It was a fair way from your own science, be clearer. We are on a forum, we don't have the luxury of immediate implied posted interpretation. If you have some free time I am interested on the date code for the Purolator Boss, it seems odd that it didn't meet its advertised efficiency claim. There was a change in the efficiency rating relatively recently. Thanks for your time with this thread.
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
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
I disagree with you on your interpretation, but it is your interpretation, so I respect that. I will try to be more clear next time, and dig out the filters next week and get the numbers off of the can for you on the date code.
It's not odd to me in my experience for any manufacturer in general to not reach the efficiency claims they make. Changes in model name, material suppliers, material countries of origin, changes in production facilities, changes in brand owners, manufacturing machine adjustments, new employees, new management, poor QC/QA control practices,....I could go on and on with respect to this topic. Most manufacturers know this, and now you do to.
I suppose do to all the negative fighting on here, I will just post the final video as promised and call it.
My intention for all of this is to be first and foremost fun and informative, for all of us engine maintenance guys and gals out there trying to keep our equipment running as long as possible. I have learned, talked to some great folks including yourself via Bob, and have very much enjoyed all of our conversations.
It's not odd to me in my experience for any manufacturer in general to not reach the efficiency claims they make. Changes in model name, material suppliers, material countries of origin, changes in production facilities, changes in brand owners, manufacturing machine adjustments, new employees, new management, poor QC/QA control practices,....I could go on and on with respect to this topic. Most manufacturers know this, and now you do to.
I suppose do to all the negative fighting on here, I will just post the final video as promised and call it.
My intention for all of this is to be first and foremost fun and informative, for all of us engine maintenance guys and gals out there trying to keep our equipment running as long as possible. I have learned, talked to some great folks including yourself via Bob, and have very much enjoyed all of our conversations.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I, for one, appreciate all the work you put into this, carefully assuring the test parameters would be equal for all products tested. I am a fan of pure science, and as much information as possible. Thank you again, Andrew for all your hard work. Anticipating the video, hope you’re not discouraged.
I was a purolator fan due to the relatively efficient Pure One at a good price. This new information has changed my mind on their effectiveness. Your results have hands down eliminated any doubt. Especially since the size you tested is one I regularly use.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
It is good and informative info, but please keep in mind that this was only one test for each type of filter, so statistically it is insignificant. More tests would need to be run in order to determine how typical these results are.
If a filter company was going to hire a lab like yours to run the ISO efficiency test, typically how many filters of each model would be ran (or specified to be ran by the hiring company) to be confident the efficiency results are accurate? Two, five, ten, twenty- five, ??.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
It depends, each company seems to have a home grown QC plan. Larger companies with larger budgets test more and have there own testing rigs, and only require 3rd party qualification. For smaller manufacturers I have set up QC plans correlating less expensive integrity tests with a probability distribution relating to the efficiency and capacity. It saves them money.
I am sorry, but I can't give you an exact number because it depends on a number of things not limited too- if it is a prototype in the R and D phase, or if it is an established element already in full production, budget, what capabilities manufacturers have to test in house, what 3rd party testing their customers require.
Fram ultra looks to be the winner for me!
My old truck uses the XG3980 and the total oil capacity is 4.5 quarts i have been changing the oil every 5,000 miles and leaving the filter on.
I know it is irreverent but my engine is quieter running the ultra over other brands and the oil pressure is more steady but like i said it is irreverent.
Thank you!
-Jake
My old truck uses the XG3980 and the total oil capacity is 4.5 quarts i have been changing the oil every 5,000 miles and leaving the filter on.
I know it is irreverent but my engine is quieter running the ultra over other brands and the oil pressure is more steady but like i said it is irreverent.
Thank you!
-Jake
Don't worry about that everyone is pretty thick skinned around here and enjoy a robust argument, that's usually a good thing. Thanks for your time and efforts.
Wanted to add that all the filters you tested, even though it was just a sample of one for each brand, their efficiency all ranked in basically the same order from best to worse that their manufacture's efficiency ratings would make them rank.
The manufacture's advertised ISO efficiency rating is a baseline to compare your test data to. They obviously did enough ISO testing (in house or by a hired outside lab) to be able to advertise the filtering performance without getting sued by the competition (the big guys check each other by testing). If there was some huge discrepancy in your test data like the Ultra ranking last, then there would have to be further investigation and testing for an explanation. The slight discrepancies seen in your test data compared to the manufacturer's advertised efficiency could simply be from the size of the filters tested. For example, Purolator uses and references their gigantic 3001 sized filter for their ISO efficiency - a larger filter will perform better in the ISO test. And WIX is so secretive now ("it's propriatary", and was once shown as 50% @ 20μ before) that we know it's not stellar, and it was no surprise it came in where it did.
If one of these came in way out of bed from the manufacturer's ISO efficiency rating, then more samples would have to be tested to verify.
Last edited:
How about pure one filter? Where would that be,in the charts posted???
Not tested by Ascent Filter Testing, so nobody knows. All we know is what Purolaror says it is on their website - 99% @ 20μ.
Maybe we need a retest of the Fram Ultra's with the different filter construction?
I suggested we get a "go fund me" going for Ascent if he's willing to do it for a reasonable charge. Haven't seen him on the board for awhile, so hope he's doing OK.
I was wondering about the Bosch Premium filter as well as it has the same 99% @ 20 microns rating but it looks like it is a Purolator clone.
Never mind, I see where it says that in the online brochure.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 184
It you set it up, we are ready to test here!
How much would a test cost? It would be on a new XG10575 with the new media so it could be compared to the one you already tested. No bubble test, just flow vs delta-p and efficiency using same test parameters. Maybe people could donate via PayPal if you have a PayPal - ?.
Similar threads
