so inspiring

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
I guess we just need to get motorking to say it and that will somehow make it factual. He sure has convinced you that greater than means all particals greater than 20 and not at somewhere greater than 20. If that were the case they would state @20.


Motorking has already posted a few times in the past that it's essentially @20 microns. For some kind of "legal reason", Fram chooses to use the words they do: "for particles >20 microns".

Nobody has to convince me that ">20" means everything from 20.001 microns and above. That's what ">20" literally means - everyone knows that (or should).

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Yes 21 is greater than 20 but 99% at greater than 20 doesn't necessarily mean 99% at 21. Just 99% of particles greater than 20. Boulders included.


Yes, it does mean 99% of all particles greater than 20 just as you said.

But think about it ... that means for every 100 particles that are basically 20 microns or larger (since technically 20.001 is >20), that only 1 particle gets through. Even if every 1 per 100 particles that got through were all 20 microns in size, then the filter would still be 99% efficient @20 microns. That's the key to understanding that ">20" and "@20" essentially mean the same thing here - close enough for practical purposes.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
By the way motorking never answered a single one of my questions. That's disappointing


Did you email him, or PM him through the board? If you PMed him, he may never see it for a long time. He puts his email in his signature.

His Posts span>

 

[goodtimes]

I would never use a filter that was only rated 95% @ 29 microns, leaving all the bigger particles in the oil. Besides there are other questions I have about that brand after seeing a dishonest video.
BTW presuming something by probability is without proof of the something.
Now Fram says it more correctly, in the test it is X % > Y microns. I think Motorking is quiet because he sees what is going on here, and he is also correct to not engage. Bye, I agree.

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
I guess we just need to get motorking to say it and that will somehow make it factual. He sure has convinced you that greater than means all particals greater than 20 and not at somewhere greater than 20. If that were the case they would state @20.


Motorking has already posted a few times in the past that it's essentially @20 microns. For some kind of "legal reason", Fram chooses to use the words they do: "for particles >20 microns".

Nobody has to convince me that ">20" means everything from 20.001 microns and above. That's what ">20" literally means - everyone knows that (or should).

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Yes 21 is greater than 20 but 99% at greater than 20 doesn't necessarily mean 99% at 21. Just 99% of particles greater than 20. Boulders included.


Yes, it does mean 99% of all particles greater than 20 just as you said.

But think about it ... that means for every 100 particles that are basically 20 microns or larger (since technically 20.001 is >20), that only 1 particle gets through. Even if every 1 per 100 particles that got through were all 20 microns in size, then the filter would still be 99% efficient @20 microns. That's the key to understanding that ">20" and "@20" essentially mean the same thing here - close enough for practical purposes here.

Dude your just stuck on that at greater than thing
I hate to see a guy struggling this way.
Yes they worded it that way for legal reasons. That way if somone else ever tests their filters and find they are not 99% at 20um they can just say thats not what they claimed
and its really not.
Incase you haven't noticed, a FRAM sales mans word means about nothing to me so I don't put stock into motorking saying it essentially means all particals above 20.
At greater than 20 literally spans an almost infinite range. I'm sure its somewhere within reason. But 30 microns are within reason when your talking at somewhere greater than 20.

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I would never use a filter that was only rated 95% @ 29 microns, leaving all the bigger particles in the oil. Besides there are other questions I have about that brand after seeing a dishonest video.
BTW presuming something by probability is without proof of the something.
Now Fram says it more correctly, in the test it is X % > Y microns. I think Motorking is quiet because he sees what is going on here, and he is also correct to not engage. Bye, I agree.

That was speaking of the microguard/Napa silver mot wix Napa gold.
But, do you think that means the filter will not capture smaller particals than 29 microns?
Focus your attention more in air filtration than oil filtration if debris concerns you so. Best to never have much contamination to begin with. That's honda/ Toyotas reasoning when having their filters made like rock catchers. If your expecting fu to keep your oil free of debris, you have misplaced faith.

 

[jhellwig]

I see that my last post here was deleted. I so called what this thread would turn into.

It doesn't matter what they test them to as long as the meet or exceed the specs for the application they are intended for.

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
And just how do you know what O'Reilly says is 100% fact? Where did they get that information? Is that an assume or a presume on your part?

Fact is, if WIX Tech Dept will not give the info out on the phone, then why would they give it out to O'Reilly. Heck, for all we know O'Reilly is just falsely parroting the latest ISO spec because others do. People think Fram lies ... so why can't anyone else then.

Also, if WIX won't even say on the phone what test spec they use, that means they could use any test, even one of their own made up tests, and play all kinds of games with the test procedure to give good numbers. They can't have anyone hold them up to a test spec if they never divulge a test spec.

It is possible that the Microgard company itself did the testing of it's own filter.

In such a case, Wix may not have used the same tests for its own filters. So, I do willingly admit this possibilty. If that is so, at least we know what Napa Silver filters are rated because of it.

But, in the case that Microgard did get its ratings from Wix/Napa themselves, I call [censored] on your "falsely parroting... like others do" line. If Oreilly states that Microgard filters were rated using that specific ISO test, I have no doubt in my mind it is true. Besides, why would lie when the rating is 29 microns @ 95%, lol?

Anyway, I think you are just being too paranoid. I mean, sure, it's fine to have some doubts that maybe a company is being misleading on a few things, but when a specific ISO test and micron ratings are specified, there's no way they could get away with lying about it. I believe 100% that Microgard filters were tested using the ISO-4548-12 test. 95% @ 29 microns is not a rating worth lying about anyway. It's not horrible by any means. It's bounds better than the Wix XP's rating. The Napa Silver/Microgard is plenty sufficient for use as a low tier filter. I would run a one of them over an orange Fram anyday. And no, I'm not a Fram hater. In fact I have some Ultra's waiting to be used for multiple vehicles' next oil changes.

~ Triton

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Dude your just stuck on that at greater than thing
I hate to see a guy struggling this way.
Yes they worded it that way for legal reasons. That way if somone else ever tests their filters and find they are not 99% at 20um they can just say thats not what they claimed
and its really not.


It's sad that even a simple thing like this can't be understood by some. The way Fram claims their efficiency doesn't leave it open to interpretation. It pretty much nails it down to everything that is greater than 20 microns, and that means everything that is 20.0001 microns and larger - so call it "@20 microns and greater". There really is no wiggle room in that statement. I know you'll never understand it, and that's all fine as I really don't care anyway. Maybe someone else will see the logic and get it from these discussions.

Nobody can test WIX's claim because they don't know what test spec WIX used. Maybe the bat cave lab was right when they claimed WIX could barely make 85% @20 microns when using the ISO 4548-12 test procedure.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Incase you haven't noticed, a FRAM sales mans word means about nothing to me so I don't put stock into motorking saying it essentially means all particals above 20.
At greater than 20 literally spans an almost infinite range. I'm sure its somewhere within reason. But 30 microns are within reason when your talking at somewhere greater than 20.


No ... "At greater than 20" doesn't "literally span an almost infinite range". It spans everything from 20.00001 microns (call it 20 for practical sake) and greater. It's pretty simple logic.

If you believe WIX's "95% @20 microns", then that also is everything that is 20 microns and greater ... or what you'd call "literally spans an almost infinite range".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Focus your attention more in air filtration than oil filtration if debris concerns you so. Best to never have much contamination to begin with. That's honda/ Toyotas reasoning when having their filters made like rock catchers. If your expecting fu to keep your oil free of debris, you have misplaced faith.


So are you claiming that the Ultra is worse than an OEM Honda or Toyota filter for efficiency? LoL ... show the proof.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Triton_330

It is possible that the Microgard company itself did the testing of it's own filter.

In such a case, Wix may not have used the same tests for its own filters. So, I do willingly admit this possibilty. If that is so, at least we know what Napa Silver filters are rated because of it.

But, in the case that Microgard did get its ratings from Wix/Napa themselves, I call [censored] on your "falsely parroting... like others do" line. If Oreilly states that Microgard filters were rated using that specific ISO test, I have no doubt in my mind it is true. Besides, why would lie when the rating is 29 microns @ 95%, lol?

Anyway, I think you are just being too paranoid. I mean, sure, it's fine to have some doubts that maybe a company is being misleading on a few things, but when a specific ISO test and micron ratings are specified, there's no way they could get away with lying about it. I believe 100% that Microgard filters were tested using the ISO-4548-12 test. 95% @ 29 microns is not a rating worth lying about anyway. It's not horrible by any means. It's bounds better than the Wix XP's rating. The Napa Silver/Microgard is plenty sufficient for use as a low tier filter. I would run a one of them over an orange Fram anyday. And no, I'm not a Fram hater. In fact I have some Ultra's waiting to be used for multiple vehicles' next oil changes.

~ Triton


I not being "paranoid", I'm just playing Devil's advocate here just in case you don't detect my angle. It seems many here don't want to believe certain filter manufactures efficiency claims saying they are false - and it's obviously due to brand bias. Just as you say "when a specific ISO test and micron ratings are specified, there's no way they could get away with lying about it", I've made similar comments many times but it doesn't seem to sink in to the brand biased blind guys.

I agree that Mircogard probably had their own brand efficiency tested even though it's made by WIX - not hard to imagine and would make sense. IMO, WIX is far less transparent that other manufactures on where their efficiency/beta ratio claims come from. It's not "top secret" information unless there is something to hide. Other manufacture's come right out and say it on their website - so why doesn't WIX?

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I not being "paranoid", I'm just playing Devil's advocate here just in case you don't detect my angle. It seems many here don't want to believe certain filter manufactures efficiency claims saying they are false - and it's obviously due to brand bias. Just as you say "when a specific ISO test and micron ratings are specified, there's no way they could get away with lying about it", I've made similar comments many times but it doesn't seem to sink in to the brand biased blind guys.

I agree that Mircogard probably had their own brand efficiency tested even though it's made by WIX - not hard to imagine and would make sense. IMO, WIX is far less transparent that other manufactures on where their efficiency/beta ratio claims come from. It's not "top secret" information unless there is something to hide. Other manufacture's come right out and say it on their website - so why doesn't WIX?

Oh! My apologies, then. I guess I didn't understand your angle until you said that.

I'm not brand biased for filters. Though, I don't like E-cores, and admittedly I prefer metal endcaps. But, I will run any brand so long as I know it's well built, good media, and has at least decent micron ratings.

My current RP oil and filter on my truck is only because I got some Amazon gift cards last Christmas, and decided to use it on something I wouldn't spend my own money on since it's more costly. RP filters seem to be pretty darn good, as far as I can tell.

Once I get done with this OCI I plan on using a Fram Ultra for the first time on my truck. Not sure what oil yet, though.

~ Triton

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I would never use a filter that was only rated 95% @ 29 microns, leaving all the bigger particles in the oil. Besides there are other questions I have about that brand after seeing a dishonest video.
BTW presuming something by probability is without proof of the something.
Now Fram says it more correctly, in the test it is X % > Y microns. I think Motorking is quiet because he sees what is going on here, and he is also correct to not engage. Bye, I agree.

That was speaking of the microguard/Napa silver mot wix Napa gold.
But, do you think that means the filter will not capture smaller particals than 29 microns?
Focus your attention more in air filtration than oil filtration if debris concerns you so. Best to never have much contamination to begin with. That's honda/ Toyotas reasoning when having their filters made like rock catchers. If your expecting fu to keep your oil free of debris, you have misplaced faith.

The Microgard is rated at 29, Wix at 20, doesn't tell what it catches above that. I won't use a filter that hides what it catches above the @ size. Maybe they let everything larger through. Since Wix lets all the 30 40 50 60 up to infinity through, they are no good.
There is only one 4 year old test of one filter sample of Toyota and Honda filter efficiency, from a competitor Amsoil. That is not proof. Testing one sample and finding a low one is not proof of anything.
As for the filters I like best, they don't even tell the efficiency. I go by the good reputation. When I see a video like the biased, ignorant, and unfair one with the Wix name on it, I shy away from that sort of company's reputation.

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Focus your attention more in air filtration than oil filtration if debris concerns you so. Best to never have much contamination to begin with. That's honda/ Toyotas reasoning when having their filters made like rock catchers. If your expecting fu to keep your oil free of debris, you have misplaced faith.


So are you claiming that the Ultra is worse than an OEM Honda or Toyota filter for efficiency? LoL ... show the proof.

Your either not paying attention or your deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.
You just keep telling your story. Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain the color blue to the blind from birth.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Focus your attention more in air filtration than oil filtration if debris concerns you so. Best to never have much contamination to begin with. That's honda/ Toyotas reasoning when having their filters made like rock catchers. If your expecting fu to keep your oil free of debris, you have misplaced faith.


So are you claiming that the Ultra is worse than an OEM Honda or Toyota filter for efficiency? LoL ... show the proof.

Your either not paying attention or your deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.
You just keep telling your story. Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain the color blue to the blind from birth.


If the Ultra (or any other high efficiency filter that's 95% @ 20 microns and above) won't keep your oil free of debris, then no filter will. Surely a filter that is 99% vs one that is 50% @ 20 microns will have some benefit in the long run.

Then please explain what you're trying to say ... I'm only reading what you're cryptically typing. And be "cool" about it.

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Focus your attention more in air filtration than oil filtration if debris concerns you so. Best to never have much contamination to begin with. That's honda/ Toyotas reasoning when having their filters made like rock catchers. If your expecting fu to keep your oil free of debris, you have misplaced faith.


So are you claiming that the Ultra is worse than an OEM Honda or Toyota filter for efficiency? LoL ... show the proof.

Your either not paying attention or your deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.
You just keep telling your story. Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain the color blue to the blind from birth.


If the Ultra (or any other high efficiency filter that's 95% @ 20 microns and above) won't keep your oil free of debris, then no filter will. Surely a filter that is 99% vs one that is 50% @ 20 microns will have some benefit in the long run.

Then please explain what you're trying to say ... I'm only reading what you're cryptically typing. And be "cool" about it.

I'm getting dizzy from the circles were going around in. Just go back and reread what I've been saying on this thread and that last one where you were so very rude. I think its tittled napagold vs Purolator or what have ya.
I dunno what filter your referring to that filters 99% at 20. Sorry you haven't mentioned one that meets that qualification.

 

[dishdude]

I view all those filtration tests as marketing hype. If the filter looks like junk, it probably filters like junk.

Any particle that is so small that it makes it through the media isn't going to do any harm to an engine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
I'm getting dizzy from the circles were going around in. Just go back and reread what I've been saying on this thread and that last one where you were so very rude. I think its tittled napagold vs Purolator or what have ya.
I dunno what filter your referring to that filters 99% at 20. Sorry you haven't mentioned one that meets that qualification.


No reason to "re-read". Really, you don't think there are any filters out there that can do 99% @ 20 microns?

This isn't rude? Hummm ... best rethink what it means to "Be Cool". And who got the vacation (for a reason) in that other thread.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Your either not paying attention or your deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.
You just keep telling your story. Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain the color blue to the blind from birth.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
I view all those filtration tests as marketing hype. If the filter looks like junk, it probably filters like junk.

Any particle that is so small that it makes it through the media isn't going to do any harm to an engine.


Can't really tell how well a filter works by just looking at it. And actually, all the big names in diesel engines say that particles below 10 microns do more damage.

Hear what they say at time 0:53.

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
I'm getting dizzy from the circles were going around in. Just go back and reread what I've been saying on this thread and that last one where you were so very rude. I think its tittled napagold vs Purolator or what have ya.
I dunno what filter your referring to that filters 99% at 20. Sorry you haven't mentioned one that meets that qualification.


No reason to "re-read". Really, you don't think there are any filters out there that can do 99% @ 20 microns?

This isn't rude? Hummm ... best rethink what it means to "Be Cool". And who got the vacation (for a reason) in that other thread.

Originally Posted By: Bigdaddyeasy
Your either not paying attention or your deliberately trying to put words in my mouth.
You just keep telling your story. Trying to reason with you is like trying to explain the color blue to the blind from birth.

Look zeeo, if u wanna have a dialog with me, your gonna have to read and take a few more seconds to understand what I'm saying. I said you were rude in a different thread. I also said you haven't presented a filter that filters 99% at 20 not that there are none that exist. Meaning Fram do sent really filter 99%at 20.
I got a vacation cus you or one of your buddies cried to a moderator a and I didnt. I'm a man and I can handle my one debates. I don't resort to those sorta tatics. So how but you act like a man and stop inciting cry baby tactics cuz you don't like what I'm putting down. That's low. Especially when you dish it out just the samee. Man up buddy

 

[Bigdaddyeasy]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
I view all those filtration tests as marketing hype. If the filter looks like junk, it probably filters like junk.

Any particle that is so small that it makes it through the media isn't going to do any harm to an engine.


Yes and the low micron filtering abilities have to be limited do to flow restrictions. Air filtration and regular oil changes along with decent filters like WIx or motor craft or even the fu are key.