
Re: The bold statement in your post. Many makers don't provide the ISO efficiency number because their filter's efficiency is pretty bad. That's why Purolator/M+H removed the ISO 4548-12 efficiency of the Boss on their website (WIX did the same thing with the XP), and also Purolator doesn't show the efficiency of their new gold "20K" filter on their website. You have to call Purolator to get those numbers now.
This is for everyone to read, not just you since you probably won't believe it anyway based on your past reactions to discussions about oil filter efficiency, lol. ISO 4548-12 (and other ISO standards for different types of filters) have been used for literally decades by industry around the entire world. The reason the filters are loaded up pretty good is to see how the efficiency chances with loading, and yes oil filters get less efficient as they load up. Seen that in all the oil filters that Ascent ISO tested, and in other studies done like the one from Purolator/M+H referenced in this forum many times.
ISO 4548-12 has been discussed pretty heavily here, and one take away that many don't seem to realize is that an oil filter that has a high ISO 4548-12 rating is going to retain high efficiency as it loads up. Not all engines are as clean running as you imagine ... just look at some of the filter C&Ps here, and many filters show quite a bit of captured debris in them. And there is the debris you can't see with the naked eye deep in the media, especially on media that is "depth capturing", like the OG Ultra was.
A pretty inefficient filter like your beloved and touted Boss starts out pretty low relative efficiency even when new. Here's a plot of the raw data that Ascent got on the Boss he tested. Note that even when the filter was new and unloaded the efficiency was around 84% when it was only 15% loaded. Look at what the efficiency went down to when it was 65% loaded. That is why I keep saying don't run inefficient oil filters for long OCIs unless you want dirtier oil compared to running a high efficiency filter for a long OCI. Guess if you only ran the Boss (or similar inefficient filter) for pretty short OCIs on a relatively clean engine then it might be fine. But on the other hand, a filter that's ISO rated at 99% and 20u is going to do much better for the sump cleanliness in a longer OCI, and actually in any OCI just because it's a better performing oil filter.
In Ascents ISO testing, the ACDelco went from around 95% @ 20u when new to 84% @ 20u when loaded. The Fram OG Ultra for instance with the same 65% loading basically started at 100% @ 20u when new to around 99.7% @ 20u. The OG Ultra started out very efficient when new, and retained its efficiency well as it loaded up. The media in the OG Ultra was a very low shedder of debris as it loaded up. The Wix XP and Boss were horrible debris shedders as they loaded up as seen in the graph below, which of course hurt their overall ISO 4548-12 efficiently pretty badly.
As I've said many times, the ISO efficiency test tells you more about the filter performance if you understand how the test is ran and what the data means. Bottom line is don't run inefficient oil filters for long OCIs, and don't believe the misconception that they "get more efficient as they load up" because they clearly don't.
Last edited:
Similar threads
