Premium Synthetic OIl Filter Selection

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: JB357
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: JB357
I know the Pure 1 is rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns and the Amsoil Ea oil filter is rated at 98.7 @ 20 microns.

I wonder if the Pure 1 really does filter 99.9% @ 20 microns, if so I have not seen any full flow filter with higher filtering efficieincy.


It depends on what Purolator filter number you're talking about. There are a few spin-ons and all the cartridge filters are rated at 99.9% @ 40 microns instead of @ 20 microns.

On the Purlator site it says the Pure 1 filter filters to 99.9% efficiency with an asterisk that at the bottom of the page says *Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001. So what they are saying is only one of their Pure 1 filters meets this spec? I guess that is what they are saying. So are the rest of the Pure 1 filters only 99.9% efficent @ 40 microns? Pretty mediocre efficiency.


Through investigation over the last few years, it has been determined that only the 4 smallest spin-on filters have the 99/9% @ 40 microns rating ... it's right on the filter's box if you read carefully. All others have the 99.9% @ 20 microns on the box. It's the 14610, 14612 and a couple others I don't recall off hand.

What Purolator filter number is used on your vehicle?

 

[JB357]

PL14610

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: JB357
PL14610


Yep ... look on the filter's box. It will say 99.9% @ 40 microns. If you want 99.9% @ 20 microns you could use the PL14459 instead if there is room on your engine mount for it. I think sayjac or others here have used the PL14459 on a V6 Accord. They can chime in to verify/concur or not.

I've used both the PL14610 and the PL14459 on my V6 Altima. Now going to try a FRAM Ultra XG 7317, which is the same size as the PL14610.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Maybe our FRAM Rep Motorking could chime in on this one to clarify FRAM's intentions if he reads this thread.


He has on a previous occasion. He said it really means 20 microns but they use the > for some legal speak reason. He also said they use the exact same ISO test as all the others manufacturers and the advertised percentages are based on that test.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Maybe our FRAM Rep Motorking could chime in on this one to clarify FRAM's intentions if he reads this thread.


He has on a previous occasion. He said it really means 20 microns but they use the > for some legal speak reason. He also said they use the exact same ISO test as all the others manufacturers and the advertised percentages are based on that test.


Thanks for the input. I do recall he made comments about how the spec their efficiency ratings. As I thought, sounds like the rating is essentially @20 microns.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Went and found a couple posts of me and Motorking talking about the 20 micron testing, and why FRAM uses the ">20 microns" spec.

Me:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...052#Post2653052

Motorking:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...866#Post2653866

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: JB357
I am skeptical that Fram actually means their filter filters 99% @ 20 microns when they actually say their filter filters 99% > 20 microns....

And I understand your skepticism. I'm not sure why Fram would be any more liable or susceptible to any legalities or legal concerns than say Purolator, Wix or Amsoil to name a few other quality filters that spec efficiency using an @ level for efficiency with ISO 4548-12 testing.

I had also noticed previously (not now) that Group 7 and ProMotive filters, Puro 'made for' commercial accounts filters, were listing all their oil filters with 94%>20um, on their website. Many of those are downsized and consolidated filters meaning some similar in size the Puro 14610/14612 size. If Purolator for instance used the > they could list all their filters at 20um, which with the exception of the 4 smallest filters, all Purolators are. Just something to ponder.

Then again, the use of > may mean @ as has been assumed. But, this is Bitog where the devil is in the details.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
If Purolator for instance used the > they could list all their filters at 20um, which with the exception of the 4 smallest filters, all Purolators are. Just something to ponder.

Then again, the use of > may mean @ as has been assumed. But, this is Bitog where the devil is in the details.


I do consider > to mean @ in this case because if a filter is really rated 99.9% at 40 microns (ie, the PL14610), then it does not meet the criteria of 99.9% >20 microns because 21 microns is still >20 microns. It would not be 99.9% efficient @21 microns, so technically they can't say that a 99.9% @ 40 microns rated filter is the same, and use the "99.9% >20 microns" to cover a filter like that. Just the way I view if from a technical aspect.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
....I do consider > to mean @ in this case because if a filter is really rated 99.9% at 40 microns (ie, the PL14610), then it does not meet the criteria of 99.9% >20 microns because 21 microns is still >20 microns. It would not be 99.9% efficient @21 microns, so technically they can't say that a 99.9% @ 40 microns rated filter is the same, and use the "99.9% >20 microns" to cover a filter like that. Just the way I view if from a technical aspect.

And that's one view. Technically in mathematics terms however, > 20 (um) is defined as 'any number' greater 20, which would include 40. Based on that, in strictly legal terms it would meet the definition.

And it still doesn't explain why the other manufacturers previously mentioned use @ and not > for efficiency spec.

I've acknowledges that > may well mean @, but the legal angle for using > seems a weak one to me.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: Motorking
Hi,
The >20 microns in the disclaimer? Blame it on the Ultra competitiveness of the filter industry and company lawyers. We run ISO 4548-12 tests using particle sizes in 10-20 micron range for all claims. Then print the disclaimer so no other company can dispute the claims. A major competitor of ours is now basing it's disclaimer on >25 microns and I know for a fact they run 4548-12 using 20 micron particles.


There's what he said about it, and it makes sense to me.

I'm sure competitors would be all over Fram for misleading advertising if the > really meant 30 or 40 microns. But instead they choose to cut them open and pick on the endcaps, so there's a good indication right there from the competition that Fram's numbers are reasonably accurate IMO.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
Quote:
Hi,
The >20 microns in the disclaimer? Blame it on the Ultra competitiveness of the filter industry and company lawyers. We run ISO 4548-12 tests using particle sizes in 10-20 micron range for all claims. Then print the disclaimer so no other company can dispute the claims. A major competitor of ours is now basing it's disclaimer on >25 microns and I know for a fact they run 4548-12 using 20 micron particles.


There's what he said about it, and it makes sense to me.

I'm sure competitors would be all over Fram for misleading advertising if the > really meant 30 or 40 microns. But instead they choose to cut them open and pick on the endcaps, so there's a good indication right there from the competition that Fram's numbers are reasonably accurate IMO.

I've read that response previously several times, and it still doesn't explain why other respected quality filter makers spec using @ and not >. Aren't their oil filters also in the ultra competitive filter industry and subject to the same legal scrutiny? I think so.

And as the topic is about Premium Synthetic Filters, ie., in the case of Fram the Ultra, this has nothing to do with endcap construction. Though clearly it is a very sensitive point with Fram loyalists.

 

[ZeeOSix]

When Purolator says "99.9% @ 20 microns", it is the efficiency for just particles @ 20 microns. Anyone familiar with filtration would probably know that that same filter would have just as good or better efficiency for particles above 20 microns. Most likely the same holds true for any oil filter ... their efficiency doesn't ever go down as the particle size increases.

When FRAM says "99% >20 microns", to me it means the efficiency for any particle larger than 20 microns, which technically would mean and include a particle @ 20.001 microns in size. To me it's basically the same thing as saying "@20 microns". FRAM technically could not use the statement of "99% >20 microns" if the filter has less than 99% efficiency at 25 microns for instance. Let's say the FRAM filter was 99% efficient at 40 microns. They would then have to say it was "99% >40 microns". Technically and mathematically that's how it would have to work.

 

[Sayjac]

As I addressed the OP I do understand his skepticism. When only one major filter company publishes it's efficiency spec using > then it's a fair point imo. In simple math, > 20 mean anything greater than 20, period.

Ive never seen any peer reviewed literature that says in filter efficiency, or anything else, that says > 20 means >20 but
All that aside, it still doesn't answer the OP's question of why only Fram publishes it's spec's using > and not @. Not limited to synthetic filters, why are Wix, Purolator and Amsoil to name only a few, not concerned with the "same legal implications" as Fram while using @ for their efficiency spec? That is the real question here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
As I addressed the OP I do understand his skepticism. When only one major filter company publishes it's efficiency spec using > then it's a fair point imo. In simple math, > 20 mean anything greater than 20, period.


Exactly ... it even means 20.000001 ... which is basically 20.

Don't know why FRAM doesn't just say "@20 microns and greater", which is what I think they really mean by saying ">20 microns", and what Motorking eluded to in his answer about how FRAM's "legal department" shows the spec.

 

[Sayjac]

And the answer to the question still remains unanswered. If "the ultra competitiveness of the filter industry and company lawyers" are the reasons for being the only company to spec filters using > rather than @, why do other major oil filter manufacturers not have the same concerns and spec efficiency using @. Thus, I understand the OP's skepticism.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
And the answer to the question still remains unanswered. If "the ultra competitiveness of the filter industry and company lawyers" are the reasons for being the only company to spec filters using > rather than @, why do other major oil filter manufacturers not have the same concerns and spec efficiency using @. Thus, I understand the OP's skepticism.


Different set of lawyers I guess ... don't know the real answer - only paranoid lawyers do. Sure people can get skeptical if they are use to seeing "@20 microns".

I just read it literally and make my own conclusions based on logic. Also we on BITOG have the input of Motorking who is at least a FRAM employee and has info to back up the fact that "99% >20 microns" essentially means @ 20 microns and greater.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...866#Post2653866

Motorking:
"The >20 microns in the disclaimer? Blame it on the Ultra competitiveness of the filter industry and company lawyers. We run ISO 4548-12 tests using particle sizes in 10-20 micron range for all claims. Then print the disclaimer so no other company can dispute the claims."

Sounds like there is a lot of cross-checking of manufacture's oil filter performance claims amongst each other. These days, everyone is out to find someone making false claims in order to increase sales. Lots of competition going on.

 

[Sayjac]

Yes, that's the same explanation already posted on the previous page of this thread and reponded to at the top of this one.

But it's all good Zee, I just have a difference of opinion. I just find it odd that only one major filter manufacturer finds it necessary to use what could be considered by many an ambiguous efficiency spec system because of alleged legal considerations. And yet, all of the other major respected filter companies competing in the same market have zero concerns for similar considerations. Thus with no reasonable explanation to explain that major difference/discrepancy, I understand the OP's skepticism.

Reasonable minds can differ.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Sounds like FRAM's marketing & legal department are just CYA-ing more than the others. Maybe they got sued or were threatened to be sued, so CYA kicked in. Could write a letter to FRAM marketing/legal and ask why.