Finally found official Mann filter efficiency #'s

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Here is something that proves me wrong about some things regarding efficiency:

http://india.donaldson.com/en/ih/support/datalibrary/066998.pdf

So, does Fram use the latest gizmos to do testing in 2018? How about a suggestion box? Mine is for Fram to publish some efficiency graphs, and include other filters not made by them. Something official instead of someone says Mann is at 9 microns and people believe it.


That info is for hydraulic oil filters, so that's why they are talking about ISO 16889. As you can see, hydraulic filters are very high efficiency, and ISO 16889 is specifically meant for testing filters that are beta 75 or better as indicated in the summary info on page 1 of this thread.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Which makes it all the more weird that Mann publish oil filter efficiencies according to 16889.


Apparently to the catalog, Mann has ran a multi-pass test but say it's defined in ISO 4548-12 test but calibrated to ISO 16889 - whatever that means. ISO 16889 is also a multi-pass test, so not sure why they are even mentioning ISO 4548-12. IMO, it basically just means ISO 16889 was ran with some kind of 4548-12 morphing. Talk about confusing.

See Mann catalog pages 10 and 111 (snipped and shown below). Also see the asterisk footnote at the bottom of the table:

" * In comparison to the previously used calibration, the new calibration with the same filter results in a lower filter fineness with small particles."

So whatever the actual differences between the two test methods, it had an effect on the resulting efficiency measurement, as indicated in their footnote. Sounds like ISO 16889 gives a lower efficiency result - by how much, who knows? - they don't say. So comparing an efficiency per ISO 4548-12 to ISO 16889 is obviously not an apples-to-apples comparison. Mann is a Euro company, so don't know why they would use ISO 16889 for auto spin-on filter testing when ISO 4548-12 is specifically designed for testing those types of oil filters.






There could be something lost in translation going on with all of this.

I actually read "new calibration with the same filter results in a lower filter fineness" to mean the numbers shown - ie the micron ratings - are lower.

Which means the new calibration shows higher efficiency than the previous calibration.

Is it possible that "before" refers to the calibration in a previous iteration of the test protocol? At one point, I think the ISO test moved from single pass to multi pass.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
There could be something lost in translation going on with all of this.

I actually read "new calibration with the same filter results in a lower filter fineness" to mean the numbers shown - ie the micron ratings - are lower.

Which means the new calibration shows higher efficiency than the previous calibration.

Is it possible that "before" refers to the calibration in a previous iteration of the test protocol? At one point, I think the ISO test moved from single pass to multi pass.


They use the word "fitness" to mean efficiency. From the info I see it looks like they have somehow combined/modified ISO 4548-12 with some ISO 16889. Why would they even mention ISO 4548-12 and then say "calibrated according to ISO 16889"?

They are using an efficiency test spec meant for very high efficiency filters on filters that are not efficiency enough for what ISO 16889 was designed for. Like said, it's pretty confusing on M+H part.


On balance, I'm going to take it that they've tested according to 4548-12 and the following is the reason for the confusion:

1) It's a huge catalog and the oil filters are a small subset of the filters there. The person collating the catalog simply wasn't interested in getting these details 100% clear and then there is the German to English translation issue.
2) The test dust in the 16889 test is I believe the same as the 4548 test.

Plus, Motorking said all manufacturers test according to 4548.

As to the meaning of "fineness", the way the chart is constructed suggests it refers to microns, as in fineness of particles. I think you're wrong to say it means efficiency because the efficiency numbers (50% & 99%) are in the column header as well.

Lastly, to me it is anyway irrelevant because I was looking for the microglass filter specs! There is no way these filters would be high efficiency enough to be a consideration. I'm sure you're not interested in any of these cellulose filters either!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
As to the meaning of "fineness", the way the chart is constructed suggests it refers to microns, as in fineness of particles. I think you're wrong to say it means efficiency because the efficiency numbers (50% & 99%) are in the column header as well.


Filter "fineness" does mean "efficiency" here ... which is defined as xx% @ yy microns.

It just doesn't represent the xx% or or the yy microns part solely ... it represents efficiency, which if complete is comprised of "xx%" and "@ yy microns" together. If one is missing, it's not really an accurate efficiency number.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Lastly, to me it is anyway irrelevant because I was looking for the microglass filter specs! There is no way these filters would be high efficiency enough to be a consideration. I'm sure you're not interested in any of these cellulose filters either!

I'm not interested in using them either, but do like having the technical discussions of what we are seeing in the M+H catalog.

 

[CharlieBauer]

The column header reads:

"Filter fineness acc. to ISO 16 889 [um (c)]* with 50% / 90% separation efficiency"

So filter fineness is measured in microns at x% efficiency.

In other words, they are saying the numbers below the two column headers are micron ratings.

If the number in the table under that column header goes down, that is the micron rating going down which means efficiency goes up.

Therefore compared to the previous calibration, they are saying the efficiency has gone up not down.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The column header reads:

"Filter fineness acc. to ISO 16 889 [um (c)]* with 50% / 90% separation efficiency"

So filter fineness is measured in microns at x% efficiency.


That's what I basically said too. Therefore, their term of "fineness" means efficiency in terms of xx% @ yy microns, just like the table columns show.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
In other words, they are saying the numbers below the two column headers are micron ratings.

If the number in the table under that column header goes down, that is the micron rating going down which means efficiency goes up.

Therefore compared to the previous calibration, they are saying the efficiency has gone up not down.


Yes, I see what you're saying, but I think it can be interpreted both ways. If it's the way you say, then their efficiency numbers should be worse than before the "previously used calibration" (whatever that really is) was used.

Again ... they are not using the adopted test standard for lube filters below beta 75 meant for IC engines, so maybe ISO 4548-12 would make those filters come in worse than what M+H shows them to be.