Let's back up a bit and take another look. If you were to compare the media area of the wire-backed Ultra XG10060 to the new non wire-backed Ultra XG10060 as shown it Fram's table in post 70, what I'm saying is the efficiency difference below 20 microns could certainly be from more media area in the new XG10060. Plus, as I already pointed out, the OG XG10575 in the Ascent testing was larger (0.7 inch longer) than the OG XG10060 would be, which could also have an impact on an efficiency difference between those two OG Ultras (10575 vs 10060).No, that's part of exactly what I'm considering, which is premised on the accuracy of that screenshot; the requirement to take the numbers on it at face value and not question their legitimacy. To set aside the rift in the 15-micron figures between it and the Ascent data and just accept that it's the size difference in play.
While I'm not questioning the possibility for a blend media to be high efficiency (despite my position on the legitimacy of that screenshot), I AM questioning what amounts to a 10% drop in efficiency with a 0.7" shorter can and subsequently a bit less media. The Royal Purple, which does in fact have less media due to having a shorter media stack inside the can, was 3.3% less efficient in the Ascent testing. Now, different media, certainly, but also synthetic. This should at minimum, raise an eyebrow, and if it doesn't, well, then I don't think there's any value in continuing this conversation.
Also, keep in mind that exactly how the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test was conducted (within the limits of the official procedure) can have an impact on the resulting test data. For instance, the overall ISO efficiency can be affected by what dP rise from new to "fully loaded" is defined to end the test run. If the same oil filter is ISO tested and the test ends with a 5 PSI dP rise, vs an 8 PSI dP rise, then the resulting ISO efficiency could be different due to the debris sloughing factor.
Since Fram has their own ISO test lab, they most likely run all their filter tests at the same test parameters to obtain a consistent result. If Ascent used a higher dP cut-off point to end the test runs, then that could also be a reason their is some seen differences. As mentioned many times before in these discussions, Ascent would have to run a new non wire-backed XG10575 at the same test parameters as before to see what the real efficiency change is between the OG wire-backed vs new non wire backed XG10575 under the same exact test conditions.
But looking at Frams test data for the new XG10060 and trying to compare those results to Ascent's test on the XG10575 is not really apples-to-apples ... all you can do is fudge factor it to try and make some kind of conclusion which may not be totally accurate.
Last edited: