What's in your filter? Media types explained

Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
2,417
Location
USA
We should have @Ascent Filtration Testing run a test on that filter, see if it gives the same rating as the "normal" Ultra.
We should, but then what. You would have to have a collaboration meeting between Fram testing and our testing to go over any differences and why. Highly likely Fram would say theirs is what they do all the time and spend the money to do it, not just one test on one oil filter, but many many tests as the manufacturer. Eventually it has to accepted if an authority provided the numbers. That’s how I look at it whether it promotes my own opinion or not. No testing is going to be over Fram testing the one who developed the media. This internal Fram factory result was revealed by chance, cleared up a lot of ifs.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,456
Location
Ontario, Canada
We should, but then what. You would have to have a collaboration meeting between Fram testing and our testing to go over any differences and why. Highly likely Fram would say theirs is what they do all the time and spend the money to do it, not just one test on one oil filter, but many many tests as the manufacturer. Eventually it has to accepted if an authority provided the numbers. That’s how I look at it whether it promotes my own opinion or not. No testing is going to be over Fram testing the one who developed the media. This internal Fram factory result was revealed by chance, cleared up a lot of ifs.
They are both ISO standard tests, they should be consistent.

Recall that the FRAM efficiency rating is for a specific filter or small group of filters, always has been. Historically that was the large Ford FL-1A (PH8A) filter, but they've expanded that a bit in more recent years:
Screen Shot 2021-09-01 at 12.00.51 PM.png


You'll note that both filters mentioned are quite large. That's not by accident.

So, even if your cartridge filter didn't perform to the same standard, they've got verbiage that makes that OK.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
2,417
Location
USA
They are both ISO standard tests, they should be consistent.

Recall that the FRAM efficiency rating is for a specific filter or small group of filters, always has been. Historically that was the large Ford FL-1A (PH8A) filter, but they've expanded that a bit in more recent years:
View attachment 69323

You'll note that both filters mentioned are quite large. That's not by accident.

So, even if your cartridge filter didn't perform to the same standard, they've got verbiage that makes that OK.
The internal report says test of new Fram Ultra media. The 3387A isn’t a giant filter. My Ultra boxes have the 4967 tiny filter as well. I’ll double check it later, sure they do. I mean when one has to start reaching…. not meant as a slight. I mean they say the three filters as precaution and to be fully disclosed legally, the assumption is for all Ultra filters to be that efficient. No one here, I doubt, has ever assumed if their Ultra model is not on the list it’s efficiency is different.
The other subject all tests should be the same, is touchy, not to offend the board tester. They aren’t the same. I think he doubled the rate of test dust entrance, and even he said this test is for one filter, this filter. Sometimes we have to accept the result of the authority on the filters. We can pay for a test, it won’t prevent someone from saying wait a minute we need another test because it isn’t what I like. On and on forever it could go.
 
Last edited:

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,456
Location
Ontario, Canada
The internal report says test of new Fram Ultra media. The 3387A isn’t a giant filter. My Ultra boxes have the 4967 tiny filter as well. I’ll double check it later, sure they do. I mean when one has to start reaching…. not meant as a slight.
Not reaching, just pointing out that they use large filters for the test data, the reason for which would be that they will perform the best in the multi-pass testing as well as holding capacity because they have the most media.
I mean they say the three filters as precaution and to be fully disclosed legally, the assumption is for all Ultra filters to be that efficient. No one here, I doubt, has ever assumed if their Ultra model is not on the list it’s efficiency is different.
Amusingly, Donaldson lists different efficiencies for different filters even with the same media (family). Not that I think FRAM is doing that, but thought you'd get a kick out of it:
Screen Shot 2021-09-01 at 1.32.45 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2021-09-01 at 1.33.02 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2021-09-01 at 1.41.43 PM.jpg

Screen Shot 2021-09-01 at 1.41.54 PM.jpg

That being said, their "Blue" branded filters all appear to list efficiency as 99% at 15 micron, at least the few I checked, so there are only a few exceptions within those listed as having the same media type.
The other subject all tests should be the same, is touchy, not to offend the board tester. They aren’t the same. I think he doubled the rate of test dust entrance, and even he said this test is for one filter, this filter. Sometimes we have to accept the result of the authority on the filters.
If he deviated from the ISO testing procedure, then yes, it's not the same. I was under the impression that it was done to the same standard, which should make the results, for the same filter, comparable. That's the whole purpose of the ISO testing parameters, otherwise you couldn't compare the efficiencies cited by FRAM to those cited by Purolator, Donaldson, Fleetguard, Champion Labs....etc. Those 99% at 15 micron figures above then couldn't be compared to the FRAM 99% at 20 micron ones for example.
We can pay for a test, it won’t prevent someone from saying wait a minute we need another test because it isn’t what I like. On and on forever it could go.
As I said, as long as both tests are performed to the same standard, they should be comparable. If we aren't doing that, yeah, we are into the weeds.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,223
Location
PNW
It fits in the Ultra box which has the Ultra effichintzy written on it. Could happen. Get it? So you think Fram developed a look alike media to the Boss in every way even color, which exactly duplicates their trade mark Ultra efficiency? Gee they should have saved time and not developed the new Ultra then. :geek:
What do you think the "effichintzy" of the Boss is? Purolator isn't claiming it's 99%+ @ 20u.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,223
Location
PNW
The other subject all tests should be the same, is touchy, not to offend the board tester. They aren’t the same. I think he doubled the rate of test dust entrance ...
Actually, if you go back and read that testing thread, Andrew said he adjusted the test dust concentration per the guidelines of the ISO test procedure.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Messages
477
Location
USA
The Donaldson P550162 for my application is 99% @ 39 microns...weird as Overkill pointed out!
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,223
Location
PNW
Not reaching, just pointing out that they use large filters for the test data, the reason for which would be that they will perform the best in the multi-pass testing as well as holding capacity because they have the most media.
The 3 filters Fram references are basically a large, medium and small sized filter, and the average of those 3 is what they are basing the ISO efficiency on. This is better than most filter companies do, which is to test the largest filter they make (Purolator/Bosch does that). As I'm mentioned before in other threads, all 3 of those filters are going to have to come in pretty close to each other in order to maintain the 99% @ 20u rating. If one of them was pretty bad, it would drag down the average below 99% @ 20u.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,456
Location
Ontario, Canada
The 3 filters Fram references are basically a large, medium and small sized filter, and the average of those 3 is what they are basing the ISO efficiency on. This is better than most filter companies do, with is to test the largest filter they make (Purolator/Bosch does that). As I'm mentioned before in other threads, all 3 of those filters are going to have to come in pretty close to each other in order to maintain the 99% @ 20u rating. If one of them was pretty bad, it would drag down the average below 99% @ 20u.

I was speaking as to the multi-pass testing, which only uses the two large(r) filters.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
2,417
Location
USA
Not reaching, just pointing out that they use large filters for the test data, the reason for which would be that they will perform the best in the multi-pass testing as well as holding capacity because they have the most media.

Amusingly, Donaldson lists different efficiencies for different filters even with the same media (family). Not that I think FRAM is doing that, but thought you'd get a kick out of it:
View attachment 69333
View attachment 69334
View attachment 69335
View attachment 69336
That being said, their "Blue" branded filters all appear to list efficiency as 99% at 15 micron, at least the few I checked, so there are only a few exceptions within those listed as having the same media type.

If he deviated from the ISO testing procedure, then yes, it's not the same. I was under the impression that it was done to the same standard, which should make the results, for the same filter, comparable. That's the whole purpose of the ISO testing parameters, otherwise you couldn't compare the efficiencies cited by FRAM to those cited by Purolator, Donaldson, Fleetguard, Champion Labs....etc. Those 99% at 15 micron figures above then couldn't be compared to the FRAM 99% at 20 micron ones for example.

As I said, as long as both tests are performed to the same standard, they should be comparable. If we aren't doing that, yeah, we are into the weeds.
XG4967 right on the Ultra box, just checked. So they picked a large, medium, and small filter. Fram is the expert here on filter testing their media. They disclosed the results. That would be a case closed in a court. I looked at one Donaldson spec it said 99%@22 the beta 75 is 30 microns. Beta 75 is the famous 98.7% number I think. What’s going on with that?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,223
Location
PNW
I was speaking as to the multi-pass testing, which only uses the two large(r) filters.
The first footnote (*) is for multi-pass ISO 4548-12 effficiency testing ... that's what my comment was referring to where they use a large, medium and small sized filter and take the average of those 3 filters.

The second footnote (**) is for holding capacity, which is independent of the efficiency.

1630520943043.png
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,456
Location
Ontario, Canada
The first footnote (*) is for multi-pass ISO 4548-12 effficiency testing ... that's what my comment was referring to where they use a large, medium and small sized filter and take the average of those 3 filters.

The second footnote (**) is for holding capacity, which is independent of the efficiency.

View attachment 69350
Yes, that's why I noted the multi-pass test and holding capacity when I said they were using the larger filters.

The expectation is they are using the same media regardless of the part #, so its efficiency SHOULD be the same regardless, but media area has an impact on the 2nd point, which I assume is why they use the larger filters.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,223
Location
PNW
Yes, that's why I noted the multi-pass test and holding capacity when I said they were using the larger filters.

The expectation is they are using the same media regardless of the part #, so its efficiency SHOULD be the same regardless, but media area has an impact on the 2nd point, which I assume is why they use the larger filters.
Both the efficiency and holding capacity are ISO 4548-12 multi-pass testing. Yes, efficiency and holding capacity for a given area of media should be equal if it's all the same media. I'm sure when any filter manufacture develops a new media they do only test the media for flow, efficiency, etc before it ever goes into a filter assembly. Call it the media R&D development and qualification testing.

As discussed before, the size and holding capacity can influence the delta-p vs loading performance of the filter which can have an effect on the overall ISO efficiency. Keep in mind that the overall ISO efficiency is the calculated average of the start vs end efficiency during the test. That was seen in Andrew's ISO testing - the extent of the "hockey stick" efficiency vs loading curve. No filter is going to be super efficient if the media sloughs off a lot of the already captured debris and becomes pretty inefficient at the end of the test when it's near loaded capacity. Oil filters behave the opposite of air filters, where some oil filters become less efficient when loaded, and that hurts their ISO efficiency test rating.
 
Last edited:

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,456
Location
Ontario, Canada
XG4967 right on the Ultra box, just checked. So they picked a large, medium, and small filter. Fram is the expert here on filter testing their media. They disclosed the results. That would be a case closed in a court. I looked at one Donaldson spec it said 99%@22 the beta 75 is 30 microns. Beta 75 is the famous 98.7% number I think. What’s going on with that?
Yes, the 99% at 20 microns rating is based on the average of three filters. The holding capacity, as a result of the multi-pass test, is only based on the two larger filters.

FRAM is no more qualified to test the media than any of the other manufacturers we are discussing, they are all experts. As I noted, that's the entire point of the ISO testing process, so that results can be compared across brands, if we can't do that, none of these numbers are worth anything.

If Ascent Filtration is performing the testing per the ISO, then they are equally qualified to run these tests. Ergo, the results should mirror, within the error bars, those we are seeing from the manufacturers.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,456
Location
Ontario, Canada
Both the efficiency and holding capacity are ISO 4548-12 multi-pass testing. Yes, efficiency and holding capacity for a given area of media should be equal if it's all the same media. I'm sure when any filter manufacture develops a new media they do only test the media for flow, efficiency, etc before it ever goes into a filter assembly. Call it the media R&D development and qualification testing.

As discussed before, the size and holding capacity can influende the delta-p vs loading performance of the filter which can have an effect on the overall ISO efficiency. Keep in mind that the overall ISO efficiency is the calculated average of the start vs end of the test. That was seen in Andrews ISO testing - the extent of the "hockey stick" efficiency vs loading curve. No filter is going to be super efficient of the media sloughs off a lot of the already captured debris and becomes pretty inefficient at the end of the test when it's near loaded capacity. Oil filters behave the opposite of air filters, where some oil filters become less efficient when loaded, and that hurts their ISO efficiency test rating.

Yes, I know they are part of the same protocol, just noting that for the holding capacity, they are only using the results of the two larger filters from the multi-pass data, versus the three for the efficiency claim.

I may be remembering incorrectly, but years ago, I recall them only using the PH8A filter for the figures.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
29,223
Location
PNW
The 3387A isn't really that big IMO ... much smaller than the 8A. Not a big difference between the 3387A and 4967. So for the holding capacity test they are essentially using a large and a small/medium sized filter. They use the average of the two, and they just say it's in comparison to compatible competitive products. No hard holding capacity numbers (ie, x grams), but their 10K rating for EG, 15K rating for TG and 20K rating for XG are tied into the holding capacity.

Sizes from Fram website:
8A: 3.66" dia x 5.05" long
3387A: 2.98" dia x 3.36 long
4967: 2.69" dia x 2.92" long
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
47,456
Location
Ontario, Canada
The 3387A isn't really that big IMO ... much smaller than the 8A. Not a big difference between the 3387A and 4967. So for the holding capacity test they are essentially using a large and a small/medium sized filter. They use the average of the two, and they just say it's in comparison to compatible competitive products. No hard holding capacity numbers (ie, x grams), but their 10K rating for EG, 15K rating for TG and 20K rating for XG are tied into the holding capacity.

Sizes from Fram website:
8A: 3.66" dia x 5.05" long
3387A: 2.98" dia x 3.36 long
4967: 2.69" dia x 2.92" long

Interestingly, I just found a pic of the old XG box:
Screen Shot 2021-09-01 at 4.12.34 PM.jpg


Efficiency used only the two filters, while holding capacity only used the large XG8A filter.

It was before that I recall them only using the large filter for both. Interesting to see how this has progressed to be more balanced.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
47
Funny seeing those Cummins Confidential slides from over a decade ago. Fleetguard melt-blown media has advanced quite a bit since those days...we were right on the cusp of our first nanofiber fuel filter back around that time 2010/2011 for high horsepower engines in the mining sector. Now that media tech has trickled all the way down to RAM trucks and other medium duty applications. Media is a pretty fascinating topic of discussion though...it's always fun to take people through the plant tour in Cookeville to show where we produce the melt-blown StrataPore and NanoNet grades.
 
Top