Efficiency of individual filters

[TrevorS]

Where do I find the actual efficiency of the oil filters I use rather than the one that the manufacturer chooses to reference?

If you can tell me where to look, that's great.

Or if you know for the following:

Purolator Classic L14459
Bosch Premium 3410
Mann HU 718/5X

 

[edwardh1]

you are leaving out the flow factor.
OEM may want more flow

 

[Jim Allen]

Short answer... you can't. There is no readily available reference. You can write to the company and they usually will give you the info on individual part number but it often depends upon what mind-numbed automaton you get and what script he has been given to read from. Often, but not always, the efficiency is the same across the different part numbers because they sue the same media. In some cases, most commonly Honda or Toyota applications, you may find a different, less efficient, media used. If you search and search the net, you may find a reference to a filter but be sure of the source... ie is it a direct mfr. source or some dude spouting off on a forum.

 

[TrevorS]

Thanks Jim.

Yes I did some more research and its interesting:

Pure One is only 99.9% efficient at 20 microns on the PL30001.

But that is a huge filter. The 4 smallest Pure Ones only claim 99.9% efficiency at 40 microns based on testing of one of the smallest ones.

Indeed 2 of those 4 are taller versions of the other 2 and are actually bigger than a filter I have which references the 30001 at 20 microns.

So my takeaway is as follows:

1) They have the same media but due to size have different efficiencies. This is in keeping with some home extended depth air filters I use ie different sizes in the same family have different MERV ratings
2) Pure Ones and Classics are 99.9% and 97.5% efficient somewhere between 40 and 20 microns.
3) I need to evaluate the efficiency claims by stated rating and filter size of competitors to actually validate whether Pure Ones are the most efficient filters available.

Or I could not worry too much since several oil filter studies do seem to confirm the Pure One claims.

 

[Jim Allen]

No! It's the media. Size, or the amount of media in the can has nothing to do with efficiency. It's simply the type of media they install. A tight media in a small filter, which will have a small amount of media, might run into problems with capacity on a long OCI. It might plug up or developed unacceptably high differential pressure and bypass alot before the OCI/FCI is done. Evidently, Puro is worried about that because for certain applications, we know for Honda applications, the P1s have a 99% @ 40 um vs the 99% @ 20 um as do most other P1s. Classics are generally 97.5% @ 20 um but I don't know if there are less efficient alternatives.

We've hashed out the P1 efficiencies enough that we can generally accept them.

Consider the Fram Ultra as well, which is a high capacity syn media with 99% @ 20 um efficiency. Any full synthetic media has higher capacity than cellulose or blended (P1 is blended media, cellulose plus some syn fiber to increase efficiency)

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Or I could not worry too much since several oil filter studies do seem to confirm the Pure One claims.


I'm sure Purolators efficiency claims, as well as any other manufacturer that lists the spec, are accurate as stated. These companies can't make false specification claims without the competition calling them out. You can get these companies check out their competition's claims, and threaten lawsuit action if they are found to be false.

 

[TrevorS]

The Purolator filter I'm interested in is for Honda (14459) and is rated with reference to the 30001 filter which is measured at 20 microns.

The 14459 has an OD of 3.15 and Height of 2.95.

The 4 filters that are referenced at 40 microns all have OD of 2.69 but height of either 2.93 or 3.52.

I think OD has something to do with this difference specifically to do with media and / or pleat depth.

I just double checked the specs for the Honeywell furnace filter and they specify lower Merv and efficiency ratings and higher pressure drop for a 2 inch filter vs a 4 inch filter. The 2 inch filter is rated for half the life.

So as media depth decreases for the same airflow, pressure increases and efficiency drops. The 30001 filter has an OD of 3.78 and a height of 5.14. We know that larger filters are less likely to go into bypass hence there must be less pressure. Less pressure on the same media means greater efficiency.

Or greater efficiency could be related purely to media depth, in which cases most filters have less horizontal space and hence media depth room than the 30001.

Also for me the reasoning that only the 30001 has 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns is that all the filters apart from 4 reference it explicitly for the claim. If the rating was 99.9% at 20 microns for all of them, why would the reference on all of them refer to the 30001? Its easy enough for Purolator to test all the filters.

FRAM also make the statement that their efficiency is based on group testing on 3 or so filters. For both them and Purolator these are marketing led messaging because it's clearly not good marketing to put the actual efficiency at 20 microns on each filter box. That would be suicide marketing so the asterisk is how they create consistent messaging.

On the 4 smaller OD filters that they are transparent wrt 40 microns, I'm guessing that the efficiency at 20 microns is probably way off so it would be misleading. On all the others they must have made the judgement that with the asterisk caveat, it is not too much of a stretch.

This is why I reason that Pure Ones are 99.9% efficient between 20 and 40 microns with the 30001 leading the pack at 20 microns, the 4 narrowest ones trailing at 40 microns and the rest in between.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
The Purolator filter I'm interested in is for Honda (14459) and is rated with reference to the 30001 filter which is measured at 20 microns.

The 14459 has an OD of 3.15 and Height of 2.95.

The 4 filters that are referenced at 40 microns all have OD of 2.69 but height of either 2.93 or 3.52.

I think OD has something to do with this difference specifically to do with media and / or pleat depth.


Some data for you. The "smaller" 14610 has more media area than the 14459. It doesn't seem that way by looking at the can size, but if you cut both open and measure the media area you will find that the 14610 has ~105 sq-in and the 14459 has ~85 sq-in.

 

[TrevorS]

So if the media depth is the same and the media quality is the same, we would expect the 14459 to be 99.9% efficient at worse than 40 microns because it faces more pressure?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
So if the media depth is the same and the media quality is the same, we would expect the 14459 to be 99.9% efficient at worse than 40 microns because it faces more pressure?


Well, this "size vs efficiency" theory has been discussed here before, and since the 14459 (rated at 20 microns) has less media area than the 14610 (rated at 40 microns), then that pretty much blows up the theory that "more media area means better efficiency".

 

[TrevorS]

Only if you believe that the 14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns which I think the asterisk by Purolator indicates it is not.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
The Purolator filter I'm interested in is for Honda (14459) and is rated with reference to the 30001 filter which is measured at 20 microns.

The 14459 has an OD of 3.15 and Height of 2.95.

The 4 filters that are referenced at 40 microns all have OD of 2.69 but height of either 2.93 or 3.52.

I think OD has something to do with this difference specifically to do with media and / or pleat depth.

I just double checked the specs for the Honeywell furnace filter and they specify lower Merv and efficiency ratings and higher pressure drop for a 2 inch filter vs a 4 inch filter. The 2 inch filter is rated for half the life.

So as media depth decreases for the same airflow, pressure increases and efficiency drops. The 30001 filter has an OD of 3.78 and a height of 5.14. We know that larger filters are less likely to go into bypass hence there must be less pressure. Less pressure on the same media means greater efficiency.

Or greater efficiency could be related purely to media depth, in which cases most filters have less horizontal space and hence media depth room than the 30001.

Also for me the reasoning that only the 30001 has 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns is that all the filters apart from 4 reference it explicitly for the claim. If the rating was 99.9% at 20 microns for all of them, why would the reference on all of them refer to the 30001? Its easy enough for Purolator to test all the filters.

FRAM also make the statement that their efficiency is based on group testing on 3 or so filters. For both them and Purolator these are marketing led messaging because it's clearly not good marketing to put the actual efficiency at 20 microns on each filter box. That would be suicide marketing so the asterisk is how they create consistent messaging.

On the 4 smaller OD filters that they are transparent wrt 40 microns, I'm guessing that the efficiency at 20 microns is probably way off so it would be misleading. On all the others they must have made the judgement that with the asterisk caveat, it is not too much of a stretch.

This is why I reason that Pure Ones are 99.9% efficient between 20 and 40 microns with the 30001 leading the pack at 20 microns, the 4 narrowest ones trailing at 40 microns and the rest in between.


No, no, no! Efficiency is PURELY a component of the media... more precisely the size of the pores within it. Efficiency is the same for 1 square inch of a particular material with zero pleats as it is for 100 square inches with 30 pleats. Capacity and flow are vastly different according to the amount of media, but efficiency ... the minimum size of the particle the media will entrap... is the same no matter how much or little is installed in the filter.

Air and fluid filtration are two different animals, so I suggest you not try to draw too many conclusions on fluid filtration from info about furnace filters.

Overall, trying to draw conclusions from what very little you see on a box leads to connecting dots that are too widely spaced will lead you to the dead-end road of bad choices.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Only if you believe that the 14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns which I think the asterisk by Purolator indicates it is not.


Look at the box on the PL14459 ... it says 99.9 @ 20 microns. Then look at the box of the PL14610 ... it says 99.9% @ 40 microns.

The PL14610 has more media than PL14459 ... opposite of the "more area means better efficiency" theory.

 

[TrevorS]

I have an L14459 in front of me and there is an asterisk next to the 97.5% claim saying it is based on testing the L30001.

This is the asterisk / caveat I mentioned in my earlier posts.

Can you see something similar in the PL14459?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
I have an L14459 in front of me and there is an asterisk next to the 97.5% claim saying it is based on testing the L30001.

This is the asterisk / caveat I mentioned in my earlier posts.

Can you see something similar in the PL14459?


On the box in fine print, it should list at what micron level ... the boxes I've looked at show either 20 or 40 microns, depending on which filter box you're looking at.

 

[TrevorS]

Jim I take your points but why would trapping dirt in liquid vs air have different mechanics? Particles of a certain size may or may not make it through holes of a certain size depending on the pressure. The same holds true for RO where pressure must be enough to produce clean water but not excessive.

On the flip side of my investigations, the FRAM spec is the average of 3 filters ranging from the large 30001 equivalent to 2 smaller ones.

Note that FRAM claim 99% efficiency at 20 microns (average of 3 filters) while Purolator claim 99.9% (30001 only) which I understand is a big difference.

So maybe the reason for referencing the 30001 only is to be able to claim 0.9% more than the competition?

 

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
I have an L14459 in front of me and there is an asterisk next to the 97.5% claim saying it is based on testing the L30001.

This is the asterisk / caveat I mentioned in my earlier posts.

Can you see something similar in the PL14459?


On the box in fine print, it should list at what micron level ... the boxes I've looked at show either 20 or 40 microns, depending on which filter box you're looking at.


All Purolators except 4 refer to the ISO test for the 30001 filter at 20 microns.

The other 4 refer to one of those 4 at 40 microns.

Purolator are not claiming that all of their filters are 99.9% efficient at 20 microns or 40 microns.

They only claim the PL30001 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns. They are not claiming that performance for any other filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
I have an L14459 in front of me and there is an asterisk next to the 97.5% claim saying it is based on testing the L30001.

This is the asterisk / caveat I mentioned in my earlier posts.

Can you see something similar in the PL14459?


On the box in fine print, it should list at what micron level ... the boxes I've looked at show either 20 or 40 microns, depending on which filter box you're looking at.


All Purolators except 4 refer to the ISO test for the 30001 filter at 20 microns.

The other 4 refer to one of those 4 at 40 microns.

Purolator are not claiming that all of their filters are 99.9% efficient at 20 microns or 40 microns.

They only claim the PL30001 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns. They are not claiming that performance for any other filter.


Yeah, they reference the PL30001 as their "test standard" as:
*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001

But my point is, the 14459 is shown to be referenced on its box at 20 microns, not 40 microns like you were thinking and posted above. So the 14459 is obviously more efficient than the 14610/14612 filters since their box references at 40 microns on their boxes.

 

[TrevorS]

I wasn't thinking it was at 40 microns. And I know it references to 20 as I have two of them with their boxes!

My point was that for that filter specifically, it could be anything between 20 and 40 microns.

That's my takeaway from the information and the way the information has been presented, but as Jim says, I may have connected the wrong dots.

 

[Sayjac]

The way I look at it is the PL14459 is rated 99.9%@20um as it says on the box. Doesn't matter to me that it's based on the PL30001.

Now if one wants to nitpick and imply that P1 is only one filter then the same standard would have to be applied the Fram and say that only the three ISO tested are 99% and the others 'could be' anything else. And further, the P1 is rated using @ _um rather than >_um that Fram uses. One 'could' also nitpick that implies anything 20um 'or higher'. Now while I wouldn't press that issue, if one is going to apply one standard to the Pure One then same strict standards would have to be applied Fram. Just sayin.

And while the PL14610 is longer, the PL14459 actually is bigger, ie., holds a greater oil volume.

River_rats filtration comparison showed the P1 media to be quite efficient as compared with some the best. And the more recent Mitsubishi Evo testing confirmed the results.

Bottom line, with the exception of the four smallest, the P1 is rated 99.9%@20um. Just as the Ultra is rated 99%>20um. But, they are two different type filter with different intended/recommended length fcis. The rest of the efficiency nitpick is just extraneous minutia imo.