Wondering About Motorcraft Filter Efficiency

Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
10
Location
Prince Edward Island, Canada
My Ford F-150 with 2.7 Ecoboost uses Motorcraft FL2062A cartridge type oil filter.

By chance, would anybody happen to have access to the specs on the filtering efficiency of the Motorcraft cartridge type filters, e.g. 90% of particles 30 micron or larger or whatever it may be?
 
ive heard of 94% at 20um which is what amsoil tested it at. the supertech is 99% at 30um or larger and there's a certification called uscar-36 that states the filter has to meet a minimum 95% at 30 microns which is pretty low but for the most part even a fram extra guard at 95.7% at 20um is better if you can get it for the same or similar price. The tough guard and ultra are in the 99% range.
 
ive heard of 94% at 20um which is what amsoil tested it at. the supertech is 99% at 30um or larger and there's a certification called uscar-36 that states the filter has to meet a minimum 95% at 30 microns which is pretty low but for the most part even a fram extra guard at 95.7% at 20um is better if you can get it for the $3.88 it should be but isnt always. The tough guard and ultra are in the 99% range.
Can you link to the Amsoil test for the filter?
 
Can you link to the Amsoil test for the filter?
ill try since it was a while ago. remember seeing the filters filtration percentage and at the bottom it listed the exact testing procedure and at what micron rating which i remember was 20um but i tried to look for it a while back but it got buried in the webs. ill give it another search.
 
ill try since it was a while ago. remember seeing the filters filtration percentage and at the bottom it listed the exact testing procedure and at what micron rating which i remember was 20um but i tried to look for it a while back but it got buried in the webs. ill give it another search.
pfft never mind. the second i post that and go back to searching i immediately find it in the next click :ROFLMAO:

 
ive heard of 94% at 20um which is what amsoil tested it at. the supertech is 99% at 30um or larger and there's a certification called uscar-36 that states the filter has to meet a minimum 95% at 30 microns which is pretty low but for the most part even a fram extra guard at 95.7% at 20um is better if you can get it for the same or similar price. The tough guard and ultra are in the 99% range.
Thanks for the info.
 
Assuming Motorcraft uses the same media in all their filters (meaning all spin-ons and cartridge), then they should all be about the same efficiency. Size might have a small affect on efficiency, but IMO not enough to make much difference.
 
Yes I know about that page but I'm still not seeing that filter. What am I missing?
the ford FL is the motorcraft white can oil filter. that's one of the pages that contained the info. i tried to find the other one that went in depth more but that one got lost.

Ford still uses Purolator as their supplier and i cant imagine the filtration efficiency of these filters becoming worse. They may possibly be better now in 2021 a decade after the test but even if they aren't they're still not bad for what they cost and deliver.
 
Assuming Motorcraft uses the same media in all their filters (meaning all spin-ons and cartridge), then they should all be about the same efficiency. Size might have a small affect on efficiency, but IMO not enough to make much difference.
I've heard of smaller size filters creating more pressure and thus opening the bypass valve more easily even if both the small and large filters have the same bypass setting reducing efficiency. Also have heard of the higher pressure from a smaller can forcing small contaminants through more than in a large filter which supposedly is less stressed but i never saw any evidence. As long as the media seals perfectly and the bypass valve doesn't open when it shouldn't the efficiency should be good enough to not worry about. I'd be more concerned about the air filter instead.
 
Assuming Motorcraft uses the same media in all their filters (meaning all spin-ons and cartridge), then they should all be about the same efficiency. Size might have a small affect on efficiency, but IMO not enough to make much difference.
I'm not sure I would make that assumption?
 
I'm not sure I would make that assumption?
If the filter media was exactly the same in all Motorcraft filters, then the only thing that could change the ISO efficiency is the total area of the media (if all other possible factors held constant). I think it would take a very small filter size to make a notable impact on the overall ISO efficiency - ie, more delta-p combined with media that sloughs off already captured debris easily. Recall how the ISO efficiency is measured and calculated - it's an average of the beginning and ending efficiency measured. Filters that don't exhibit much of a "hockey stick" shaped efficiency curve over the duration of the test will have a higher calculated ISO overall efficiency rating.
 
Last edited:
Assuming Motorcraft uses the same media in all their filters (meaning all spin-ons and cartridge), then they should all be about the same efficiency. Size might have a small affect on efficiency, but IMO not enough to make much difference.

I have to think this is the answer right here. Why would M&H use different media for different filters in the same category?
 
I'm not sure what assumptions anyone should be making... The Amsoil tests are/were on the FL820s (a spin on style filter). The FL2062A used on the 2.7 is a cartridge style filter (now on its second version).

I wouldn't be making gross generalizations that since they are motorcrafts, they are the same....
 
I'm not sure what assumptions anyone should be making... The Amsoil tests are/were on the FL820s (a spin on style filter). The FL2062A used on the 2.7 is a cartridge style filter (now on its second version).

I wouldn't be making gross generalizations that since they are motorcrafts, they are the same....
Then this thread should be closed, because nobody knows or can find out from Motorcraft or anybody else. 😄
 
There isn’t a whole lot of choice out there. Whether you buy a WIX, NAPA Gold, Purolator or Motorcraft, they are made by Mann+Hummel. FRAM has their offering.
I agree with @ZeeOSix , close it.
 
For sure. Seems like Fram is the rare bird that puts out micron rating at a %. The rest play games.
A few other do, like Purolator, Mobil 1, and WIX (but hide a few of theirs, like the XP). Seems the big brands will show it. None of the OEM brands ever show efficiency ratings.
 
Same article as the 10 year old lab efficiency table is this. Worry about particles and wear? Get these. Amsoil says it’s better. Good wishes to all in their life pursuits and challenges now and ahead.


“By-Pass Oil Filtration






By-pass Oil Filtration
features a secondary filter with the purpose of eliminating nearly all contaminants from motor oil.


By-pass filters have high capacities and eliminate much smaller particles than full-flow filters, including soot. They reduce engine wear and increase oil volume, but their high efficiencies mean they also have higher restriction and must be used in conjunction with a full-flow filter.


AMSOIL Ea By-pass Oil Filters operate by filtering oil on a "partial-flow" basis. They draw approximately 10 percent of the oil pump's capacity at any one time and trap the extremely small, wear-causing contaminants that full-flow filters can't remove.


By-pass filters have a high pressure differential, causing the oil to flow through them very slowly and allowing for the removal of smaller contaminants. It is called by-pass filtration because the oil flows from the by-pass filter back to the sump and by-passes the engine.


This continual process eventually makes all of the oil analytically clean, reduces long-term wear and can dramatically extend drain intervals.

AMSOIL By-pass Oil Filters AMSOIL By-pass Oil Filters


Because oil must be filtered quickly while removing most of the particles in the oil, the average full flow filter can only trap particles as small as 20 microns. With an efficiency rating of 98.7 percent at 2 microns, AMSOIL Ea By-pass Oil Filter provides the best possible filtration protection against wear and oil degradation.


The superior construction of AMSOIL Ea By-pass Oil Filters provides better sealing and increased longevity along with superior corrosion resistance. EaBP Filters have a marine powder coated exterior and their zinc-dichromate base plates increase rust protection. They also have a nitrile HNBR gasket and an orange silicone anti-drain valve.


AMSOIL’s high-efficiency by-pass filter element is also a soot removal device.


These filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron. Soot removal efficiency increases approximately 10 to 14 percent when the EaBP Filter is used in conjunction with a standard full-flow filter.


Ea By-Pass Filters use a synthetic/cellulose sandwiched media. The inner layer of the element is composed of a highly efficient cellulose media covered with a full synthetic media outer layer.


synthetic/cellulose sandwiched media



AMSOIL Ea By-Pass Oil Filter typically filters all the oil in the system several times an hour. At normal operating RPMs it will filter all of the oil in a typical five quart sump in less than 10 minutes. The continual filtering process eventually makes all the oil analytically clean, reducing long-term wear.


The increased fluid system capacity and filtration life provides improved oil cooling and ensures that equipment constantly runs on clean oil. Engine efficiency is increased, providing extended engine life.


By cleaning the oil so completely, the EaBP Filter not only prolongs engine life but also the life of the oil itself. With the AMSOIL Ea By-Pass Filter, oil changes can be extended well beyond normal, in many cases virtually indefinitely, depending upon the conditions and severity of use.”



By-Pass Filtration Benefits
  • Dramatically Extended Drain Intervals
  • Improved Oil Cooling
  • Increased Filtration Capacity and Life
  • Increased Fluid System Capacity
  • Efficient Small Particle and Soot Removal
  • Significantly Extended Engine Life
  • Equipment Constantly Runs on Clean Oil
  • Increased Engine Efficiency
  • Remove Particles Less Than One Micron
 
The OP's question is not really easily answered because there's not a lot of data to support any conclusion regarding MC efficiencies.

All filters have some inherent efficiency. Most any company will rate their filters (good/better/best) based on some standard filters they test, but the implication is that those stated efficiencies are similar to other compatible filters in their catalog line-up, but perhaps not identically the same. If the ratings are substantially different, they'll mention it separately.
Example: Wix rates many of their filters at the 2/20=6/20 standard, but they rate some filters much differently. The filter for the 6.7PSD (#57151) is rated at 2/20/75=3/12/17. That diesel filter is far more efficient that the "normal" white-wasted rating they toss on the bulk of their filters.

MC doesn't make filters, nor does ACDelco, or Toyota, nor HD, or a slew of others. Those "OEM" brands simply buy filters from other sources and they realize that folks whom buy their OEM stuff are buying brand-loyal products and so they don't really need to tout much hype past the statements like "use our stuff and you're covered; it's well engineered and meets our OEM specs". They don't bother telling you what those specs are; they just tell the buyer it's "good enough for us so it's good enough for your Fusion/Chevy/Camry/Street-Glide ..." The OEMs don't bother with bragging about their filter specs because, well, what little we've seen shows us their filters aren't really stellar in terms of efficiency. That does NOT mean they're horrid; it only means their efficiencies are nothing to write home about. They are good, but they're not great.

Whereas aftermarket makers of products don't have that direct tie-in to OEM brand loyalty, and so they have to differentiate themselves from the OEM and also their competition. They go the extra mile to make it known why they're the product to choose (at least from their viewpoint). Most of these companies brag about their performance because it's typically a notch above normal.

I do have vague memory of some MC branded tech page I once saw that showed an efficiency claim, but it was long, long ago, and it was really not played up well. It was mediocre as I recall; OK efficiency, but not nearly as good as the aftermarket alternatives.
 
Back
Top