Will a less Efficient Filter Keep Oil as Clean as More Efficient One

[ZeeOSix]

Yea I know. But Fram has a 99% efficiency at 20 microns and a K&N filter has say an 80% ? efficiency at 20 microns.
Since the oil constantly recirculates I am wondering if the 20 micron particles will virtually all be captured with both filters. And yes I realize that particles way less than 20 microns exist. But I would guess that perhaps even the 15micron particles will be removes or particles less than 20 microns will cause insignificant wear.

A more efficient oil filter will always keep the oil cleaner than a less efficient filter. Cleaner oil causes less abrasive wear between moving parts. And basically every wear study says that the particles 20u and smaller do the most wear. Larger particles too big to get between tight clearances like journal bearings can get crushed up else where in the engine, and then become a bunch of smaller particles that can cause wear. Engines are continually producing debris, so a less efficient filter won't "eventually catch-up" to cleaning the oil to the same cleanliness level. If you want to remove more of the particles 20u or less, then use a filter that is higher efficiency at 20u.

The longer your OCI, the more important it is to use a higher efficiency filter. Engine wear from debris in the oil is proportional to the cleanliness of the oil times how many the oil has been circulated through the engine. So even a larger capacity oil sump helps cut down that factor. If you changed the oil every 1000 miles on a well broken in engine you wouldn't need a very efficient oil filter.

 

[RazorsEdge]

With all these particles that are so huge, so many constantly just floating around in the engines, you'd think I'd be see massive, abnormal wear in all of the dirt track racing engines I've seen opened up over the years.

Nope,sorry. I've seen more damage over the years with defects in cranks,pistons,bad cams, valves,etc.


Pick a filter, simple and if your worried about getting so much but yet scared, how about parking the vehicle, daily transportation or race car etc right underneath the favorite tarp manufacturer. Oh ,wait the tarp will leave scratches on those

 

[ZeeOSix]

Unfortunately, Fram's are marketed as, 95%-99%@20 High efficiency, but they are deceiving the public on some of their filters.
Here's a Fram filter that is 85%@20 microns that is advertised as 95%@20.

It's not really "deceiving" because their efficiency statement is referencing 3 specific filter models. Probably in most cases, the filters in that specific filter line (PH, TG, XG, etc) will be what's advertised because Fram at least uses 3 different sized filters to get an average ISO efficiency. It's no more "deceiving" than how Purolator advertises their filter efficiencies. I've pointed out many times that the efficiency statement that Purolator uses on their website for the PureOne and Boss don't even match the official spec sheets for the exact models they reference on their website. I can post that up again if anyone what's to see that "deception".

 

[fantastic]

It's not really "deceiving" because their efficiency statement is referencing 3 specific filter models. It's no more "deceiving" than how Purolator advertises their filter efficiencies. I've pointed out many times that the efficiency statement that Purolator uses on their website for the PureOne and Boss don't even match the official spec sheets for the exact models they reference on their website. I can post that up again if anyone what's to see that "deception".

Ah ha but Purolator has ISO tested spec sheets, that you think an AI put together, to cut out marketing. One of those 3 filters is a small filter & most likely lower efficiency than 99%@20 so they use a more efficient filter in the three to "avg it out". Meanwhile that small filter probably isn't 99%@20. I know what's better then "The avg of three filters" is... ISO tested filter data. You're claim of "They're doing it too so why can't we" is lousy.. period.

 

[ZeeOSix]

With all these particles that are so huge, so many constantly just floating around in the engines, you'd think I'd be see massive, abnormal wear in all of the dirt track racing engines I've seen opened up over the years.

They do use good air an oil filters, right? If so, then yeah they should be clean inside, especially when they are probably changing oil very often since is a race machine. In an engine like that with very short OCIs, the oil that they are using is going to effect the protection and wear of the engine components under exteme stress from racing.

 

[BrendanC]

You mean 99%@34 microns in that Ascent test you've been posting regularly? If it's good enough for you to use it for Fram it's good for Purolator too right... Oh, you've decided not to this round...got it.

I don't want to run a lower efficiency filter if I can help it so would you grab me the ISO data on some Endurances I want to run...Oh shoot Their not available for my app. Unavailability, lack of information seems to be okay here to attack others. If you have more inside Fram data than the rest of us then please share. They seem to be perfectly ok with lying about their efficiency so why should we trust marketing exactly?

the harley filter is an outlier. the fram filters take an average across three different sizes. the XG10575 the was tested was not one of the filters used in the average for 99+% at 20um and it out performed it. i do believe fram. i don’t believe purolator when blatantly on the box they state 99% at 20um referencing the PBL30001 when not even it reaches anywhere close to that. specification sheets are cool and all, but there’s nothing that i’ve seen from purolator/M+H that would make me willingly choose one of their filters off the shelf.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ah ha but Purolator has ISO tested spec sheets to cut out marketing, like I previously mention, that you think an AI put together.

Yeah, and once people see some of those spec sheets they realize just how off from reality the claims of efficiency on their website are. And it's not "AI", they most likely use an accurate model verified through ISO testing to come up with an efficiency for every filter they make. To physically test hundreds of different oil filters would a massive and very expensive endeavour. I know that Purolator/M+H was big time into modeling their filters from other inforation like the loss in efficiency as the filter load up which I started talking about years ago and showed test info from Purolator.

One of those 3 filters is a small filter & most likely above 99%@20 so they use bigger filter in the three to "avg it out". Meanwhile that small filter probably isn't 99%@20. I know what's better then "The avg of three filters" is... ISO tested filter data. You're claim of "They're doing it too" is lousy.. period.

Yes, it could be possible the smallest in the 3 is lower than the average ... that's how averages work. Long time ago when I was a Purolator user, I pointed out that the 4 smallest PureONE spin-on filters that Purolator made printed the efficiency on the box of those filters, and the efficiency was "99% @ 40", when thier website advertised the PureONE to be 99.9% @ 20u (based on the 30001 of course). But they never said what the 4 smallest spin-ons were on their website ... it was only printed on the box. Better than nothing, but hard to find unless you were really into knowing and where to search for filter efficiency.

Yes, Purolator is "doing it too" ... so why is it "lousy" if you think Fram's adversising is "lousy" ... one-way vision perhaps? Go look on Purolator's website of the efficiency claim of the 30001 model and then look at the spec sheet for the 30001. There's big mis-match. Deception or just ignorance by Purolator/M+H ... or they don't hire anyone in the IT department to make their website accurate? There has to be a reason for non-matching efficiency info.

 

[himemsys]

I think an Ascent retest with modern samples of oil filters (new Endurance, new Ultra without wire backing, new Purolator BOSS) would go a long way in settling this issue. It certain does appear from the Ascent results as well as the BR tests that the BOSS is outperforming it's specs, maybe to the point where the data sheet needs to be updated.

As I said in a different thread:
The Ascent tests were done at least 3 years ago. It's possible filter designs have changed and a retest with filters bought today would yield different results.

Second thought, the YouTube ranks you posted, were done consistently across all filters. So whatever metrics they used for their tests did show the BOSS being close to the Endurance for those metrics. Here they are (values are particle counts at particular micron ranges):

	Fram Endurance	Purolator BOSS
Filtering
21-38 microns	17.9	31.6
38-70 microns	2	0.3
>70 microns	0.3	0

Edit: So under the same conditions, the Endurance came in 2nd place (just behind the Amsoil) in particle counts, while the BOSS came in 3rd place. Different test than %efficiency at 20 microns. But the fact that the BOSS had the 3rd least total particles out of 20 filters tested under the same conditions, and that it was not that far behind the Endurance gives me enough confidence that today's BOSS is very good at filtering, almost as good as today's Endurance.

Final Edit: I'd like to point out that I am not a Purolator fanboy. In fact, I have never used a BOSS filter in my life. I've used Fram Ultras exclusively for at least the past 5 years. I just see the BOSS bashing as a bit of an injustice and am choosing to point it out.

 

[RazorsEdge]

They do use good air an oil filters, right? If so, then yeah they should be clean inside, especially when they are probably changing oil very often since is a race machine. In an engine like that with very short OCIs, the oil that they are using is going to effect the protection and wear of the engine components under exteme stress from racing.

Dirt track we used many different types of air cleaners, (even pre- filter for the air filter) and foam air filter.

Drag strip types environment isn't going to be as dirty obviously.

Oil filters were changed but there was never a sit down conversation about using the absolute best oil filter. Way more stuff to worry about when racing and points championship and money is on the line.

My point is that this wear that your trying to visualize from these particles isn't going to be noticable over the period of time of vehicle ownership no matter how much it tires your inner soul.

 

[fantastic]

the harley filter is an outlier. the fram filters take an average across three different sizes. the XG10575 the was tested was not one of the filters used in the average for 99+% at 20um and it out performed it. i do believe fram. i don’t believe purolator when blatantly on the box they state 99% at 20um referencing the PBL30001 when not even it reaches anywhere close to that. specification sheets are cool and all, but there’s nothing that i’ve seen from purolator/M+H that would make me willingly choose one of their filters off the shelf.

Really? You've seen all of Fram's ISO testing data for all of their filters to make that claim? You make an excuse for Fram's filter as an outlier, while consequently throwing the one other Purolator's claim under the bus. At the end of the day one has data & you don't believe that ISO testing data so then there isn't much of a position.

Let's put this in bullet points:

Fram

• Fram misleading about specifications on one filter
• No ISO testing data shared to the public
• You believe them

Purolator

• Purolator misleading about specifications on one filter
• ISO testing data available to the public
• You don't believe them

 

[fantastic]

Yes, Purolator is "doing it too" ... so why is it "lousy" if you think Fram's adversising is "lousy" ... one-way vision perhaps? Go look on Purolator's website of the efficiency claim of the 30001 model and then look at the spec sheet for the 30001. There's big mis-match. Deception or just ignorance by Purolator/M+H ... or they don't hire anyone in the IT department to make their website accurate? There has to be a reason for non-matching efficiency info.

It's not really "deceiving" because their efficiency statement is referencing 3 specific filter models. Probably in most cases, the filters in that specific filter line (PH, TG, XG, etc) will be what's advertised because Fram at least uses 3 different sized filters to get an average ISO efficiency. It's no more "deceiving" than how Purolator advertises their filter efficiencies. I've pointed out many times that the efficiency statement that Purolator uses on their website for the PureOne and Boss don't even match the official spec sheets for the exact models they reference on their website. I can post that up again if anyone what's to see that "deception".

They're both doing lousy marketing but you make excuses for Fram instead. I've shown where Fram is misleading but your "Not really deceiving" shows your bias no matter Fram's marketing.

I don't make excuses for their misleading... I follow the ISO data. That tends to cut out a lot of sales marketing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Whereas MANN sent me an actual datasheet with results that are backed by ISO 4548-*. Lots of more relevant information in the MANN data sheet than the copy-paste text I was sent from Fram.

And how do you feel about that official ISO 4548-12 efficiency of 99% @ >46u and 50% at 22u? Even without any "data sheet" I know many other filters are way more efficient than that based on Ascent's ISO testing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

They're both doing lousy marketing but you make excuses for Fram instead. I've shown where Fram is misleading but your "Not really deceiving" shows your bias no matter Fram's marketing.

Not "making excuses" ... I'm just pointing out that at least Fram use 3 different sized referenced filter models to achieve a stated efficiency claim for the whole filter model line.

That to me is better than all the other manufactures that either: 1) Don't list any efficiency, 2) Only list the % efficiency without any associated particle size, or 3) Just reference the biggerst filter model they make, like Purolator using the 30001 as thier ISO test filter - which in that case doesn't even match what the official spec sheet shows for the 30001.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don't want to run a lower efficiency filter if I can help it ...

Are you running the Boss? if not, then what filter, and based on what ISO efficiency data to ensure it's efficient enough for your liking?

 

[himemsys]

And how do you feel about that official ISO 4548-12 efficiency of 99% @ >46u and 50% at 22u?

I addressed that in post 28 above.

 

[ZeeOSix]

My point is that this wear that your trying to visualize from these particles isn't going to be noticable over the period of time of vehicle ownership no matter how much it tires your inner soul.

Just because you can't see huge noticeable wear with your eyes doesn't mean it's not wearing. Been pointed out many times that the level of wear should be considered over the life of the vehicle. Ring wear is usually the main thing that happens to ICE, and dirty oil just contribute to more wear over the long run.

My goal is to use higher grade oils, air filters and oil filters to complete the trifecta required to mitigate wear from all angles and keep the engine in good physical health to keep its operation in top condition. Every parrots the "the air filter is the most important filter", which is true ... but it doesn't mean that using a low efficiency oil filter is a good idea. If debris gets past the air filter, then the oil filter is the last component that can remove that debris, so it too should be high efficiency to ensure it catches as much as possible, regardless of how the debris gets into the oil.

 

[fantastic]

Are you running the Boss? if not, then what filter, and based on what ISO efficiency data to ensure it's efficient enough for your liking?

Post #16 is the data I need to make an informed buying decision to choose a Fram.

• You're happy with "Avg of three filters" from only three referenced Fram filters
• I'm happy w/ISO data on individual filters from Purolator

You know this goes nowhere & all of us get to decide what data we need to decide. Making comments that some here say like "Fram only or you'll get "Terrible Efficiency" or my favorite "Excessive Wear" isn't really informative or educational or correct.

Let's use your favorite line today "Avg of three referenced filters". You know that one high efficiency Purolator filter that @Robvette posted along with two other mid to low efficiency & had Purolator's average them out. I'd imagine Purolator could claim the exact same as Fram. To me that is not the correct way to do it if you want to know the true of the filter your needing to use. Unless you're lucky enough to use one of the three specific filters that were tested.

• Purolator xxx 99%@15 microns
• Purolator xxx 99%@ 17 microns
• Purolator xxx 99%@30 microns

Divide that by 3 & you get 99%@ 20.66 microns. Purolator could do the exact same thing as Fram does & that would satisfy some here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I addressed that in post 28 above.

That's just theory on why you think it's not really what the M+H spec sheet shows, or the test Ascent did, and seem to believe BRs "efficiency testing" more than the official ISO test data. If it's still as Ascent tested and really closer to 99% >46u, then how do you feel about that is what I meant.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Post #16 is the data I need to make an informed buying decision to choose a Fram.

• You're happy with "Avg of three filters" from only three referenced Fram filters
• I'm happy w/ISO data on individual filters from Purolator

You know this goes nowhere & all of us get to decide what data we need to decide. Making comments that some here say like "Fram only or you'll get "Terrible Efficiency" isn't really informative or educational.

That's not an answer to what I asked. Do you use a Boss or something else? If something else, what source of the ISO 4548-12 efficiency data did you use to decide what filter(s) you're using?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Let's use your favorite line today "Avg of three referenced filters". You know that one high efficiency Purolator filter that @Robvette posted along with two other mid to low efficiency & had Purolator's average them out. I'd imagine Purolator could claim the exact same as Fram. To me that is not the correct way to do it if you want to know the true efficiency of the filter your needing to use.

Yet Purolator just uses the largest 30001 model filter on their website to reference the efficiency of the whole One or Boss line, which doesn't even match the official M+H spec sheet. The M+H spec sheets or a link how to get them are nowhere on the Purolator website for the public to get. It's a "hidden secret" to the public unless the contact them and ask, which hardly anyone would do except crazed filter maniacs on BITOG, lol.