2nd Fram Ultra in a row with holes in the crimp

[ZeeOSix]

I don’t think anything, I just want to see data.

You saw it, and there's a big discrepancy on the Boss data. What data do you believe? Of all the various efficiency data sources I've seen, I have seen nothing that says the Boss is as efficiency as a Royal Purple, ACDelco Ultraguard Gold, Ultra, Titanium or Endurance.

Now people who watch that video will suddenly think that the Boss is something it really isn't, just like some people think certain oils are something they aren't when watching Project Fram oil comparison videos. The beauty of YouTube.

Here's another data point, which is ISO particle count data from UOAs posted on this site. Note where the Boss (Filter X) ranks in this UOA particle count comparison.

 

[ZeeOSix]

On oil filters the efficiency generally gets worse as it loads because the pressure against the remaining openings in the media increases forcing more particles through, air filters get more efficient but air filtration is a little different and I think the properties of a dust cake on air filters are entirely a different mechanism than a clogging oil filter. I think the reason we're seeing these results is that their dirt load was not mixed to were the individual particles were properly dispersed in the oil and the particles agglomerated the larger resulting particles are more easily filtered out.

Yes, the efficiency going down with filter media loading was also seen in Ascent's testing. Here's where it was discussed in the big Ascent testing thread.

Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?

Andrew, thank you very much for posting this. I hope this means you're feeling better. The Wix XP going longer before clogging is likely due to it letting so much through. Those results for the XP are very disappointing. It's no wonder they are shy to release the numbers.

bobistheoilguy.com

Some oil filters decrease efficiency with loading more than others (also seen in Ascent's testing) ... how much decrease with loading all depends on the media design and performance. I'm sure you've seen this figure before, but here it is again for those who haven't.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

On oil filters the efficiency generally gets worse as it loads because the pressure against the remaining openings in the media increases forcing more particles through, air filters get more efficient but air filtration is a little different and I think the properties of a dust cake on air filters are entirely a different mechanism than a clogging oil filter. I think the reason we're seeing these results is that their dirt load was not mixed to were the individual particles were properly dispersed in the oil and the particles agglomerated the larger resulting particles are more easily filtered out.

It’s hard to rule out other possibilities like small gaps in the individual filter construction too.

You saw it, and there's a big discrepancy on the Boss data. What data do you believe? Of all the various efficiency data sources I've seen, I have seen nothing that says the Boss is as efficiency as a Royal Purple, ACDelco Ultraguard Gold, Ultra, Titanium or Endurance.

Now people who watch that video will suddenly think that the Boss is something it really isn't, just like some people think certain oils are something they aren't when watching Project Fram oil comparison videos. The beauty of YouTube.

Here's another data point, which is ISO particle count data from UOAs posted on this site. Note where the Boss (Filter X) ranks in this UOA particle count comparison.

View attachment 188545

Note I was very clear when I said certain testing showed a result. Saying a certain test showed a certain result is a fact, but it doesn’t mean the result itself is fact. Does that make sense? It is entirely different from saying the result is accurate.

Also the context was Boss vs. other M+H made filters. There was never any question other manufacturer made filters like the Ultra and Endurance are more efficient.

I’m still curious if there’s any recent data out there showing a comparison between several M+H filters in particle sizes from 10 to 100 mu.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Note I was very clear when I said certain testing showed a result. Saying a certain test showed a certain result is a fact, but it doesn’t mean the result itself is fact. Does that make sense? It is entirely different from saying the result is accurate.

Like I said, when you compare all sources of data, there is nothing that shows than the Boss is as efficient as those other high efficiency filters. So what's that say about one test that shows it is just as efficient, when all the others don't. When many independent sources correlate, that tells you there is some truth to that data.

Also the context was Boss vs. other M+H made filters. There was never any question other manufacturer made filters like the Ultra and Endurance are more efficient.

I’m still curious if there’s any recent data out there showing a comparison between several M+H filters in particle sizes from 10 to 100 mu.

The Purolator ONE is a M+H filter, and their spec sheets shows it's more efficient than the Boss. Not sure what you're tying to compare when you say "other M+H made filters" ... because there are many.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

Like I said, when you compare all sources of data, there is nothing that shows than the Boss is as efficient as those other high efficiency filters. So what's that say about one test that shows it is just as efficient, when all the others don't. When many independent sources correlate, that tells you there is some truth to that data.

And I am kindly asking for the other sources. Do you have any empirical tests showing ~10-100 mu filtration efficiency for Mobil 1, standard Wix, Amsoil, Royal Purple, or any other M+H filters in comparison with Boss?

I’m not making any argument here that the Boss is better or worse than any other M+H filter (again all I said was two tests showed certain results, which is different). I’m just seeking the data for comparing M+H filters, which you’re claiming you have but are not providing. Please just show the data in a post here.

The Purolator ONE is a M+H filter, and their spec sheets shows it's more efficient than the Boss. Not sure what you're tying to compare when you say "other M+H made filters" ... because there are many.

I want to see empirical testing results.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And I am kindly asking for the other sources. Do you have any empirical tests showing ~10-100 mu filtration efficiency for Mobil 1, standard Wix, Amsoil, Royal Purple, or any other M+H filters in comparison with Boss?

I’m not making any argument here that the Boss is better or worse than any other M+H filter (again all I said was two tests showed certain results, which is different). I’m just seeking the data for comparing M+H filters, which you’re claiming you have but are not providing. Please just show the data in a post here.

I want to see empirical testing results.

Only one test on the Boss showed to not align with all the others. What's that say?

Again, you're whole "test data on M+H filters" is pretty nebulous. Have you seen the Purolator/M+H spec data sheets posted many times for Purolator filters (aka "M+H filters"), showing various Purolator Classic, ONEs and Boss in this forum. That data is all based on ISO 4548 test method per the spec sheets.

I've given multiple sources above. None of them show the Boss to be a high efficiency oil filter. If you want to prove it to yourself (even though Ascent already did a Boss), you can pay lots of money to have an ISO 4548 tests done on any of the filters you're wondering about. Or you can start searching and reading the oil filter forum some more, or glean efficiency info from the manufactures website and contacting their customer Tech line.

 

[kschachn]

I want to see empirical testing results.

What? That makes zero sense here.

 

[kschachn]

Only one test on the Boss showed to not align with all the others. What's that say?

Again, you're whole "test data on M+H filters" is pretty nebulous. Have you seen the Purolator/M+H spec data sheets posted many times for Purolator filters (aka "M+H filters"), showing various Purolator Classic, ONEs and Boss in this forum. That data is all based on ISO 4548 test method per the spec sheets.

I've given multiple sources above. None of them show the Boss to be a high efficiency oil filter. If you want to prove it to yourself (even though Ascent already did a Boss), you can pay lots of money to have an ISO 4548 tests done on any of the filters you're wondering about. Or you can start searching and reading the oil filter forum some more, or glean efficiency info from the manufactures website and contacting their customer Tech line.

This conversation is sounding more and more like a recent one with another board member. Same arguments that are repeatedly refuted yet the nonsensical rebuttals continue.

That’s about the only thing that’s being repeated here.

 

[skaughtz]

What I am curious about is if a flashing red warning light goes off at corporate whenever a filter thread on BITOG hits 100+ replies...

 

[twX]

You trust a home made test rig over an officially ran and certified ISO 4548 test?

I was also referring to the Ascent test, which I do trust more than the Purolator data sheets. Ascent was transparent and showed a lot of data for specific filters. We don't know if Purolator is showing actual ISO 4548 test results for each filter. The lack of variance in the efficiency data suggests that they aren't providing actual test results.

I also trust the dP test from the youtuber more than I do the Purolator data sheets, since they are in line with the Ascent results, while Purolator's results are the biggest outlier among all dP tests I've seen for any oil filter.

It's not that I don't trust ISO 4548 test methods, it's that I don't trust Purolator's data sheets.

Obviously the youtuber's efficiency test needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. We don't know how repeatable the test is. It probably isn't very accurate given the Ascent test results. Another possibility is that the efficiency of the BOSS has improved at some point in the last few years.

 

[OVERKILL]

I'd say there's about 3 majors anymore, Mann-Hummer, First Brands, and Premium Guard seems to be gaining a lot more ground these days.

I don't think Premium Guard manufactures filters. They are owned by Interfil, and the website states:

Today we manage multiple factory relationships on a global scale, while our customers benefit from working with a single point of contact. No less than two factories are approved for every product or component that we supply. It’s these resources and supplier relationships, developed and tested over time, that make Premium Guard, Inc. the logical choice for companies who desire the highest quality, value and service in an aftermarket supplier.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I was also referring to the Ascent test, which I do trust more than the Purolator data sheets. Ascent was transparent and showed a lot of data for specific filters. We don't know if Purolator is showing actual ISO 4548 test results for each filter. The lack of variance in the efficiency data suggests that they aren't providing actual test results.

Yes, I'd trust certified independent ISO 4548 test data over any home-made test setup and procedure. I agree, that Purolator/M+H maybe does some cut and pasting for some filter specs, or may be modeling for a few different sized filters to generate specs based on a verified model - which is not unheard of. No way IMO they are actually running a physical ISO test program on every oil filter model they make, that would cost a fortune.

There's another thread going on about Purolator claimed efficiency and the corresponding Purolator/M+H spec sheets. Their website and spec sheet for the PBL30001 doesn't match.

99% at 17 microns! Purolator ONE PL14006

I bought a new-to-me 2001 Corvette Z06, and another C5 owner said he thought the PL14006 was 99@20. I didn't think this was true so I emailed Purolator Tech support today and was blown away by the reply:

bobistheoilguy.com

I also trust the dP test from the youtuber more than I do the Purolator data sheets, since they are in line with the Ascent results, while Purolator's results are the biggest outlier among all dP tests I've seen for any oil filter.

I wouldn't go that far without more info. I know that the YT tester is using a crude flow meter, which I believe is bought calibrated for water at room temperature, not calibrated for different oil viscosities at different temperatures. So the flow rates going through those filters may be off by quite a bit. The dP across the filter is effected by the flow rate through the filter, along with the viscosity of the oil of course.

It's not that I don't trust ISO 4548 test methods, it's that I don't trust Purolator's data sheets.

Obviously the youtuber's efficiency test needs to be taken with a big grain of salt. We don't know how repeatable the test is. It probably isn't very accurate given the Ascent test results. Another possibility is that the efficiency of the BOSS has improved at some point in the last few years.

Yes, using particle count data isn't nearly the same as an actual ISO 4548-12 efficiency test ... they even say that in their video, which is good to say, but many people watching YT wouldn't have any idea what that means. One thing I'll give Brand Ranks is that most of the ranking does seem to align with other testing like Ascent's for the most part (expect for the Boss being more efficient than the Royal Purple as pointed out) ... just the relative ranking part seems to correlate for the most part, but not the absolute values of the data.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

Then explain better what you're after here, because what you've asked for has been explained more than once now.

I have already explained it clearly three times: ideally, an empirical comparison of several M+H filters of different branding: standard Wix, Mobil 1, etc. I am not even arguing any position for or against the Boss or any test validity here. You seem to think I have some sort of position. I don’t.

There was doubt cast as to the validity of certain empirical results of one test and whether the Boss is any more efficient than other M+H filters. That’s perfectly acceptable, but no empirically derived basis for that doubt has yet been shown. Show the conflicting empirical data that forms the basis for doubting those empirical results. This is the basis of science.

I see one Ascent test that may indicate Royal Purple being more efficient than the Boss above about 20 micron, as of over two years ago. Show that.

 

[kschachn]

It’s pretty well documented here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I have already explained it clearly three times: ideally, an empirical comparison of several M+H filters of different branding: standard Wix, Mobil 1, etc. I am not even arguing any position for or against the Boss or any test validity here. You seem to think I have some sort of position. I don’t.

I've already given answers, more than once, to that. Go look at all the previous info given, and if that doesn't answer the question then go do some of your own research by looking at the filter maker's website and contacting their customer service for any more technical info. You're asking for stuff that takes a lot of research to find and digest. Everyone has the ability to do some self research.

There was doubt cast as to the validity of certain empirical results of one test and whether the Boss is any more efficient than other M+H filters. That’s perfectly acceptable, but no empirically derived basis for that doubt has yet been shown. Show the conflicting empirical data that forms the basis for doubting those empirical results. This is the basis of science.

I've already shown that the Boss isn't any more efficient "than other M+H filters". Like I said earlier, have you seen the spec sheets from Purolator/M+H themselves between the same filter model Purolator ONE and the same model Boss that have been posted in the Oil Filter forum? Spec sheets right from M+H, they say the Boss is NOT as efficient as the ONE. If that's not believable, I don't know what is, lol.

PureONE (M+H) PL20195 ... 99% @ 30 microns.

Purolator BOSS PLB20195 (M+H) ... 99% @ >46 microns.

I see one Ascent test that may indicate Royal Purple being more efficient than the Boss above about 20 micron, as of over two years ago. Show that.

Show what? How about you show something showing the Boss is high efficiency instead of asking everyone else to show it's not. Go do some self research, because I'm done providing stuff you just seem to ignore.

 

[twX]

I wouldn't go that far without more info. I know that the YT tester is using a crude flow meter, which I believe is calibrated for water, not calibrated for different oil viscosities. So the flow rates going through those filters may be off by quite a bit. The dP across the filter effected by the flow rate through the filter, along with the viscosity of the oil of course.

Yeah, I was wondering about the accuracy of that flow meter myself, especially for the cold oil dP test (which was at around 400 cST).

The warm oil used Aeroshell 41, temperature-regulated to 40 C, or around 15 cST. The Ascent test was at 13.5 cST. The Purolator tests use thicker 24 cST oil, and yet still show much lower dP at the same flow rate.

One thing I'll give Brand Ranks is that most of the ranking does seem to align with other testing like Ascent's for the most part (expect for the Boss being more efficient than the Royal Purple as pointed out) ... just the ranking part, not the absolute values of the data.

I think it's a pretty good test method, as long as the number of passes through the filter is controlled for, which is unclear from the video. Compared to a UOA particle count, it eliminates the uncontrolled variable of recent running conditions and particle generation rate of the engine, which I expect could effect the results quite a bit.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yeah, I was wondering about the accuracy of that flow meter myself, especially for the cold oil dP test (which was at around 400 cST).

The warm oil used Aeroshell 41, temperature-regulated to 40 C, or around 15 cST. The Ascent test was at 13.5 cST. The Purolator tests use thicker 24 cST oil, and yet still show much lower dP at the same flow rate.

If you watch their video explaining their 2.0 test rig, I came away with the hot oil viscosity being in the 14-15 cSt range, and the cold oil viscosity being ~500 cSt.

I think it's a pretty good test method, as long as the number of passes through the filter is controlled for, which is unclear from the video. Compared to a UOA particle count, it eliminates the uncontrolled variable of recent running conditions and particle generation rate of the engine, which I expect could effect the results quite a bit.

Yes, the PC of a UOA isn't as controlled, but a correlation of PC oil cleanliness vs oil filter efficiency can still be seen. That's just not coincidence, and there have been many SAE type studies that shows a direct correlation between oil cleanliness and oil filter efficiency.

 

[twX]

The ISO 4548-12 efficiency test has nothing to do with the "particle generation rate of the engine".

I was comparing their method to a particle count on a used oil analysis from an engine, not the ISO test.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I was comparing their method to a particle count on a used oil analysis from an engine, not the ISO test.

Yeah, I got that after reading it again ... updated my post above, take a look, you beat me before the edit.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

You're going in circles, and remain nebulous of what you're trying to convey. I've given sources to empirical test data - which you seem to ignore. I even gave you two official spec sheets from Purolator/M+H showing the efficiency difference between two "M+H filters" in the same model (20195), which you are stuck on, yet ignore the information. You look at it and make up your own mind.

All I asked for was recent empirical test data. You linked to a 25-page thread from years ago. Buried within it is one Ascent graph with test data showing Royal Purple more efficient at certain sizes than the Boss around 2.5 yr ago. You could have posted it here, but you didn’t. Instead, you repeatedly ignored what I was actually saying/asking and posted irrelevant arguments as if I was arguing that the Boss was efficient, which I never once contended.

Please understand the difference between these sentences:

“The Boss is high efficiency.”

“These testing results show the Boss had higher efficiency.”

They are not the same. The latter is tautologically true, even if the former is false.