Baldwin post micron ratings now
- Thread starter mpgo4th
- Start date
If you look by application no micron info. If you cross reference, it shows it. AC Delco PF64 to Baldwin B7422, 9.8 Nominal; 27 Absolute.
Below is a link to the oil filter I would use on my Subaru and I am not seeing the information you are referring to:
Also what is the exact difference in the definition of absolute and nominal ratings?
Does absolute = 99%
Does nominal = 50%
I thought it was 50% and 97% for some reason. No proof just stuck in my head for some reason.
Good point, I didn’t notice that. Thanks.
Try crossing a known filter number in the cross reference section and see if that helps.
So what do those numbers mean exactly?
Micron Rating: 9.8 Nominal; 27 Absolute
I mean in terms of efficiency at those particle sizes.
Micron Rating: 9.8 Nominal; 27 Absolute
I mean in terms of efficiency at those particle sizes.
Even though I don't use them, that's too bad about answering inquiries. CS used to be fairly responsive. 'In my observation' while they have the appearance of a well made filter, not especially noted for high efficiency.
As for using the terms nominal and absolute to rate, especially when it comes to 'nominal', not my preference. Generally speaking, nominal is taken to be at 50% but that's not written in stone. A google search including this site will confirm that. I started a thread here on that topic years ago and may show up in search.
As for absolute 'I think' being precise it's at 98.7%.
If I was being picky about knowing efficiency rating , having the percent with the micron level with ISO 4548-12 , first choice.
But the terms are better than no rating at all.
I cross referenced the Wix 57055 and got Micron Rating: 23 Nominal; 45 Absolute. So that reflects what the efficiency of the corresponding Baldwin filter is?
The Wix 57055 is 99% at 23 microns so no I am very confused unless they are referring to the Wix XP which is likely closer to those numbers based on what I have seen elsewhere.
FRAM Ultra (Multi-pass Efficiency - ISO 4548-12 test) - 99.6% @20um
Ed
Ed
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
My B7449 at Baldwin site
Ecogard has it’s definition, these have another. If all is perfect it is 100%. Nothing above the size gets through. Of course real life particles are never perfect spheres and media is not 100% uniform pore size. Absolute doesn’t mean almost absolute. It means that’s it there ain’t no more getting through.
Nominal vs. Absolute Micron Filter Rating | Beta Ratio
Filters are rated on their ability to remove particles of a certain size from a fluid. The most commonly used filter ratings are nominal and absolute micron rating.
www.qualityhydraulics.com
I wouldn't call 98.7% @ 27u excellent efficiency - what is it at 20u ? ... maybe 85~90%. But it's definitely better than say 50% @ 20u.
Most places in the filter industry define "absolute efficiency" at 98.7 % (and sometimes round it to 99%) and "nominal efficiency" at 50%.
Most places in the filter industry define "absolute efficiency" at 98.7 % (and sometimes round it to 99%) and "nominal efficiency" at 50%.
There is no difference in 98.7, 99, or 99+ Imo, because at those levels statistics go to pot from the lack of particles, empty data, experimental error. 99 is merely rounding 98.7, and Fram says 99+ which is extrapolating from the graph, and rounding off. One big happy make it go higher party to fool the people on the box. Then the people say o ahhh and buy the filter when it really is all marketing fluff.. But the goal of filter in Walmart’s check out line has been fulfilled. That’s competition for you.
You left out the particle size in your tome.There is no difference in 98.7, 99, or 99+ Imo, because at those levels statistics go to pot from the lack of particles, empty data, experimental error. 99 is merely rounding 98.7, and Fram says 99+ which is extrapolating from the graph, and rounding off. One big happy make it go higher party to fool the people on the box. Then the people say o ahhh and buy the filter when it really is all marketing fluff.. But the goal of filter in Walmart’s check out line has been fulfilled. That’s competition for you.
Go read ISO 4548-12 sometime and you'll then understand why it can be rounded up. Just more of you're biased misinformed trolling without leaning much of anything, lol.There is no difference in 98.7, 99, or 99+ Imo, because at those levels statistics go to pot from the lack of particles, empty data, experimental error. 99 is merely rounding 98.7, and Fram says 99+ which is extrapolating from the graph, and rounding off. One big happy make it go higher party to fool the people on the box. Then the people say o ahhh and buy the filter when it really is all marketing fluff.. But the goal of filter in Walmart’s check out line has been fulfilled. That’s competition for you.
Guess Fram could say 98.7% efficient at 18 microns, but would rather stick with the efficiency at 20u since that seems to be kind of an industry standard target particle size to express efficiency.
Last edited:
Yes and the companies that avoid that Gold Standard aren't doing so because they are honest!
Bingo ... these companies cross-check each other (the big filter companies have their own ISO testing labs), just waiting to send a letter saying stop false advertising.
Similar threads
