Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?

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.
No, I don't think Fram is not lying ... do you think they are? You somehow think because Fram says 99% or 99+% that they are lying ... what else could you conclude when you reference their 2003 article as gospel when you make those comments. I've posted about ISO particle count data taken from various UOAs on this site, and there are plenty of cases where the Fram Ultra (or other high efficiency filters) shows a better ISO code than less efficient oil filters. Of course you see one case where that's not the case (which could be caused by lots of things) and you latch on to it like it's gospel. Just goes to show you like to troll and use one case lock-ons because you really can't see the big picture or prove much of anything in a technical manner beyond that.
 
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.
If you are not satisfied with the current types of multi-pass efficiency and capacity testing used to differentiate various filters, than this may interest you. There are filter testing standards that are not out yet, in development for ISO, SAE, and the MIL (Department of Defense) for filter testing.

These include Dynamic filter efficiency tests will include vibration in 2 or 3D and a changing flowrate. Also included are cold start testing, as well as thermal temperature cycling. The main problem I see from a manufacturers perspective is the cost being very high to run these tests. Which is a problem I will solve.

It is really exciting stuff! Many of the best filter engineers from large and small manufacturers, including manufacturers of air, land, and sea equipment, and small testing labs like mine are working on it. I believe they are all indirectly working on your behalf, and I know I certainly am.
 
Re: Post #502. If the current ISO 4548-12 efficiency test (that's been used for over 20 years) can't be understood and accepted, just think how minds will explode when a much more complicated test is used. :unsure:
 
Last edited:
If you are not satisfied with the current types of multi-pass efficiency and capacity testing used to differentiate various filters, than this may interest you. There are filter testing standards that are not out yet, in development for ISO, SAE, and the MIL (Department of Defense) for filter testing.

These include Dynamic filter efficiency tests will include vibration in 2 or 3D and a changing flowrate. Also included are cold start testing, as well as thermal temperature cycling. The main problem I see from a manufacturers perspective is the cost being very high to run these tests. Which is a problem I will solve.

It is really exciting stuff! Many of the best filter engineers from large and small manufacturers, including manufacturers of air, land, and sea equipment, and small testing labs like mine are working on it. I believe they are all indirectly working on your behalf, and I know I certainly am.
Not really dissatified with standard test, or have any brand obsession. It’s just a simple observation unanswered. I see particle counts from actual car use don’t match the standard test. They even seem unrelated. My questions are purely technical and for better understanding. Some point to the messenger, I guess because they have no real answer.
Actually more bubble point tests would mean a lot. If a filter leaks I don’t need to know more about it, but there has to be more samples done I guess. As we see the Ultra passed that and some others didn’t. Very valuable facts for this site which is often just opinions.
 
There has been SAE testing done in the real world which shows a correlation between oil filter efficiency and oil cleanliness, and cleaner oil always results in less engine wear. It's been discussed in this forum for years (with links and data posted), but some don't seem to see or believe the simple correlation.

If someone believes that a filter rated at 50% @ 20μ keeps the oil just as clean in real world use as a filter rated at 99% @ 20μ, then please post up some official SAE study links that prove that oil filter efficiency in the real world doesn't matter. If that was true, I'm sure some official study would have proven it by now.
 
There has been SAE testing done in the real world which shows a correlation between oil filter efficiency and oil cleanliness, and cleaner oil always results in less engine wear. It's been discussed in this forum for years (with links and data posted), but some don't seem to see or believe the simple correlation.

If someone believes that a filter rated at 50% @ 20μ keeps the oil just as clean in real world use as a filter rated at 99% @ 20μ, then please post up some official SAE study links that prove that oil filter efficiency in the real world doesn't matter. If that was true, I'm sure some official study would have proven it by now.
Yes but OCI is a factor we are now being told it is not. How many particles under 20 microns with mid efficiency filter at 3k vs a high efficiency filter at 15k?
 
Yes but OCI is a factor we are now being told it is not. How many particles under 20 microns with mid efficiency filter at 3k vs a high efficiency filter at 15k?
Of course OCI matters. Debris is generated as the engine runs, so the longer it runs the higher the debris level would become if there was no oil filter (baseline). If there was no oil filtration, the debris level would also increase faster due to the cascading effect and addition of debris generation caused from increasing 3-body wear.

And as the debris level increases from running, the amount of debris making it past a less efficient filter will increase compared to a more efficient filter, and go round and round through the oiling system - especially the particles at 20μ and below which do contribute to wear. Look at Andrew's test data of how some of those filter's efficiency fall off a cliff way before or around 20μ.

3-body wear from debris is proportional to the contamination level of the oil leaving the filter times the number of cycles the oil makes it through the oiling system - longer the OCI, more oil trips through the system (other factors held constant). Run a 3K OCI and you probably won't need as an efficient oil filter (depending on engine condition) as running a 10K or 15K OCI. Running an efficient oil filter regardless of the OCI won't hurt anything but the cost of a few more bucks per FCI. Some people see that as a waste, but others see it as covering all bases of the engine care trifecta.
 
Last edited:
Of course OCI matters. Debris is generated as the engine runs, so the longer it runs the higher the debris level would become if there was no oil filter (baseline). If there was no oil filtration, the debris level would also increase faster due to the cascading effect and addition of debris generation caused from increasing 3-body wear.

And as the debris level increases from running, the amount of debris making it past a less efficient filter will increase compared to a more efficient filter, and go round and round through the oiling system - especially the particles at 20μ and below which do contribute to wear. Look at Andrew's test data of how some of those filter's efficiency fall off a cliff way before or around 20μ.

3-body wear from debris is proportional to the contamination level of the oil leaving the filter times the number of cycles the oil makes it through the oiling system - longer the OCI, more oil trips through the system (other factors held constant). Run a 3K OCI and you probably won't need as an efficient oil filter (depending on engine condition) as running a 10K or 15K OCI. Running an efficient oil filter regardless of the OCI won't hurt anything but the cost of a few more bucks per FCI. Some people see that as a waste, but others see it as covering all bases of the engine care trifecta.

Yes that's fine but it was implied in a previous post that was not the case. The example given was in regard to a 'knock off' filter not a genuine or common mid grade filter. I am aware of the science in the thread. I'm happy to run the most efficient filter I can on every short OCI but you lot over in the US love to get the most out of them :)
 
Yes that's fine but it was implied in a previous post that was not the case. The example given was in regard to a 'knock off' filter not a genuine or common mid grade filter. I am aware of the science in the thread. I'm happy to run the most efficient filter I can on every short OCI but you lot over in the US love to get the most out of them :)
Not exactly sure what previous post you're talking about. Guess people either believe science and valid repeatable test data and correlation trends or not.
 
Last edited:
Not exactly sure what previous post you're talking about. Guess people either believe science and valid repeatable test data and correlation trends or not.

It wasn't your post. It was a post by @Ascent Filtration Testing

'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'.

Have we got the date code off the Purolator Boss yet, this thread is taking on a life of its own even with all the science...
 
From a purist's point of view, cleaner oil is always better than not, and every particle that goes through the oiling system can cause wear - I think that's where Andrew was coming from in Post #496. Kind of along the same lines as my statement in post #509: "Running an efficient oil filter regardless of the OCI won't hurt anything but the cost of a few more bucks per FCI. Some people see that as a waste, but others see it as covering all bases of the engine care trifecta."

There are really only two ways to keep oil cleaner - change oil more often and/or use a higher efficiency oil filtering system. And of course the level of oil cleanliness can range depending on the level of filtering from the use of no oil filter at all, to using a high efficiency oil filter, and/or the addition of a by-pass filtering system setup on top of that.

The bottom line is that cleaner oil is always better than dirtier oil, and that dirtier oil will always cause more engine wear than cleaner oil - regardless of the level of wear. There will never be a study found that says dirtier oil doesn't causes any more or less wear than cleaner oil. Then of course the debate becomes the classical: "My car will rust out or get sold or totaled before the engine blows up". That's cool if people think that way about their stuff, but many people don't think of their vehicles like that and try to take care of them as best as possible.
 
Last edited:
I was looking at the data a bit more and thought this was interesting.
The full AC Delco data was shared so I can compare efficiency over time which was previously shown.
But we can apply a regression curve and predict what the efficiency might be at lower micron sizes.

So, starting out AC Delco should perform reasonably well at 10 micron with about 88%efficiency which degrades to 75% efficiency after a period of loading.
As we get further from the actual data I would be hesitant to make any claims, but suffice to say 50%+ efficiency at 5micron is a reasonable expectation.
Pretty good, no?

Fram would actually be more difficult to predict, because within the data we don't see hardly any drop off.
I think the claim that it is 80% at 5micron is very reasonable given this data.

1626902356285.jpg
 
Not really dissatified with standard test, or have any brand obsession. It’s just a simple observation unanswered. I see particle counts from actual car use don’t match the standard test. They even seem unrelated. My questions are purely technical and for better understanding. Some point to the messenger, I guess because they have no real answer.
Actually more bubble point tests would mean a lot. If a filter leaks I don’t need to know more about it, but there has to be more samples done I guess. As we see the Ultra passed that and some others didn’t. Very valuable facts for this site which is often just opinions.
I have seen cases where actual particle counts didn't make a whole lot of sense, so i'm with you there.
But, then again i'm not sure I've seen enough reliable data to really form an opinion there...not a lot of people are doing particle counts.
 
I have seen cases where actual particle counts didn't make a whole lot of sense, so i'm with you there.
But, then again i'm not sure I've seen enough reliable data to really form an opinion there...not a lot of people are doing particle counts.
Like I've mentioned before, all the UOAs for PCs done by members here are all done in different ways, and on different vehicles all used and maintained in different ways. Plus, who knows how sophisticated or repeatable Blackstone's PC tests really are, or how they compare to other labs that run PC tests. But I will say there is PC data here that supports that more efficient oil filters results in cleaner oil then not. Someone would need to do a lot more controlled test on their own same vehicle under all the same conditions except for the filter used to try and see the difference. Some people will see one case where a filter comes in as good or better than an Ultra and they latch-on to that as gospel and never see the big picture of trends. Still doesn't disprove the fact that better filtration will result in cleaner oil with all other factors held constant.

Also, there is absolutely no correlation that I can see between a UOA "Insolubles %" measurement vs ISO particle count.
 
Last edited:
An engine that runs efficiently, seals well, has a higher oil capacity relative to engine size, and other variables will show lower PC than an engine that tends to run a little dirtier. Unless the PC trends are done with the same engine, over the same intervals, and in the same driving conditions, it's not comparable.

I have a 2002 Tahoe 5.3L with 274k miles and a 2012 Mustang 3.6L with 155k miles. They both have a 6 quart oil capacity and similar sized filters. The Tahoe is going to have higher PC than the Mustang regardless of the filter used. I could put a Fram Ultra on the Tahoe and Wix XP on the Mustang and the PC on the Mustang would likely still be lower. No conclusion of filtration could be made by comparing the two.
 
I do, what size?
Wow, I haven't been on in a few days, and look at all I missed!!

I have: (1) PBL35399, (3) PBL22500, & (1) PBL24011, anyone interested? Can provide date codes if upon request. They are within 2 years I think.
 
Yes that's fine but it was implied in a previous post that was not the case. The example given was in regard to a 'knock off' filter not a genuine or common mid grade filter. I am aware of the science in the thread. I'm happy to run the most efficient filter I can on every short OCI but you lot over in the US love to get the most out of them :)
I did not say it is not a factor, this is a misinterpretation.
 
Back
Top