NAPA Platinum?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).





Take a look at the incredibly low insoluables in UOAs ran with an Ultra. The proof is in the pudding... Er, oil.
 
Agreed - there is no direct correlation between the insoluble value and filtration.

I've seen far too many UOAs (more than 12,000; most from Blackstone) and can say with certainty that just about any UOA is going to show between .2 -.5 for the response.

Read my article about how the UOA is processed to understand the nature of the criteria for value assessment and you'll understand.

Insolubles in the Blackstone value have contributors generally from multiple sources including soot and other residuals, as well as metal particulate. Anything smaller than the generally filter pore-size is still going to get through the filter, regardless if it's 80% or 99% efficient. Soot RARELY if ever gets large enough to be caught in a traditional full-flow filter. And yet soot in the main contributor to insolubles. So the vast majority of the insoluble coloration observation is not based upon what the filter either did or did not catch. A filter is generally moot in this case. I realize that occasionally B-Stone will make a comment as such, but it's not an accurate one.

Looking at mass-market macro data, the overall auto industry in B-Stone data shows the average to be .3, and the stdev is slightly less than one. That means it's completely normal to see anything from .1 up to .6, and we do see this variance ALL the time.

The value of the insoluble count is much more so influenced by the OCI duration and general state of cleanliness of the engine than it is the filter.

While it may be an indirect indication of filter aptitude, there is no abilty to say that the insolubes value can directly attest to the efficency performance. You cannot look at that count and say one filter did better or worse than another. You cannot look at that value and conclude anything of the sort for any filter.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I am NOT calling Fram a liar. They say >20, and I take their word for it!



OK, you misinterpret (deliberately).



No, I'm an engineer. I interpret literally. I do not engage in hopes and speculation and hearsay when reading specifications.


If you're an engineer then you should have no problem understanding this. Maybe you don't quite understand that if an oil filter is 99% @ 20 microns then it's even more efficient at larger particle sizes. If you can accept that 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns, then when Fram says the filter is "99% > 20 microns" they are saying it will essentially catch 99 out of 100 particles that are 20.001 microns and larger. To me, you can say it's "99% @ 20 microns or larger".
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I am NOT calling Fram a liar. They say >20, and I take their word for it!



OK, you misinterpret (deliberately).



No, I'm an engineer. I interpret literally. I do not engage in hopes and speculation and hearsay when reading specifications.


I'm an engineer also, and its a question of when ">" vs ">=" actually matters and when it doesn't. In this case it doesn't. In the real world, "Lim(filtration) as particle size decreases infinitely close to 20 microns = 90%" means exactly the same performance in an engine as "Filtration given particle size >= 20 micron = 90%.

Its not a matter of "hopes and speculation." I couldn't care less about Fram as a company and I don't have some particular favoritism for their filter. But a spec is a spec, and theirs wins, regardless of a missing "=" sign or not!


+1 ... another good way to say it.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you're an engineer then you should have no problem understanding this. Maybe you don't quite understand that if an oil filter is 99% @ 20 microns then it's even more efficient at larger particle sizes. If you can accept that 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns, then when Fram says the filter is "99% > 20 microns" they are saying it will essentially catch 99 out of 100 particles that are 20.001 microns and larger. To me, you can say it's "99% @ 20 microns or larger".


I also have no problem understanding some marketing doofus could take the sum total of all larger particle testing, call that 99% of all particles averaging in the actual 20 micron figure with the rest, and get away with it by using ">".

By the way there are also 1,700A jump starters on the market containing 170A peak instantaneous discharge AGM batteries and no pulse circuitry. Do you believe those figures too?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you're an engineer then you should have no problem understanding this. Maybe you don't quite understand that if an oil filter is 99% @ 20 microns then it's even more efficient at larger particle sizes. If you can accept that 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns, then when Fram says the filter is "99% > 20 microns" they are saying it will essentially catch 99 out of 100 particles that are 20.001 microns and larger. To me, you can say it's "99% @ 20 microns or larger".


I also have no problem understanding some marketing doofus could take the sum total of all larger particle testing, call that 99% of all particles averaging in the actual 20 micron figure with the rest, and get away with it by using ">".


Fram is referencing the ISO 4548-12 procedure. So if you understand the test, then you'd understand the specs. Any company would be reckless to claim hard specs that are traced back to a standard test like the ISO 4548-12 unless they wanted to have other filter companies sue them over false advertising.

Motorking has chimed in a couple of times on this to clarify, and Fram's spec is essentially the same as saying "99% @ 20 microns or larger".
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Fram is referencing the ISO 4548-12 procedure. So if you understand the test, then you'd understand the specs. Any company would be reckless to claim hard specs that are traced back to a standard test like the ISO 4548-12 unless they wanted to have other filter companies sue them over false advertising.

Motorking has chimed in a couple of times on this to clarify, and Fram's spec is essentially the same as saying "99% @ 20 microns or larger".


Then let Fram publish the results of their ISO 4548-12 testing and fix their advertising. Right now it's still weasel worded and referencing something they aren't showing us.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Fram is referencing the ISO 4548-12 procedure. So if you understand the test, then you'd understand the specs. Any company would be reckless to claim hard specs that are traced back to a standard test like the ISO 4548-12 unless they wanted to have other filter companies sue them over false advertising.

Motorking has chimed in a couple of times on this to clarify, and Fram's spec is essentially the same as saying "99% @ 20 microns or larger".


Then let Fram publish the results of their ISO 4548-12 testing and fix their advertising. Right now it's still weasel worded and referencing something they aren't showing us.


Sorry, not true. Their spec references the ISO 4548-12 spec, and there is really nothing more to show. It's not "weasel worded" except to the few that can't understand it.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


Already been explained in great detail in other threads.



I did not say that. Please don't edit the attributions.


Didn't do that on purpose, i have no interest in putting words in your mouth.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).



Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that FRAM uses the greater than symbol (>) to show that the 99% filtering efficiency spec for the Ultra filter applies to ANY particle > 20 microns ... whether it is 20.0001 microns or 100 microns doesn't really matter because the 99% efficiency spec applies to all particles > 20 microns. So, since the Ultra filter is 99% efficient filtering particles that are 20.0001 microns in size (and 20.0000001 microns in size, and so on...), then it is reasonable for me to believe that it is 99% efficient at filtering particles @ 20 microns. As for why FRAM doesn't go ahead and word the spec as "> 20 microns" or "@ 20 microns or greater" since this is what their spec means, I don't really know.
 
^^^ Good post! I don't know why Fram doesn't clarify it either and use the "@ 20 microns or greater" statement; it would be in their best interest so everyone could "get it" and there would be no misinterpretation.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).


Already been explained in great detail in other threads.

I don't understand why when quoting a poster one would put their response/comment in with the quoted poster. I've had that intentionally done once to me on this board relatively recently and responded by asking that poster not to do it again. It seems deceptive to me, and dnewton in the past has mentioned not doing it, and that he'd help anyone having difficulty using the quote feature. My .02

As for comment, not sure what 'great detail' is being referred to . I've read the answer previously and what it boiled down to as posted here is that Fram uses > because of some 'legal considerations.' What that means exactly, I'm not sure.

That said, it is relevant imo to note for comparison that other filters and filter manufacturers including Amsoil and Purolator to name a couple (I'm sure there are others) have no such reticence about using @ when listing their filter efficiencies. Below is the much posted Amsoil's ISO chart and the efficiency method can be noted as well as on the Amsoil filter website.

eao_efficiency_500px.jpg



Doesn't anyone wonder WHY Honda and Toyota oil filters "FILTER" so poorly...? Do they FLOW way better, or do particles below a certain size not cause measurable wear...?

It seems to me that if two of the most reliable brands out there are spec'ing filters with these filtration levels, that maybe everyone is worrying way too much about the numbers...
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't know why Fram doesn't clarify it either and use the "@ 20 microns or greater" statement; it would be in their best interest so everyone could "get it" and there would be no misinterpretation.


Exactly, and that should tell you something. If "greater than" was really "equal to", you can bet the marketing dept. would have made the change long ago.
 
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I don't know why Fram doesn't clarify it either and use the "@ 20 microns or greater" statement; it would be in their best interest so everyone could "get it" and there would be no misinterpretation.


Exactly, and that should tell you something. If "greater than" was really "equal to", you can bet the marketing dept. would have made the change long ago.


I don't think Fram is trying to "hide" anything, or "fool" anyone with the statement. Motorking has chimed in a number of times and has clarified that the statement is essentially meaning "@20 microns or greater". As sayjac mentioned, there was some legal momobo jumbo involved on why Fram uses the statement "for particles > 20 microns"

It's similar to Motorcraft/Ford saying their filter efficiency was "80% @ 20 microns", but in reality, at least some of the Motorcraft filters are much better than that.

In any case, I think most here understand that "> 20 microns" essentially means 20 microns and larger.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
I don't care what one Fram employee who does not make filters says, the actual Ultra advertising says >20 microns not 20 microns, so I'm not "sold" on Ultra's as being so superior. It's a bogus non-ISO advertising spec, and a very hopeful interpretation that >20 really means 20.

>20 could mean 40 or even 100, and until Fram publishes data and fixes the advertising, I'm not buying it (literally or figuratively).




Hang,
As i have explained in great detail many times on this forum, it means they are 99% at ANY particle greater than 20 microns in size. And as for your snide remarks about me not making any filters? The FTC and our competitors would be all over me if I made one single unproven remark in this forum. Our competitors watch these forums even if they are unwilling to respond.
 
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If you're an engineer then you should have no problem understanding this. Maybe you don't quite understand that if an oil filter is 99% @ 20 microns then it's even more efficient at larger particle sizes. If you can accept that 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns, then when Fram says the filter is "99% > 20 microns" they are saying it will essentially catch 99 out of 100 particles that are 20.001 microns and larger. To me, you can say it's "99% @ 20 microns or larger".


I also have no problem understanding some marketing doofus could take the sum total of all larger particle testing, call that 99% of all particles averaging in the actual 20 micron figure with the rest, and get away with it by using ">".

By the way there are also 1,700A jump starters on the market containing 170A peak instantaneous discharge AGM batteries and no pulse circuitry. Do you believe those figures too?


Marketing doofus? Really? 35 yr ASE master tech, mechanical engineer, repair shop owner, internationally known technical trainer doofus? You sound like a democrat now, cant make your argument so you resort to personal attacks? Would you like to visit our engineering labs and actually learn about filtration? The trips on me.
 
I would love it if the "engineers" who regularly show up here could be somehow vetted prior to being allowed that claim. The ones who are REAL wouldn't mind a bit, would they?

I bet it would be interesting. Many here already know that we have folks who use multiple user names and are pure trolls...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I would love it if the "engineers" who regularly show up here could be somehow vetted prior to being allowed that claim. The ones who are REAL wouldn't mind a bit, would they?

I bet it would be interesting. Many here already know that we have folks who use multiple user names and are pure trolls...



I'd sure like to see Engineer20's diploma.

It's probably from Dumb [censored] U.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

redhat
Help me choose an oil filter, 51365, 57356, 51358
Replies
11
Views
359
bbhero
Mewbs
Fleetguard LF16011 - Cut open - New
Replies
13
Views
1K
53' Stude
J
Kohler Oil Filter Alternatives?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Bellavita
Mewbs
Donaldson P551132 Cut open - New
Replies
10
Views
2K
DGXR
T
Toyota 90118-WBA40 always a Mazda filter?
Replies
15
Views
346
AutoMechanic
Back
Top