Not "making up" anything. Go do some self research on engine wear vs oil cleanliness studies. I'm still waiting for one study that says cleaner oil doesn't result in less engine wear.Making up "Extra Wear" assumptions again every time I mention a Boss oil filter.
If you're so afraid of this extra wear then change your oil every mile then b/c "It's dirty & causing extra wear, that wear will not let my engine last a long time". (Hysteria) I'm not that scared of using oil to the point of getting my money's worth.Do some self research on engine wear vs oil cleanliness studies. I'm still waiting for one study that says cleaner oil doesn't result in less engine wear.
I understand your position & it's nothing out of the ordinary but you know that a sample of one is not sufficient across the board. That's my main argument with all of this. We can at least see the efficiencies, low or high, on each of the Purolator's but not with the other filters. We must just take a small sample as evidence their ALL like that. It's been stated many times on here that even size can play a role on having different efficiencies. I just require more data to make an informed decision. If you're happy with seeing that specific Ascent filter result & assume it's the same on your's then have at it. That's where I draw the line to a certain extent. Everyone wants to claim this or that filter is more efficient but no solid data to back it up. On top of that we all have our limits or lack thereof how much we're "Sold" to on wild claims so one must be cautious. That's what I am Cautious. Some may assume I'm anti Fram or anti-efficient but that couldn't be further from the truth.
I get the comedy in your post but what data have you seen on your filters that I can't? I want in on that data too.
yes, i understand simple statistics. you made an informed decision to choose the boss so run what you want. i know what i’m running and everyone is entitled to an opinion. the 10575 vs the 3675 is quite literally just thread and having a bypass vs not.
Nah ... I'll just use a high efficiency oil filter (95% @ 20u or 99% @ 25u or better) and do normal (not extended) OCIs.
You're missing the main point and seem to be making up excuses about the main point of engine wear vs oil cleanliness. OCI length is also a factor as mentioned before in these discussions. Of course everything isn't constant, but in order to see the point you have to look at it with all things as constant as possible except for the level of oil cleanliness (like the wear studies do), and the OCI length, which as mentioned has a bearing on wear based on oil cleanliness level based on how long the oil is circulated over and over through the oiling system. Running a dirtier oil for less miles is basically like running cleaner oil for more miles. It's the cleanliness level times how many times the sump has been pumped through the engine that correlates to wear from particulate in the oil.Still waiting on the study of using a Boss filter equals extra wear claim you make in real life. Simply using a Boss filter doesn't equate to engine producing extra engine wear. Your example is if "everything is constant" which it is not. Too many variables in real life. The Boss tested better than advertised to boot. It's a good filter. I know you'd have some believe otherwise but not today & probably not tomorrow either. Until I mention Boss the next time you quote me...
Simple solution... run what you'd like to run if you have the data that passes your sell test. Doesn't mean the filter you're using is any more efficient than the next without proper ISO test on it. Until you send in those "High Efficient oil Filters" for that test we wont know for sure.
On a Subaru, I wonder if the FRAM being set at half the OE spec bypass pressure could result in worse filtering than a less efficient filter that, in theory, goes into bypass less frequently.
The Fram Endurance is only sold at Walmart, so that could be a big factor on why they also kept the Ultra, which is available at many places besides Walmart.
Unless your assumption is that the media is unique to the specific filter tested by Ascent, it's very easy to extrapolate up or down in size and media area as to how efficiency plots.
First, I'm in no way saying my buying choice is "Superior". That is your words & narrative not mine. Purolators come with an ISO test on the individual filters which is what I like. When I say how much I like it I usually get some on here riled up about how terrible they are etc. Then they'll say why don't you run X brand filter because they say 99%@20 microns (W/O any data to show how they got there). You're only using Fram as an example but there are a lot of filter companies out here advertising those claims with little to back it up. Fram is not the only company that makes high efficiency claims. I'll continue to be responsible & let others know that there is data lacking on proper ISO filter tests when there are claims that aren't backed up. If you want to believe ANY company that claims 99%@20 microns, across all of their respective models, w/o any evidence than have at it.
So you believe that the three filters that Fram references for the ISO 4548-12 efficiency are the only ones that meet their claimed efficiency, and all others are something entirely different? Is it a conspiracy theory that Fram somehow only made some "super filters" to be used for their efficiency claims? We also have the Ascent data points - maybe Fram secretly planted a couple of special filters for Andrew to unknowingly buy off the shelf for his testing, lol. I remember when Ascent was going to test those filters, and some Fram haters were wringing their hands thinking the Ultra wouldn't meet the claims, but it actually was better than Fram's claim. Image of Wile E. Coyote blowing himself up with "dyn-o-mite" (goodtimes, lol). The way those filters ranked per Ascents testing pretty much matched how they would rank if looking at their ISO 4548-12 efficiency claims by the manufacturers.
www.purolatornow.com
What was wrong with Ascent's testing? No one here is arguing that there was bad data on that OG Ultra filter.So you believe that the three filters that Fram references for the ISO 4548-12 efficiency are the only ones that meet their claimed efficiency, and all others are something entirely different? Is it a conspiracy theory that Fram somehow only made some "super filters" to be used for their efficiency claims? We also have the Ascent data points - maybe Fram secretly planted a couple of special filters for Andrew to unknowingly buy off the shelf for his testing, lol. I remember when Ascent was going to test those filters, and some Fram haters were wringing their hands thinking the Ultra wouldn't meet the claims, but it actually was better than Fram's claim. Image of Wile E. Coyote blowing himself up with "dyn-o-mite" (goodtimes, lol). The way those filters ranked per Ascents testing pretty much matched how they would rank if looking at their ISO 4548-12 efficiency claims by the manufacturers.
What's funny about the whole M+H Spec Sheets and Purolator's website is that they are blatantly misleading people by showing the Boss PBL30001 being 99% @ 25u on their website, yet the Spec Sheet shows it's 99% >46u. That's a big discrepancy. And you don't trust Fram's claims?
PurolatorBOSS® Oil Filters
PurolatorBOSS® Maximum Oil Filters deliver peak performance and maximum engine protection for up to 20,000 miles.
View attachment 196273
Spec Sheet ... 99% >46 microns. Why don't the two claims match?
If you heard the Boss was 50% @ 22u (which is pretty close to 20u), would you feel the same as hearing it was 99% >46u?
