this filter is the best

On top of the spec sheet data for any given brand, let's not forget the general overall perceived filter market downward quality trend. Pretty much every brand has been shown to have significant quality failures, regardless of price and reputation. That's not to say all filters are junk (they are not). And selecting good efficiency isn't important (it certainly is). But none of that means much when the filter you picked off the shelf fails in the field with a media void or separation of components.

The "best" filter on a spec sheet means diddly-squat if it doesn't hold up in application. I'd prefer to have a "good enough" filter that actually stayed intact over a super-great filter that fails.

Just sayin' ...
On this day, I agreed with Dave! The best OG Ultra of all was the Fram Pro Synthetic, solid gold painted can. The last one off the Corolla in my sig went THREE YEARS with NO rust.
 
As the saying goes, "Nothing good lasts forever". The FB "ship steerers" didn't even realize they had a GOAT, and for some most likely money driven reason crashed the ship into the rocks ... at least in the "looks for the centerfold" department. As far as actual performance, well you'll have to trust their specs or spend lots of money to have it ISO tested to verify, like Ascent's testing did.


But he is exactly right though…

Cheapened that product and then put up another one which is it’s replacement… For a fair amount more money…

The Endurance is the overall “ best “ in terms of measurable performance right now. And it’s be of the “ best “ in terms of build quality.
 
But he is exactly right though…

Cheapened that product and then put up another one which is it’s replacement… For a fair amount more money…

The Endurance is the overall “ best “ in terms of measurable performance right now. And it’s be of the “ best “ in terms of build quality.
If you believe Fram's efficiency claims, the Ultra and the Endurance has the same ISO 4548-12 efficiency per their website. The difference in performance is the "up to miles" use rating.

Until there's an independent ISO test, like what Andrew did, those are the specs. The Ultra just can't satisfy the BITOG C&P beauty pagent judges anymore, lol.
 
If you believe Fram's efficiency claims, the Ultra and the Endurance has the same ISO 4548-12 efficiency per their website. The difference in performance is the "up to miles" use rating.

Until there's an independent ISO test, like what Andrew did, those are the specs. The Ultra just can't satisfy the BITOG C&P beauty pagent judges anymore, lol.


It does not because it’s cheapened…

And just about everyone on here knows it.

The Endurance took that place and price went up several dollars.

But at least for the money at around $12 it is the same filter as the Royal Purple… Which those are well more expensive than the Endurance. By a $5 to $8 dollar margin more.
 
It does not what ?
I think he meant it does not satisfy the BITOG beauty pageant judges.

I haven't seen a change in the construction of the Ultra in the Pentastar cartridge version as of yet. I hope it doesn't change. I've been running the Endurance in my Vette and mostly Ultras in my Jeeps, although I still have a few Mobil 1's in the stash from Wallyworld clearance a few years ago.

So they Ultras still look good to me, especially in the swimsuit category.
 
Sometimes function and performance outweighs looks. If looks after use was such a big criteria back when many Purolator and Purolater made brands were posted here with wavy pleats, you'd think you'd hear all the same kind of crying and critism back then, but not much fuss was given back then. Some of those still show some level of pleat deformation after use these days. I guess it's easier to equate looks with "goodness" these days when performance is ignored. If someone looks at the horizon, and the Earth looks "flat", then it must be flat base on a "conclusive" visual observation.

Did FB make a bad decision to change the OG Ultra? Most likely, especially when the Endurance is only sold at Walmart - not the same number of market outlets as the Ultra. But you know the change was most likely driven by money/profits, as the OG Ultra/Titanium was no doubt a big seller. It would be interesting to see the volume of sales lost from the Ultra/Titanium design change.
 
Last edited:
On this day, I agreed with Dave! The best OG Ultra of all was the Fram Pro Synthetic, solid gold painted can. The last one off the Corolla in my sig went THREE YEARS with NO rust.
Agreed, mine almost had 3 years on it without rusting in the rust belt. Only 2 left, 2013 mfg. date. Wrapped in Stretch n Seal.
 
Yeah that's a loaded question.
For me I'm looking for the most filter, as in a big filter, the best filtering as in the smallest micron with higher bypass pressure for the least $ and is easy to get so I can just go get one from a local store.
For example I run a wix oil filter for a John Deere diesel on my wife's Hyundai hybrid, it's 50% bigger than the stock filter and has a higher psi bypass, for winter time cold starts.
Are you just looking for the smallest micron filter for your machine?
 
Hey dudes,

Relatively new to this, trying to find spec sheets and filtering or rather just do my best at giving myself the best for my application.

So far, as for my application I've found the carquest 84806 claiming to filter 99.5% at 20micron and is in the lead. Any help finding better would be greatly appreciated.

I've found a few useful articles that I'm trying to put into practice. ie: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/whats-in-your-filter-media-types-explained.345164/

For reference the Mann HU925/4Y claims 99% at 40 micron (ick).
This is for the purolator filter https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/l25692-purolator-classic-specification-sheet.375069/ and seems to be the same as the Mann for specs.
Fram Ultra or Fram Endurance would be my choice for best filter.
Both with 99%+ filtering @ 20 microns.

But "best" is in the eyes of the beholder.
For my situation of trying to do adequate maintenance at the lowest possible price for my 4 vehicles, the best filter for me is the Fram PH7317. It has 95%+ efficiency @20 microns and only costs $3.50 with Amazon subscribe and save.
 
Last edited:
Have you guys seen this video testing a bunch? I get its not an ISO test, but still, there must be some validity to their results?

Near the end they show the relative rankings which includes filters they tested in previous videos.

 
Have you guys seen this video testing a bunch? I get its not an ISO test, but still, there must be some validity to their results?

Near the end they show the relative rankings which includes filters they tested in previous videos.


As long as you stick to the testing data within their own system it's interesting data. They do have some growing pains though. Seem to be "learning as they go" but hopefully, they'll get better at testing. I encourage them to keep doing what they're doing so long as they evolve better results.
 
As long as you stick to the testing data within their own system it's interesting data. They do have some growing pains though. Seem to be "learning as they go" but hopefully, they'll get better at testing. I encourage them to keep doing what they're doing so long as they evolve better results.

What I find fascinating is how the PB came out on top with filtering efficiency despite the apparently bad specs for this filter.

@ZeeOSix any thoughts?
 
Have you guys seen this video testing a bunch? I get its not an ISO test, but still, there must be some validity to their results?

Near the end they show the relative rankings which includes filters they tested in previous videos.


What I find fascinating is how the PB came out on top with filtering efficiency despite the apparently bad specs for this filter.

@ZeeOSix any thoughts?
BR tested a Purolator Boss PBL10241. The way it ranks in their test results is not how it ranks when looking at the official spec sheet from M+H, and also looking at the ISO 4545-12 testing that Ascent did which included a Boss filter.

Here's the official Spec Sheet from M+H for the Boss PBL10241. It shows the ISO 4548-12 efficiency to be 99% @ >46 microns. Ascent showed the Boss PBL22500 he tested to be 97@ 30 microns, but falls off to 63% at 20 microns. Do you really think that Boss is more efficient than the Fram Ultra? I don't ... it should be down around where the Wix XP and NAPA Platinum are ranked based on the official ISO efficiency specs. Also, the Fram TG which is ISO 4548-12 at 99% @ 20 microns should have tested higher in the ranks than it did ... another ranking that doesn't follow the official ISO 4548-12 spec ranking. So do you believe actual ISO test info, or info from a home made test rig that tries to rank the relative efficiency of the filters?

So this is why you need to take BR's "efficiency" testing with a grain of salt. When a filter they test doesn't rank nearly the same as if you ranked all the official ISO 4848-12 test specs, then you have to question the test methodology. BR has tried to come up with an "efficiency" test that works in terms of "ranking" filters, but IMO it doesn't seem to really work as expected when you compare their results to ranking by official ISO 4545-12 specs for the same filters.

I will say that the flow vs dP data they obtain is more believable in terms of ranking the comparative flow performance of the filters they tested. Keep in mind that the cold oil (500 cSt viscosity) flow vs dP testing is only good for flow before the bypass valve starts opening, so for only about the first 2 or 3 GPM at that thick viscosity.

1716318063109.jpg


1716317393394.jpeg


1716317467475.jpeg
 
Last edited:
So this is why you need to take BR's "efficiency" testing with a grain of salt. When a filter they test doesn't rank nearly the same as if you ranked all the official ISO 4848-12 test specs, then you have to question the test methodology. BR has tried to come up with an "efficiency" test that works in terms of "ranking" filters, but IMO it doesn't seem to really work as expected when you compare their results to ranking by official ISO 4545-12 specs for the same filters.
Any testing that you have to take with a grain of salt is worthless in this context. How big a grain do we take? A little grain or a large grain? And do we take the same grain size for all their tests or are the grains a different size between samples? Do the grains change from day to day and from operator to operator?

This is the issue with non-standardized tests. Standardized tests are designed to be repeatable and produce consistent and comparable results. These Doods have none of that.

A poster earlier in the thread stated "As long as you stick to the testing data within their own system it's interesting data." Really? How do you know that? Where is the statistical analysis of their results? What is the repeatability?
 
BR tested a Purolator Boss PBL10241. The way it ranks in their test results is not how it ranks when looking at the official spec sheet from M+H, and also looking at the ISO 4545-12 testing that Ascent did which included a Boss filter.

Here's the official Spec Sheet from M+H for the Boss PBL10241. It shows the ISO 4548-12 efficiency to be 99% @ >46 microns. Ascent showed the Boss PBL22500 he tested to be 97@ 30 microns, but falls off to 63% at 20 microns. Do you really think that Boss is more efficient than the Fram Ultra? I don't ... it should be down around where the Wix XP and NAPA Platinum are ranked based on the official ISO efficiency specs. Also, the Fram TG which is ISO 4548-12 at 99% @ 20 microns should have tested higher in the ranks than it did ... another ranking that doesn't follow the official ISO 4548-12 spec ranking. So do you believe actual ISO test info, or info from a home made test rig that tries to rank the relative efficiency of the filters?

So this is why you need to take BR's "efficiency" testing with a grain of salt. When a filter they test doesn't rank nearly the same as if you ranked all the official ISO 4848-12 test specs, then you have to question the test methodology. BR has tried to come up with an "efficiency" test that works in terms of "ranking" filters, but IMO it doesn't seem to really work as expected when you compare their results to ranking by official ISO 4545-12 specs for the same filters.

I will say that the flow vs dP data they obtain is more believable in terms of ranking the comparative flow performance of the filters they tested. Keep in mind that the cold oil (500 cSt viscosity) flow vs dP testing is only good for flow before the bypass valve starts opening, so for only about the first 2 or 3 GPM at that thick viscosity.

View attachment 220449

View attachment 220446

View attachment 220447

I don't have enough knowledge to argue the point which is why I'm confused about these results.

I do get that these are not lab ISO tests, my question is more along the lines of: where exactly are they going wrong with their testing? What is the flaw that makes their test put the Boss over the Ultra in efficiency?
 
Back
Top