You see why I'd like to see individual ISO tested filter data yet?
Fram Ultra XG9688 Before HPL Cleaner and Post HPL OCI 5200Miles
- Thread starter BISCUT
- Start date
Then go ask Fram for their efficiency data on some specific filter models and see what they have. I'm betting there isn't one Ultra, Titanium or Endurance regardless of model or size that's anywhere close to 99% >46u or 50% @ 22u.
The Ascent Boss came in at 99%@34 & I'm not asking Fram for data they're not providing (ISO Test Results).
Even though the M+H Spec Sheet shows 99% >46u. And then there's BR's testing that concluded the Boss they tested (even though the Spec Sheet for that model also shows 99% >46u) was almost the most efficient filter they've tested so far. In Ascent's official and certified lab ISO test, the Boss ranked last, even trailing the ACDelco by quite a bit below 30u. Disconnects all over the place, lol.
If you're not going to dig into Fram's claims anymore, then best to stop trying to figure it out beyond what's already been divulged. I asked for the efficiency on a couple of specific models and they answered me. Sure, they didn't send a "Spec Sheet", so I guess a conspiracy theorist would then claim they just made up some answer.
Wanting to see ISO Testing Results are not a "Conspiracy". Those are you're terms that don't correlate well in this discussion. I didn't know we are really taking BR's videos with more than a grain of salt. I called it "Fun Data" not necessarily helpful in getting standard testing results.Even though the M+H Spec Sheet shows 99% >46u. And then there's BR's testing that concluded the Boss they tested (even though the Spec Sheet for that model also shows 99% >46u) was almost the most efficient filter they've tested so far. In Ascent's official and certified lab ISO test, the Boss ranked last, even trailing the ACDelco by quite a bit below 30u. Disconnects all over the place, lol.
If you're not going to dig into Fram's claims anymore, then best to stop trying to figure it out beyond what's already been divulged. I asked for the efficiency on a couple of specific models and they answered me. Sure, they didn't send a "Spec Sheet", so I guess a conspiracy theorist would then claim they just made up some answer.
I'm saying that in general, some people might go into conspiracy mode if they can't actually see a Spec Sheet. Didn't say you were, but If you want to include yourself or not in that group, that's up to you, lol.
My prediction is once M+H sees how their sharing Spec Sheets has gone, they will most likely start not sharing them and say it's "proprietary information" ... which in a way it actually is.
A lack of sufficient data doesn't equal = Conspiracy LOL Also, I didn't claim I was in that group either so?
They could disallow sharing their spec sheets all they want to & it still wouldn't change the fact we're not able to see ISO testing on other companies filters.
You missed the whole point. Go read it again.
Then what ... believe that the Boss is "99% @ 25u" like Purolator says on their website?
Their Spec Sheets only proves that their website is misleading, at least on the Boss. I better check the other two models.I specifically asked Fram what the efficiency was on a couple of their efficiency claim model filters (see post 79), and they said they were 99% @>20u. So since you believe that lack of sufficient data isn't a conspiracy, then I guess Fram was accurate and truthful in their answer to my question without including a Spec Sheet.
I've always stated to error on the lower efficiency for the same filter. So, go by the spec sheets if they show a lower efficiency. I tend to believe fram mostly but not for every one of their filters. Do I think every TG is 99%@20... maybe...You missed the whole point. Go read it again.
Then what ... believe that the Boss is "99% @ 25u" like Purolator says on their website?
I specifically asked Fram what the efficiency was on a couple of their efficiency claim model filters (see post 79), and they said they were 99% @>20u. So since you believe that lack of sufficient data isn't a conspiracy, then I guess Fram was accurate and truthful in their answer to my question without including a Spec Sheet.
If I had to question another filter companies efficiency claims Fram would not be high on that list. Meaning I'm least worried about Fram then say some other filter companies claims. This is taking what we know about Fram & the Ascent test result coming in as promised.
Why would you question the TG if not questioning all the lines based on Fram's efficiency claims? I mean even the ~$4 EG at Walmart is rated at 95% @>20u (see post 94).
He just dreams up things and makes nonsense posts in thread after thread. The disconnect is almost to the point of being humorous.
Here's a check on Purolator ONE and basic Purolator ... comparing the website claim vs Spec Sheet. I don't have a Spec Sheet for the basic L30001, but most of the "L" series filters that I have Spec Sheets on look to have anywhere from 99% @ 25u to 50u (40u - 50u for the smaller sized is seems). So some at 99% @ 25u would be pretty close, but don't know what the L30001 Spec Sheet shows - don't have a copy handy.
Purolator® Oil Filters
The proven filtration performance of original Purolator® Oil Filters is best used for normal driving conditions, habits and oil change requirements.
www.purolatornow.com
L30001: 96.5% @ 20u.
PurolatorONE™ Oil Filters
PurolatorONE™ Oil Filters deliver advanced engine protection for peak performance, making them one of the best oil filters for many drivers today.
www.purolatornow.com
PL30001: Claim on website is 99% @ 20u.
Close on the ONE PL30001. Website: 99% @ 20. Spec Sheet: 99% @ 25u.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Would you prefer delusional?
- Ascent tested to ISO standards.
- The test data, FROM FRAM, based on 3x different sizes of that filter, is tested to ISO standards. Not surprisingly, this is consistent with what Ascent produced.
Your claim here is essentially that because we don't have *SPECIFIC MODEL* information, that all of the rest of it can be legitimately hand waved away and that somehow, a filter that not only tested worse by Ascent, but has poorer advertised performance per the manufacturer, is a more "informed" choice simply because that data is available.
That you continue to not see the problem with this thought process and instead demand data that is in no way necessary to extrapolate performance to other part numbers in order to conclude that the Ultra is a significantly better filter, underscores the issue.
Put plainly:
If the XG10575 tested by Ascent per the below chart is 99.85% efficient at 15 microns, which is considerably better than the advertised efficiency at 20 microns, then there is no scenario where this same media, in any part #, is going to perform worse than the media that was in the filter that was 99% at 34 microns.
These aren't "antics", and this is quite the opposite of having nothing. That you are struggling with comprehending this isn't my problem or my deficit.
Simply using that line as an example not only TG line.
Maybe you guys should have PF do a Boss vs Fram showdown
... PF doing oil filter races now? Ascent already did a Boss vs Ultra test ... but it was awhile ago with the OG Ultra. Read all 29 pages if ya want.Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
I am thinking about running lab tests for an OEM and four aftermarket filters for testing for a Chevy truck. This testing will include ISO 4548-12 multi-pass efficiency and capacity, pressure vs flow hot and cold simulation curves, bubble point/largest pore size, and a collapse/burst test. I...
bobistheoilguy.com
