http://www.mobil.com/Shared-Files-LCW/mobil-1-ep-oil-filter-design_amer_en.pdf
...compared with Wix, ProSelect and others
...compared with Wix, ProSelect and others
Mobil 1 EP Oil Filters efficiency @ 25 microns
- Thread starter river_rat
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 7,262
motorcraft filters are 20 microns. Cheaper too.
Easy marketing, compare your product to something you know you will beat. I would be surprised if it did not beat all listed filters.
But now the real test. Compare yourself to the Amsoil Ea?
Is a NAPA ProSelect now called a Gold or a Silver filter? Too many filter names to remember.
But now the real test. Compare yourself to the Amsoil Ea?
Is a NAPA ProSelect now called a Gold or a Silver filter? Too many filter names to remember.
I love how companies compare apples to oranges and always in their favor. They're comparing an extended drain interval filter to "normal" oci filters. For example why didnt they compare the mobil 1 ep to say a bosch distance plus? For all practical purpose will you see any extra life in your engine by choosing a filter that filters 1% better at 25 micron? I also like how when they bring up holding capacity they list no names in that comparison. In addition they list them as "other brands average". Perhaps some of these filter actually hold the more dirt.
Amsoil tests theirs at 15 microns and the Mobil 1 is at 25 microns.
I see 2007, but of more interest than the M1 efficiency is some of the other filters mentioned. If they are grouped by maker, the PZ is no longer made by Fram, and the Microgard no longer made by Purolator.
And back in 07 the Prem.Plus L30001 was rated 96% efficient @ 20um. So that means to 99.6% at 25um? Fram rated 95% @ >20um shows as 99.7% @ 25um? Hmmm. Based on that chart all the filters efficency looks good with the exception of the bottom three Wix made fors.
Obviously the M1EP holding capacity looks the best. Good candidate for a two OCI run based on depending on driving profile?
And back in 07 the Prem.Plus L30001 was rated 96% efficient @ 20um. So that means to 99.6% at 25um? Fram rated 95% @ >20um shows as 99.7% @ 25um? Hmmm. Based on that chart all the filters efficency looks good with the exception of the bottom three Wix made fors.
Obviously the M1EP holding capacity looks the best. Good candidate for a two OCI run based on depending on driving profile?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The test is outdated.
It lists ISO 4548-12 and 99.6% efficiency as the test on that PDF, whilst Mobil's website shows the SAE J1858 Multi-Pass Efficiency Test and 99.2%. The latter is a 15-micron test IIRC. Though it may be 20.
It lists ISO 4548-12 and 99.6% efficiency as the test on that PDF, whilst Mobil's website shows the SAE J1858 Multi-Pass Efficiency Test and 99.2%. The latter is a 15-micron test IIRC. Though it may be 20.
splitting hairs.
Buy based on value and availability. Any quality filter will do well. -Wix, Puro , Motorcraft...
Buy based on value and availability. Any quality filter will do well. -Wix, Puro , Motorcraft...
Originally Posted By: Donald
Easy marketing, compare your product to something you know you will beat.
It's showing that a FRAM PH8A is more efficient than a synthetic fiber blend media Mobile 1 filter ... hardly call that good marketing.
Easy marketing, compare your product to something you know you will beat.
It's showing that a FRAM PH8A is more efficient than a synthetic fiber blend media Mobile 1 filter ... hardly call that good marketing.
if this is an outdated article why post ?
Originally Posted By: walk23
if this is an outdated article why post ?
Its 2007. Not what I call outdated just because one filter may have changed makers.
I posted it because there has been lots of conjecture over the years about at what micron size M1 filters claimed their efficiency. Even Mobil 1 will not release this information, but refers you a a Champion Labs phone number in which they will tell you that is Mobil 1'a proprietory information.
Hey 'yall. Thanks for all the complaints. I wish I could still delete the link since no one is interested.
if this is an outdated article why post ?
Its 2007. Not what I call outdated just because one filter may have changed makers.
I posted it because there has been lots of conjecture over the years about at what micron size M1 filters claimed their efficiency. Even Mobil 1 will not release this information, but refers you a a Champion Labs phone number in which they will tell you that is Mobil 1'a proprietory information.
Hey 'yall. Thanks for all the complaints. I wish I could still delete the link since no one is interested.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
...The latter is a 15-micron test IIRC. Though it may be 20.
Exactly. Find the exact micron size from a reliable source and feel free to post it here.
I found the SAE test data cited at one point and it was 20 microns (found it in my post history) but I can no longer seem to be able to find the link now unfortunately
Yes, I wish they were as transparent as Donaldson regarding their filter data.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
...The latter is a 15-micron test IIRC. Though it may be 20.
Exactly. Find the exact micron size from a reliable source and feel free to post it here.
I found the SAE test data cited at one point and it was 20 microns (found it in my post history) but I can no longer seem to be able to find the link now unfortunately
Yes, I wish they were as transparent as Donaldson regarding their filter data.
99% or better at 20 micron with a good holding capacity, make it about on par with a Bosch D+...if the numbers OVERK1LL mention are reliable. So, just throwing that out there, I'm sure the M1 EP is in that performance range, but it WOULD be nice to know for sure.
We're splitting hairs, indeed. Thanks for the post, it does give helpful information/insight towards the M1 EP, but nothing surprising quite frankly. What did people expect?
We're splitting hairs, indeed. Thanks for the post, it does give helpful information/insight towards the M1 EP, but nothing surprising quite frankly. What did people expect?
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
motorcraft filters are 20 microns. Cheaper too.
That statement doesn't even mean anything.
20 microns @ 80% efficiency* ...
(* per Motorcraft specs)
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
motorcraft filters are 20 microns. Cheaper too.
That statement doesn't even mean anything.
20 microns @ 80% efficiency* ...
(* per Motorcraft specs)
If 80% at 20 micron is really true.. that's pretty poor filtering for a piece so well thought of.
A roll of toilet paper should be able to do 80% and hold a few pounds of crud!!
Originally Posted By: Virtuoso
If 80% at 20 micron is really true.. that's pretty poor filtering for a piece so well thought of.
There have been many threads in the past about Ford's Motorcraft published filtering spec of "80% @ 20 microns". Many members here (me included) have tried to contact Motorcraft, and nobody has ever gotten any better information than that published rating by Motorcraft.
If indeed the Motorcraft oil filters are better than that, then Ford/Motorcraft is doing themselves a dis-service IMO.
If 80% at 20 micron is really true.. that's pretty poor filtering for a piece so well thought of.
There have been many threads in the past about Ford's Motorcraft published filtering spec of "80% @ 20 microns". Many members here (me included) have tried to contact Motorcraft, and nobody has ever gotten any better information than that published rating by Motorcraft.
If indeed the Motorcraft oil filters are better than that, then Ford/Motorcraft is doing themselves a dis-service IMO.
- Status
