I would trust the Bosch D+ and Mobil Extended Performance right to the 15,000 mile mark.
Bosch Distance Plus vs. Mobil 1 oil filter
- Thread starter 2James1
- Start date
- Status
The smallest Pure One oil filters have Micronic-40 micron(99.9%) media, all other Pure One oil filters - Micronic-20 micron(99.9%) media. The same Bosch Premium.
BD+ oil filters use only Micronic-40 micron(99.9) media at all. Of course, without limit at 3000 miles.
BD+:
40m- 99.9%
10m - 50%
Pure One:
20m - 99.9%
10m - 92.8%
BD+ oil filters use only Micronic-40 micron(99.9) media at all. Of course, without limit at 3000 miles.
BD+:
40m- 99.9%
10m - 50%
Pure One:
20m - 99.9%
10m - 92.8%
You won't go wrong with either the Mobil 1 or Bosch DP filters so go by price.
Me, personally, I use the regular black Bosch Premium filters and it works for me. I use Mobil 1 synthetics on all my vehicles but usually change the oil in the 5-7k mile range. If I were going further on mileage, I would then pay for the longer life filters like the DP and M1.
Me, personally, I use the regular black Bosch Premium filters and it works for me. I use Mobil 1 synthetics on all my vehicles but usually change the oil in the 5-7k mile range. If I were going further on mileage, I would then pay for the longer life filters like the DP and M1.
Anyone know if this data is accurate for the BD+ ?
BD+ oil filters use only Micronic-40 micron(99.9) media at all. Of course, without limit at 3000 miles.
BD+:
40m- 99.9%
10m - 50%
Pure One:
20m - 99.9%
10m - 92.8%
Top
BD+ oil filters use only Micronic-40 micron(99.9) media at all. Of course, without limit at 3000 miles.
BD+:
40m- 99.9%
10m - 50%
Pure One:
20m - 99.9%
10m - 92.8%
Top
This is what I have for the PureOne, for the ones rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns (instead of @ 40 microns). Matches what you have for the 10 and 20 micron particles.
µm -- Efficiency
-----------------
5 -- 51.3%
10 -- 92.8%
15 -- 99.20%
20 -- 99.9%
25 -- 100%
30 -- 100%
40 -- 100%
Not sure what you mean by "without limit at 3000 miles".
µm -- Efficiency
-----------------
5 -- 51.3%
10 -- 92.8%
15 -- 99.20%
20 -- 99.9%
25 -- 100%
30 -- 100%
40 -- 100%
Not sure what you mean by "without limit at 3000 miles".
After these UOAs ( http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2061820&page=3 ) I don't trust in Pure One's 99.9%.
P1's UOA had the worst particicle counts.
P1's UOA had the worst particicle counts.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Izb
After these UOAs ( http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2061820&page=3 ) I don't trust in Pure One's 99.9%.
P1's UOA had the worst particicle counts.
Don't know what you're looking at, but if you're looking at the UOA summary below, I don't know how you can say the PureOne "had the worse particle counts". I see many filters listed in that report that show worse results than the PureOne.
And note how the particle count went down with the 2nd OCI using the same oil filter, except for the Amsoil EaO-34 used at 50K and 55K marks. The Royal Purple used at 76K & 81K showed a big difference - particle count went way down on 2nd OCI on same oil filter (you reading this BOF?), most likely due to the filter loading up and becoming more efficient. So, you can see there may be other variables at play in the particle count results.
Also note the Fram Ultra (XG) did well at the 86K mark with one OCI.
After these UOAs ( http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2061820&page=3 ) I don't trust in Pure One's 99.9%.
P1's UOA had the worst particicle counts.
Don't know what you're looking at, but if you're looking at the UOA summary below, I don't know how you can say the PureOne "had the worse particle counts". I see many filters listed in that report that show worse results than the PureOne.
And note how the particle count went down with the 2nd OCI using the same oil filter, except for the Amsoil EaO-34 used at 50K and 55K marks. The Royal Purple used at 76K & 81K showed a big difference - particle count went way down on 2nd OCI on same oil filter (you reading this BOF?), most likely due to the filter loading up and becoming more efficient. So, you can see there may be other variables at play in the particle count results.
Also note the Fram Ultra (XG) did well at the 86K mark with one OCI.
Quote:
Anyone know if this data is accurate for the BD+ ?
BD+ oil filters use only Micronic-40 micron(99.9) media at all. Of course, without limit at 3000 miles.
BD+:
40m- 99.9%
10m - 50%
Pure One:
20m - 99.9%
10m - 92.8%
Top
Similar to Amsoil filter data also recently posted here but afaik still unconfirmed, I'm not sure from where the BD+ information is being obtained. I can say it's not on the Bosch website. AAP does have a micron listing on the spec sheet, but based on other AAP filter spec sheet efficiency I don't consider that information particularly reliable. I've also seen nothing authoritative regarding a 10um beta. But, for those who have confidence in Bstone particle counts, the BD+ did quite well in the one linked below.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2195882
And once again, the term "limit" as related to P1 is a misnomer. The P1 is warranted to the length of the vehicle manufacturers stated oci/fci. 3k mi. is a recommendation, pure and simple.
Anyone know if this data is accurate for the BD+ ?
BD+ oil filters use only Micronic-40 micron(99.9) media at all. Of course, without limit at 3000 miles.
BD+:
40m- 99.9%
10m - 50%
Pure One:
20m - 99.9%
10m - 92.8%
Top
Similar to Amsoil filter data also recently posted here but afaik still unconfirmed, I'm not sure from where the BD+ information is being obtained. I can say it's not on the Bosch website. AAP does have a micron listing on the spec sheet, but based on other AAP filter spec sheet efficiency I don't consider that information particularly reliable. I've also seen nothing authoritative regarding a 10um beta. But, for those who have confidence in Bstone particle counts, the BD+ did quite well in the one linked below.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2195882
And once again, the term "limit" as related to P1 is a misnomer. The P1 is warranted to the length of the vehicle manufacturers stated oci/fci. 3k mi. is a recommendation, pure and simple.
Originally Posted By: Izb
After these UOAs ( http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2061820&page=3 ) I don't trust in Pure One's 99.9%.
P1's UOA had the worst particicle counts.
You cannot judge anything on one contamination analysis and you are drawing way too many conclusions from too little data.
1) The "particle counts" (technically they are not that.. read on) listed above are the pore blockage type... comparable to other pore blockage tests so don't anyone compare the number there to any other types. Pore blockage is the only type of contamination analysis done by Blackstone. It's generally the least accurate type as well because it uses a 10 or 15 um screen and calculates an ISO code via restriction and computer algorithms, rather than actually optically counting the particles as do the more expensive and accurate types. Pore blockage is useful in a broad sense to check on oil cleanliness but it isn't accurate enough to tell much about filter efficiency beyond "adequate" or inadequate." Lzb, since you are so good at find and reading the old posts, find some of mine from a coupla years back where 2010FX4 and I collaborated to compare the results of pore blockage vs a true optical test. Pore blockage is most accurate in the range of the screen size used, 10 or 15 um in thais case. From my experience at BStone, they most often use the 15 um screen.
2) Notice how the numbers are all over the place. The RP filter is significantly better at 10K than at 5K while the M1 is the same at both mileages, for example. This is very typical and is a combination of lab error, sampling error and differences in contamination rates. Notice how much dirtier the oil was in the early tests than it was later. The engine was still new at the start and still having some break in, so the contamination rates were higher. Note how much better the Amsoil did in the later test than the early (there is about a 50% difference in actual particles between one ISO code and another). Unless a vehicle was operated in a climate and dust controlled lab, there will be times when the contamination inputs are higher so depending on the exact moment when the sample was taken, the oil could be dirtier one day than another. Variables, variables, variables!
3) Finally, notice the oil analysis. The tested wear metals didn't change much, did they, no matter what filter was used? That should make a light bulb go off in a thinking person's mind.
Really, the only way to compare oil filters is using the exact same test regimen on each filter, the ISO 4548-12 for example. All the filters BTAnchors tested were largely in the same rated efficiency ballpark under ISO 4548-12. What we see in his great comparison is that all of them did an admirable job of keeping the oil clean and the difference are mostly uncontrollable variables. The test would have been MUCH more useful if he had done optical testing. I wonder if he has continued with his trending? The longer he did it, the more useful it would be but I imagine by now that he's settled on a particular filter.
After these UOAs ( http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2061820&page=3 ) I don't trust in Pure One's 99.9%.
P1's UOA had the worst particicle counts.
You cannot judge anything on one contamination analysis and you are drawing way too many conclusions from too little data.
1) The "particle counts" (technically they are not that.. read on) listed above are the pore blockage type... comparable to other pore blockage tests so don't anyone compare the number there to any other types. Pore blockage is the only type of contamination analysis done by Blackstone. It's generally the least accurate type as well because it uses a 10 or 15 um screen and calculates an ISO code via restriction and computer algorithms, rather than actually optically counting the particles as do the more expensive and accurate types. Pore blockage is useful in a broad sense to check on oil cleanliness but it isn't accurate enough to tell much about filter efficiency beyond "adequate" or inadequate." Lzb, since you are so good at find and reading the old posts, find some of mine from a coupla years back where 2010FX4 and I collaborated to compare the results of pore blockage vs a true optical test. Pore blockage is most accurate in the range of the screen size used, 10 or 15 um in thais case. From my experience at BStone, they most often use the 15 um screen.
2) Notice how the numbers are all over the place. The RP filter is significantly better at 10K than at 5K while the M1 is the same at both mileages, for example. This is very typical and is a combination of lab error, sampling error and differences in contamination rates. Notice how much dirtier the oil was in the early tests than it was later. The engine was still new at the start and still having some break in, so the contamination rates were higher. Note how much better the Amsoil did in the later test than the early (there is about a 50% difference in actual particles between one ISO code and another). Unless a vehicle was operated in a climate and dust controlled lab, there will be times when the contamination inputs are higher so depending on the exact moment when the sample was taken, the oil could be dirtier one day than another. Variables, variables, variables!
3) Finally, notice the oil analysis. The tested wear metals didn't change much, did they, no matter what filter was used? That should make a light bulb go off in a thinking person's mind.
Really, the only way to compare oil filters is using the exact same test regimen on each filter, the ISO 4548-12 for example. All the filters BTAnchors tested were largely in the same rated efficiency ballpark under ISO 4548-12. What we see in his great comparison is that all of them did an admirable job of keeping the oil clean and the difference are mostly uncontrollable variables. The test would have been MUCH more useful if he had done optical testing. I wonder if he has continued with his trending? The longer he did it, the more useful it would be but I imagine by now that he's settled on a particular filter.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
And once again, the term "limit" as related to P1 is a misnomer. The P1 is warranted to the length of the vehicle manufacturers stated oci/fci. 3k mi. is a recommendation, pure and simple.
That issue has been covered a hundred times on this chat board now, but seems it still pops up on a constant basis. People see the "3 month, 3000 miles" on Purolator's website, and not the rest of their statement, and it burns into their skull that the filter must only be good for 3K miles ...
And once again, the term "limit" as related to P1 is a misnomer. The P1 is warranted to the length of the vehicle manufacturers stated oci/fci. 3k mi. is a recommendation, pure and simple.
That issue has been covered a hundred times on this chat board now, but seems it still pops up on a constant basis. People see the "3 month, 3000 miles" on Purolator's website, and not the rest of their statement, and it burns into their skull that the filter must only be good for 3K miles ...
- Status
Similar threads
