Based on what is known, a well made/constructed filter, made to Ford specs. Many with silicone(S) adbv and most with thread end bypass (some exceptions), but a stated/published lowball efficiency rating.
Your call.
Your call.
Motorcraft Filter Specifications
- Thread starter roushstage2
- Start date
- Status
+1 to what Sayjac wrote.
Still better than a Fram!
God. No FRAM wars in here please (FRAM filters are fine. Don't like them or the price, fine. /end). I made this for Motorcraft reference.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
But, keep in mind even the Fram/Honeywell rating is at >20mu. More than somewhat vague when one considers that that could be any number > 20. Then again, the average consumer either doesn't care and/or doesn't know what that means. If they see anything, it's, 96%, 99% efficient etc.
The way I see the FRAM spec of ">20 microns" is that they are saying it is xx% efficient at catching all particles above 20 microns. I don't think it means it's xx% efficient at say 50 microns or 80 microns (ie, something way above 20 microns).
But, keep in mind even the Fram/Honeywell rating is at >20mu. More than somewhat vague when one considers that that could be any number > 20. Then again, the average consumer either doesn't care and/or doesn't know what that means. If they see anything, it's, 96%, 99% efficient etc.
The way I see the FRAM spec of ">20 microns" is that they are saying it is xx% efficient at catching all particles above 20 microns. I don't think it means it's xx% efficient at say 50 microns or 80 microns (ie, something way above 20 microns).
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Based on what is known, a well made/constructed filter, made to Ford specs. Many with silicone(S) adbv and most with thread end bypass (some exceptions), but a stated/published lowball efficiency rating.
Your call.
Yes, I think it's a bad move by Ford's marketing if indeed the Motorcraft filters are really better than "80% @ 20 microns" they state. If the efficiency is really better than they state, then it would only make sense to advertise the better specs if they exist.
Based on what is known, a well made/constructed filter, made to Ford specs. Many with silicone(S) adbv and most with thread end bypass (some exceptions), but a stated/published lowball efficiency rating.
Your call.
Yes, I think it's a bad move by Ford's marketing if indeed the Motorcraft filters are really better than "80% @ 20 microns" they state. If the efficiency is really better than they state, then it would only make sense to advertise the better specs if they exist.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
The way I see the FRAM spec of ">20 microns" is that they are saying it is xx% efficient at catching all particles above 20 microns. I don't think it means it's xx% efficient at say 50 microns or 80 microns (ie, something way above 20 microns).
And that may very well be true, it was actually river_rat that pointed out the ambiguity of the rating for me. Just seems that a stated rating (@) level would be a more accurate/less fuzzy, way of stating the efficiency. It certainly does give some leeway, something MC didn't choose to do.
But the MC rating is what it is, and out there for everyone to make up their own mind. That aside, it's tough to knock the MC construction.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
Purolator has been nothing but stellar in their communication and service with me about all of this! Kudos!
That is good to hear again.
The way I see the FRAM spec of ">20 microns" is that they are saying it is xx% efficient at catching all particles above 20 microns. I don't think it means it's xx% efficient at say 50 microns or 80 microns (ie, something way above 20 microns).
And that may very well be true, it was actually river_rat that pointed out the ambiguity of the rating for me. Just seems that a stated rating (@) level would be a more accurate/less fuzzy, way of stating the efficiency. It certainly does give some leeway, something MC didn't choose to do.
But the MC rating is what it is, and out there for everyone to make up their own mind. That aside, it's tough to knock the MC construction.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
Purolator has been nothing but stellar in their communication and service with me about all of this! Kudos!
That is good to hear again.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
God. No FRAM wars in here please (FRAM filters are fine. Don't like them or the price, fine. /end). I made this for Motorcraft reference.
You can't post anything in this section without people bringing up Fram sadly. It is some kind of weird online peer pressure where people feel they have to bash Fram.
God. No FRAM wars in here please (FRAM filters are fine. Don't like them or the price, fine. /end). I made this for Motorcraft reference.
You can't post anything in this section without people bringing up Fram sadly. It is some kind of weird online peer pressure where people feel they have to bash Fram.
Made to FORD specs..... What makes that different then any other car company saying the they are made to there specs....
You mean Ive been using this [censored] filter all these years with this [censored] efficenty rating of [censored]. Iam switching to Fram.
Every manufacturer has its "in house specs" and they are always tighter than what the customer requires. Manufacturers will never advertise these numbers to the public and only kept on file to verify (to ford in this case)that they meet their customers(fords) requirements. All companies that are QS9000 and QS9002 certified do this. Ford knows that these filters are very good and at less than $4 ea. you can't go wrong.
Originally Posted By: 08_SHELBY
Ford knows that these filters are very good and at less than $4 ea. you can't go wrong.
If Ford would share these better than needed specs, I think more people might want to go with Motorcraft filters. As the specs stand now (the "80% @ 20 microns"), it makes the filters look like sub-standard performance compared to even a FRAM. Not good advertising/marketing on Fords part IMO.
Ford knows that these filters are very good and at less than $4 ea. you can't go wrong.
If Ford would share these better than needed specs, I think more people might want to go with Motorcraft filters. As the specs stand now (the "80% @ 20 microns"), it makes the filters look like sub-standard performance compared to even a FRAM. Not good advertising/marketing on Fords part IMO.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: 08_SHELBY
Ford knows that these filters are very good and at less than $4 ea. you can't go wrong.
If Ford would share these better than needed specs, I think more people might want to go with Motorcraft filters. As the specs stand now (the "80% @ 20 microns"), it makes the filters look like sub-standard performance compared to even a FRAM. Not good advertising/marketing on Fords part IMO.
I didn't realize so many people didn't go with Motorcraft filters because there were no set-in-stone efficiency ratings. I've always seen the exact opposite on this very site. Many people using them but not knowing what the exact ratings were. Second, perhaps I've just missed it, but does Motorcraft really spend money on advertising their oil filters of all things? I can't recall one single mass, readily available, public advertisement about why you need to buy a Motorcraft oil filter for your car. Did I really just miss it or is there not one out there? Not good advertising or marketing...to who? The millions of people that drive in for an oil change, sign the single piece of paper without reading it, and go on their way? For some reason, I'm thinking that actual vs. advertised oil filter efficiency ratings of said Motorcraft filters are the last thing on their minds.
Also, just to point out, these specs are available at any Ford dealership parts counter. It was just a matter of finding out where to get them from. Not an uncommon thing in life.
Originally Posted By: 08_SHELBY
Ford knows that these filters are very good and at less than $4 ea. you can't go wrong.
If Ford would share these better than needed specs, I think more people might want to go with Motorcraft filters. As the specs stand now (the "80% @ 20 microns"), it makes the filters look like sub-standard performance compared to even a FRAM. Not good advertising/marketing on Fords part IMO.
I didn't realize so many people didn't go with Motorcraft filters because there were no set-in-stone efficiency ratings. I've always seen the exact opposite on this very site. Many people using them but not knowing what the exact ratings were. Second, perhaps I've just missed it, but does Motorcraft really spend money on advertising their oil filters of all things? I can't recall one single mass, readily available, public advertisement about why you need to buy a Motorcraft oil filter for your car. Did I really just miss it or is there not one out there? Not good advertising or marketing...to who? The millions of people that drive in for an oil change, sign the single piece of paper without reading it, and go on their way? For some reason, I'm thinking that actual vs. advertised oil filter efficiency ratings of said Motorcraft filters are the last thing on their minds.
Also, just to point out, these specs are available at any Ford dealership parts counter. It was just a matter of finding out where to get them from. Not an uncommon thing in life.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: 08_SHELBY
Ford knows that these filters are very good and at less than $4 ea. you can't go wrong.
If Ford would share these better than needed specs, I think more people might want to go with Motorcraft filters. As the specs stand now (the "80% @ 20 microns"), it makes the filters look like sub-standard performance compared to even a FRAM. Not good advertising/marketing on Fords part IMO.
I didn't realize so many people didn't go with Motorcraft filters because there were no set-in-stone efficiency ratings. I've always seen the exact opposite on this very site. Many people using them but not knowing what the exact ratings were.
I'm sure a lot of Ford customers use Motorcraft filters, just because it's the OEM for their Ford product. Probably most of them don't even know what "filter efficiency" means.
But I would say if someone on this board was told that the Motorcraft filter was really 80% efficient @ 20 microns vs. say a Purolator Classic at 97.5% @ 20 microns that most people would buy the Purolator because they want an efficient filter in their car. I would.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
Second, perhaps I've just missed it, but does Motorcraft really spend money on advertising their oil filters of all things? I can't recall one single mass, readily available, public advertisement about why you need to buy a Motorcraft oil filter for your car. Did I really just miss it or is there not one out there? Not good advertising or marketing...to who? The millions of people that drive in for an oil change, sign the single piece of paper without reading it, and go on their way? For some reason, I'm thinking that actual vs. advertised oil filter efficiency ratings of said Motorcraft filters are the last thing on their minds.
I wasn't taking about "ads on TV". I'm talking about Ford making the data public. I've tried many different routes to obtain the actual Beta Ratio numbers on the Motorcraft filters and can't get anything out of Ford or the Motorcraft Division of Ford ... absolutely zero information. The only specification info I've seen is info posted on this board, and it's always the same "80% efficient @ 20 microns" spiel.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
Also, just to point out, these specs are available at any Ford dealership parts counter. It was just a matter of finding out where to get them from. Not an uncommon thing in life.
I'll bet I can call 5 Ford parts departments and pose the question: "Can you tell me what the specified filtering efficiency from Ford is on the FL-820S ... or any other Motorcraft oil filter number?" I think I will do this tomorrow to see what they say. Will report my findings ... what's your bet?
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
For some reason, I'm thinking that actual vs. advertised oil filter efficiency ratings of said Motorcraft filters are the last thing on their minds.
Now why would Ford NOT show the actual filter performance spec if it really wasn't "80% @ 20 microns". Ford ... are you reading this ... do you see where I'm coming from?
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: 08_SHELBY
Ford knows that these filters are very good and at less than $4 ea. you can't go wrong.
If Ford would share these better than needed specs, I think more people might want to go with Motorcraft filters. As the specs stand now (the "80% @ 20 microns"), it makes the filters look like sub-standard performance compared to even a FRAM. Not good advertising/marketing on Fords part IMO.
I didn't realize so many people didn't go with Motorcraft filters because there were no set-in-stone efficiency ratings. I've always seen the exact opposite on this very site. Many people using them but not knowing what the exact ratings were.
I'm sure a lot of Ford customers use Motorcraft filters, just because it's the OEM for their Ford product. Probably most of them don't even know what "filter efficiency" means.
But I would say if someone on this board was told that the Motorcraft filter was really 80% efficient @ 20 microns vs. say a Purolator Classic at 97.5% @ 20 microns that most people would buy the Purolator because they want an efficient filter in their car. I would.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
Second, perhaps I've just missed it, but does Motorcraft really spend money on advertising their oil filters of all things? I can't recall one single mass, readily available, public advertisement about why you need to buy a Motorcraft oil filter for your car. Did I really just miss it or is there not one out there? Not good advertising or marketing...to who? The millions of people that drive in for an oil change, sign the single piece of paper without reading it, and go on their way? For some reason, I'm thinking that actual vs. advertised oil filter efficiency ratings of said Motorcraft filters are the last thing on their minds.
I wasn't taking about "ads on TV". I'm talking about Ford making the data public. I've tried many different routes to obtain the actual Beta Ratio numbers on the Motorcraft filters and can't get anything out of Ford or the Motorcraft Division of Ford ... absolutely zero information. The only specification info I've seen is info posted on this board, and it's always the same "80% efficient @ 20 microns" spiel.
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
Also, just to point out, these specs are available at any Ford dealership parts counter. It was just a matter of finding out where to get them from. Not an uncommon thing in life.
I'll bet I can call 5 Ford parts departments and pose the question: "Can you tell me what the specified filtering efficiency from Ford is on the FL-820S ... or any other Motorcraft oil filter number?" I think I will do this tomorrow to see what they say. Will report my findings ... what's your bet?
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
For some reason, I'm thinking that actual vs. advertised oil filter efficiency ratings of said Motorcraft filters are the last thing on their minds.
Now why would Ford NOT show the actual filter performance spec if it really wasn't "80% @ 20 microns". Ford ... are you reading this ... do you see where I'm coming from?
My take on all of this is the following: Do you really think Ford has a Ford spec. policeman at the oil filter manufacturers site monitoring all of the oil fiters? Take the FL1A for example. At one time this filter was used in a host of Ford cars and I am sure the initial filters met the Ford specs. But now days, maybe not. I don't think the FL1A is specified for any new Ford so why would Ford monitor the filter to see if it meets their specs?
Honestly I think it is a matter of Ford has a minimum spec of 80% at 20 microns, from the days of straight paper elements, but filters have advanced and are typically +95% at 20 microns. I think the MC filter made by purolator probably is using the same media as the classic and has the same efficiency. Just like Purolator says it's filter meet OEM specs yet they are 97.5 efficient, there's no good reason to believe when they make a MC filter it isn't also as efficient.
I do agree with Superbusa that Ford should report the actual spec. I have seen Motorcraft advertise it's brand to shops and consumers. They do it in general terms and don't really list any real specs, but for the users that do dig for specs you'd think they would report the higher spec.
I do agree with Superbusa that Ford should report the actual spec. I have seen Motorcraft advertise it's brand to shops and consumers. They do it in general terms and don't really list any real specs, but for the users that do dig for specs you'd think they would report the higher spec.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Honestly I think it is a matter of Ford has a minimum spec of 80% at 20 microns, from the days of straight paper elements, but filters have advanced and are typically +95% at 20 microns. I think the MC filter made by purolator probably is using the same media as the classic and has the same efficiency. Just like Purolator says it's filter meet OEM specs yet they are 97.5 efficient, there's no good reason to believe when they make a MC filter it isn't also as efficient.
I do agree with Superbusa that Ford should report the actual spec. I have seen Motorcraft advertise it's brand to shops and consumers. They do it in general terms and don't really list any real specs, but for the users that do dig for specs you'd think they would report the higher spec.
Yes, as I've said above I think Ford is doing itself a dis-service in reporting their minimum spec and nothing else. For anyone knowing about filter efficiency and considering a Motorcraft filter for their Ford or any other make of vehicle for that matter, it doesn't look as good on paper as all the others out there.
If Purolator makes most of the Motorcraft filters for Ford, I think Ford needs to work with Purolator and start specifying their filters with specific efficiency data ... it would surely make their filters look as good or maybe even better than the competitor's filters.
For curiosity sake, I called a couple of local Ford dealership's parts department and asked them if they could tell me what the filtering efficiency was on the Motorcraft oil filters. They quoted info from a technical spec sheet they had, as follows:
"Removes over 80% of particles greater than 20 microns in size."
This leaves a lot to interpretation. Obviously, Ford has been lazy here and has quoted a spec that will cover ALL their Motorcraft filters. So the worst one might be 80% @ 20 microns, and the best one could be 97.5% @ 20 microns (if it uses the Purolator Classic media for example). It's anyone's guess on which filter falls were above their canned "80% @ 20 micron" rating. Bad marketing on Fords part IMO.
Honestly I think it is a matter of Ford has a minimum spec of 80% at 20 microns, from the days of straight paper elements, but filters have advanced and are typically +95% at 20 microns. I think the MC filter made by purolator probably is using the same media as the classic and has the same efficiency. Just like Purolator says it's filter meet OEM specs yet they are 97.5 efficient, there's no good reason to believe when they make a MC filter it isn't also as efficient.
I do agree with Superbusa that Ford should report the actual spec. I have seen Motorcraft advertise it's brand to shops and consumers. They do it in general terms and don't really list any real specs, but for the users that do dig for specs you'd think they would report the higher spec.
Yes, as I've said above I think Ford is doing itself a dis-service in reporting their minimum spec and nothing else. For anyone knowing about filter efficiency and considering a Motorcraft filter for their Ford or any other make of vehicle for that matter, it doesn't look as good on paper as all the others out there.
If Purolator makes most of the Motorcraft filters for Ford, I think Ford needs to work with Purolator and start specifying their filters with specific efficiency data ... it would surely make their filters look as good or maybe even better than the competitor's filters.
For curiosity sake, I called a couple of local Ford dealership's parts department and asked them if they could tell me what the filtering efficiency was on the Motorcraft oil filters. They quoted info from a technical spec sheet they had, as follows:
"Removes over 80% of particles greater than 20 microns in size."
This leaves a lot to interpretation. Obviously, Ford has been lazy here and has quoted a spec that will cover ALL their Motorcraft filters. So the worst one might be 80% @ 20 microns, and the best one could be 97.5% @ 20 microns (if it uses the Purolator Classic media for example). It's anyone's guess on which filter falls were above their canned "80% @ 20 micron" rating. Bad marketing on Fords part IMO.
So you got the answer you weren't going to get??
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
So you got the answer you weren't going to get??
The answer is nothing new than "80% @ 20 micron" I've seen 100 times. I was looking for a better, more specific answer than that, as I've explained a few times now.
Ford's marketing needs to "get with the program" if they expect to sell a Motorcraft filter (besides to someone who doesn't care about efficiency specs) over a Purolator or other competitor's brand.
So you got the answer you weren't going to get??
The answer is nothing new than "80% @ 20 micron" I've seen 100 times. I was looking for a better, more specific answer than that, as I've explained a few times now.
Ford's marketing needs to "get with the program" if they expect to sell a Motorcraft filter (besides to someone who doesn't care about efficiency specs) over a Purolator or other competitor's brand.
- Status
Similar threads
