I saw that too and not sure why, and it's the case for multiple filters to some degree so might be something to do with the test equipment. Maybe @Ascent Filtration Testing (Andrew) can give more insight to this.
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
- Thread starter Ascent Filtration Testing
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
I chalk it up to statistical variation. There are far less particles/ml in the smaller size microns. In the larger size micron range, just a few particles makes a greater difference.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
Correction: I meant to say there are far more particles/ml in the smaller size microns. In the larger size micron range, just a few particles have a greater effect on efficiency.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I am buying Fram Ultra cans only from now on. If I need something with a stronger can I will get a Royal Purple or Amsoil can filter.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I just got the last PBL out of all 4 vehicles, changed out oil too while I was at it!! You know anyone who wants a few new Purolator Boss filters? LOL
I do, what size?
Fram has some pretty good tech info.
www.fram.com
Especially “Understanding fluid filter rating” May help to understand how statistics can make data imperfect. I know I want to sit down and read it when there aren’t a million things to do.
FRAM | Resources | Consumer Tech Tips | FRAM
Backed by an enduring spirit of innovation, we make the highest-quality air, fuel, and oil filters for consumers and industries. Find the one you need today.
www.fram.com
Especially “Understanding fluid filter rating” May help to understand how statistics can make data imperfect. I know I want to sit down and read it when there aren’t a million things to do.
The Fram article "Understanding Fluid Filter Rating" was written in May 2003 (about 4 years after ISO 4548 came out) and is talking about the multi-pass efficiency test and how it's a very good way to compare filter efficiency. They even mention the efficiency decreases with loading which also happens in the field - that is also what Andrew found in his ISO testing, as well as M+H/Purolator. I would also think that particle counters are better and more accurate then they were 20 years ago.
Well said.
When the GM study was done, the accepted "normal" OCI was the "3000 miles or 3 months" montra. Obviously, that isn't the case these days. As longer OCIs were specified by automakers over the years, the need for more efficient oil filters was born in the aftermarket filter segment and have became more popular.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
This is an incorrect statement.
Please elaborate
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
Filtration does not become less important if you change you oil more frequently. It is still very important. Particle's cause wear, less particles cause less wear, yet certain size particles can cause more wear then others, no matter where the particles come from and their composition. Wear mechanisms are always at work. Who is to say what size and composition particles in any general engine will see?
To say NEVER EVER going to see a difference in wear rates for choosing a high efficiency filter over a rock catcher is clearly incorrect. Study after study has determined with empirical it is very provable in real life. This particular GM study however appears to be deeply flawed as was pointed out. The results however still trend in the same direction as most other studies and show wearing occurs when particles are present, and engine life cycles are reduced.
Heavy equipment hydraulic fluid power systems come to mind, because I am working on a project now using them. Particles reek havoc on those systems. No shortage of filter selection guides to protect hydraulic equipment. Not to mention the oil sampling sent to labs required for maintenance schedules and warrantee agreements. Why not protect your personal investment as well.
As a real world example (I don't want to reveal to much and get an old client upset), so I will have to be very general, but I can recall a job many years ago with a brand new piece of heavy equipment that the engine failed within several months. It was discovered a knock-off filter somehow got into the supply chain. If a higher efficiency filter was used that piece of equipment would not have failed.
It’s still on the site today as a technical resource. Fram is lying about anything over beta 75 is meaningless? Why don’t they take it down? Whatever makes you feel correct, stay with it and be happy. Particles counts in real world use, loose elements, and a destroyed engine be darned.
I really have no idea what on earth you're trying to say here. Your constant and relentless effort to disparage anything Fram has reached such a height that you're now only making truly nonsensical posts in every thread about the brand.It’s still on the site today as a technical resource. Fram is lying about anything over beta 75 is meaningless? Why don’t they take it down? Whatever makes you feel correct, stay with it and be happy. Particles counts in real world use, loose elements, and a destroyed engine be darned.
So now Fram is lying by saying it's 99% or 99+% because of info published in 2006 ...It’s still on the site today as a technical resource. Fram is lying about anything over beta 75 is meaningless? Why don’t they take it down? Whatever makes you feel correct, stay with it and be happy. Particles counts in real world use, loose elements, and a destroyed engine be darned.
. Are you also going to call Andrew's test data bogus too because his ISO 4548-12 test showed the Ultra was more efficiency that what Fram actually claims? You always seem to troll every chance you get.This is right out of ISO 4548-12. So if an oil filter tests to be very efficient it can certainly be shown to be shown as 99%, and nothing wrong with saying it's 99+% when it really is, like Andrew's data shows.
The Ultra Andrew tested looks to be over 99.8% at 20u ... so I'd say that's "99+%". Fram could probably clam it's 99% @ 15u on that specific filter model, but they probably put a buffer in their claim just to cover the whole line of filter sizes and to ensure someone doesn't try to sue them for false advertising. Their filter efficiency claims are based on 3 different filter sizes, which is more than most companies do.
Last edited:
Just talking about their tech article. For some reason particle count tests on used oil do not show superiority from the Ultra. I never said Fram is lying, I asked if you think they are lying in the article I referenced. When you have some supporting and widespread proof of better filtering in real use, be sure to post it. I’m all done, it’s always the same, no real open minded discussion.So now Fram is lying by saying it's 99% or 99+% because of info published in 2006 ...
This is right out of ISO 4548-12. So if an oil filter tests to be very efficient it can certainly be shown to be shown as 99%, and nothing wrong with saying it's 99+% when it really is, like Andrew's data shows.
View attachment 63961
The Ultra Andrew tested looks to be over 99.8% at 20u ... so I'd say that's "99+%". Fram could probably clam it's 99% @ 15u on that specific filter model, but they probably put a buffer in their claim just to cover the whole line of filter sizes and to ensure someone doesn't try to sue them for false advertising. Their filter efficiency claims are based on 3 different filter sizes, which is more than most companies do.
View attachment 63963
Similar threads
