Back in the day the local Frantz distributor had clear lines on his engine oil and trans oil. I remember the oil looked clear in the lines. He never changed his oil. He also had a test display in his garage/ sales office to show how the Frantz cleaned oil compared to full flow filters. Full flow filters still have to flow fully, that's their dilemna.
FRAM XG Ultra Filter Efficiency
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
100% @ 2 microns.
Wow that’s amazing!
Where did you just pull that out of? Because I know you didn’t find it documented anywhere.
100% @ 2 microns.
Wow that’s amazing!
Where did you just pull that out of? Because I know you didn’t find it documented anywhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Microgreen and Trasko are the only ones I know of that can replace a full flow filter directly, and offer finer filtration. Car filter size. I don't know about the Trasko. I wish some others would have had experience with them and shared it.
What are the filtration specs for the MicroGreen filter?
Per the Fram paper, it can't be any better than beta 75 (98.7%) at any micron level. Anything measured above that doesn't make sense and should be ignored.
Wrong yet again, only on the specific multi pass test procedure. A filter can be any efficiency. The MG is 100% @ 2 microns for example as that's what they quote the disk micron size at. You must be tired of being wrong constantly. You try hard though, that's a plus.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Microgreen and Trasko are the only ones I know of that can replace a full flow filter directly, and offer finer filtration. Car filter size. I don't know about the Trasko. I wish some others would have had experience with them and shared it.
What are the filtration specs for the MicroGreen filter?
Per the Fram paper, it can't be any better than beta 75 (98.7%) at any micron level. Anything measured above that doesn't make sense and should be ignored.
Wrong yet again, only on the specific multi pass test procedure. A filter can be any efficiency. The MG is 100% @ 2 microns for example as that's what they quote the disk micron size at. You must be tired of being wrong constantly. You try hard though, that's a plus.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
100% @ 2 microns.
Wow that’s amazing!
Where did you just pull that out of? Because I know you didn’t find it documented anywhere.
That's beta Infinity, so believable since the Fram paper says anything above beta 75 is nonsense.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
100% @ 2 microns.
Wow that’s amazing!
Where did you just pull that out of? Because I know you didn’t find it documented anywhere.
That's beta Infinity, so believable since the Fram paper says anything above beta 75 is nonsense.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Microgreen and Trasko are the only ones I know of that can replace a full flow filter directly, and offer finer filtration. Car filter size. I don't know about the Trasko. I wish some others would have had experience with them and shared it.
What are the filtration specs for the MicroGreen filter?
Per the Fram paper, it can't be any better than beta 75 (98.7%) at any micron level. Anything measured above that doesn't make sense and should be ignored.
Wrong yet again, only on the specific multi pass test procedure. A filter can be any efficiency. The MG is 100% @ 2 microns for example as that's what they quote the disk micron size at. You must be tired of being wrong constantly. You try hard though, that's a plus.
So it is that efficient because they said so without measuring it using paricle counting lab equipment? Please pull up the reference test spec they tested the micro disc to.
Yeah, a filter "can be any efficiency", and what it tests out to be is determined by the accuracy of the test equipment, like I've mentioned before.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Microgreen and Trasko are the only ones I know of that can replace a full flow filter directly, and offer finer filtration. Car filter size. I don't know about the Trasko. I wish some others would have had experience with them and shared it.
What are the filtration specs for the MicroGreen filter?
Per the Fram paper, it can't be any better than beta 75 (98.7%) at any micron level. Anything measured above that doesn't make sense and should be ignored.
Wrong yet again, only on the specific multi pass test procedure. A filter can be any efficiency. The MG is 100% @ 2 microns for example as that's what they quote the disk micron size at. You must be tired of being wrong constantly. You try hard though, that's a plus.
So it is that efficient because they said so without measuring it using paricle counting lab equipment? Please pull up the reference test spec they tested the micro disc to.
Yeah, a filter "can be any efficiency", and what it tests out to be is determined by the accuracy of the test equipment, like I've mentioned before.
No particle counter needed. The mesh is assumed correct according to manufacturing, and what they say. You can't say they are wrong because you don't like it. Like a screen mesh, a go, no go filter. Nothing more complicated. Eventually the last larger than 2 micron particle is caught, since the number of particles is finite, and the efficiency is 100% @ 2 microns. % @ microns has no time duration. Even in a car, according to Motorking, Fram, there is about 1 gram "dirt" added per 1000 miles, so the real world efficiency may not be 100%, but essentially 100%. In a technical sense, you know a 2 micron filter filters everything except 2 microns and smaller. That was the context here. So what is the arguing about.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
No particle counter needed. The mesh is assumed correct according to manufacturing, and what they say. You can't say they are wrong because you don't like it. Like a screen mesh, a go, no go filter. Nothing more complicated. Eventually the last larger than 2 micron particle is caught, since the number of particles is finite, and the efficiency is 100% @ 2 microns. % @ microns has no time duration. Even in a car, according to Motorking, Fram, there is about 1 gram "dirt" added per 1000 miles, so the real world efficiency may not be 100%, but essentially 100%. In a technical sense, you know a 2 micron filter filters everything except 2 microns and smaller. That was the context here. So what is the arguing about.
What microGreen actually says is:
Quote:
The microfilter also features a high pore volume with 2-5 micron-size pore openings. This enables the capture of a large amount of these small particles without clogging the filter, resulting in cleaner, longer lasting oil and an extended filter life.
So it does not capture 100% of 2-micron particles. In fact, based on that statement you really have no idea how many particles it does capture.
No particle counter needed. The mesh is assumed correct according to manufacturing, and what they say. You can't say they are wrong because you don't like it. Like a screen mesh, a go, no go filter. Nothing more complicated. Eventually the last larger than 2 micron particle is caught, since the number of particles is finite, and the efficiency is 100% @ 2 microns. % @ microns has no time duration. Even in a car, according to Motorking, Fram, there is about 1 gram "dirt" added per 1000 miles, so the real world efficiency may not be 100%, but essentially 100%. In a technical sense, you know a 2 micron filter filters everything except 2 microns and smaller. That was the context here. So what is the arguing about.
What microGreen actually says is:
Quote:
The microfilter also features a high pore volume with 2-5 micron-size pore openings. This enables the capture of a large amount of these small particles without clogging the filter, resulting in cleaner, longer lasting oil and an extended filter life.
So it does not capture 100% of 2-micron particles. In fact, based on that statement you really have no idea how many particles it does capture.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
No particle counter needed. The mesh is assumed correct according to manufacturing, and what they say. You can't say they are wrong because you don't like it. Like a screen mesh, a go, no go filter. Nothing more complicated. Eventually the last larger than 2 micron particle is caught, since the number of particles is finite, and the efficiency is 100% @ 2 microns.
Assumed correct because they say so? ... that's great technical data backup info there.
Someone (at least the designer/manufacturer making the claim) must have tested the filtration level using particle counters ... or maybe those super accurate particle counting Fairies were employed to figure it out.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
In a technical sense, you know a 2 micron filter filters everything except 2 microns and smaller. That was the context here. So what is the arguing about.
How do I know ... because someone said so? If someone said their oil filter tested at 99.5% at >20 microns per ISO 4548-12 you would quote the "Fram paper" and say it's nonsense because measuring anything above 98.7% efficiency (beta 75) is meaningless. Yet you tout the efficiency of a micro disc with no test standard to show that it's actually true. Not arguing, just turning the table a bit to give you some of your own perspective to maybe open your eyes a bit more.
No particle counter needed. The mesh is assumed correct according to manufacturing, and what they say. You can't say they are wrong because you don't like it. Like a screen mesh, a go, no go filter. Nothing more complicated. Eventually the last larger than 2 micron particle is caught, since the number of particles is finite, and the efficiency is 100% @ 2 microns.
Assumed correct because they say so? ... that's great technical data backup info there.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
In a technical sense, you know a 2 micron filter filters everything except 2 microns and smaller. That was the context here. So what is the arguing about.
How do I know ... because someone said so? If someone said their oil filter tested at 99.5% at >20 microns per ISO 4548-12 you would quote the "Fram paper" and say it's nonsense because measuring anything above 98.7% efficiency (beta 75) is meaningless. Yet you tout the efficiency of a micro disc with no test standard to show that it's actually true. Not arguing, just turning the table a bit to give you some of your own perspective to maybe open your eyes a bit more.
Multi pass test uses standard procedures and test dust. Fram says 98.67% is the limit because the particles are too few to have accurate data any higher than that. Sounds reasonable as most say 99% which is the same thing to two figures. Fram's Ultra could probably say 98.67% @ 18, less than 20, and be the winner.
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
In reality patents mean nothing as I'm quite sure you know. They are granted for novelty, not efficacy. You can have a novel and patented invention that does absolutely nothing, as I saw happen more than once.
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
In reality patents mean nothing as I'm quite sure you know. They are granted for novelty, not efficacy. You can have a novel and patented invention that does absolutely nothing, as I saw happen more than once.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Multi pass test uses standard procedures and test dust.
Yes it does, and to add, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test is an industry standard that was developed by an International testing organization, and it's recognized world wide. The test is actually quite involved and requires a pretty complex test rig to perform. You can buy a "turn key" test rig for around $250K.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says 98.67% is the limit because the particles are too few to have accurate data any higher than that. Sounds reasonable as most say 99% which is the same thing to two figures. Fram's Ultra could probably say 98.67% @ 18, less than 20, and be the winner.
If Fram is saying that, then how can you believe without any test data (or even with test data because of the Fram bulletin) that someone saying their micro disc filters are 100% at 2u? If you believe what Fram says, no filter maker/tester in the world can claim theirs filters particles above beta 75 because of insignificant test data. So MG just "says" it's so, and you believe them. But if a filter maker says their filter is 99.5 or 99.9% efficient >20 microns you don't believe it because of a 17 year old bulletin Fram wrote - hummm. Seems you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
If you're so confident that Fram's 17 year old bulletin still applies, it has to apply to every filter, and anyone advertising "100% efficiency" at any particle size is false advertising because supposedly the test data can't support such a claim. My position is that's not actually the case, and you must think that too if you somehow believe a micro disc is 100% at 2u just because a company "says so".
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
Sure a size spec has to be proven ... it's called manufacturing to spec/drawing and then QA to ensure it's built & performs correctly. But in the case of the 2u disc, it should be tested to some recognized test spec to validate the claimed performance spec. You can bet someone measured some 16" wheels (personally I like 19" wheels) that were manufactured to ensure they met the drawing (so tires fit correctly and safely), and also that they were tested for strength, etc to ensure they were meeting other design specs.
And I don't think people reading this stuff are bored at all, they probably like to read some good technical debates once and awhile.
Multi pass test uses standard procedures and test dust.
Yes it does, and to add, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test is an industry standard that was developed by an International testing organization, and it's recognized world wide. The test is actually quite involved and requires a pretty complex test rig to perform. You can buy a "turn key" test rig for around $250K.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says 98.67% is the limit because the particles are too few to have accurate data any higher than that. Sounds reasonable as most say 99% which is the same thing to two figures. Fram's Ultra could probably say 98.67% @ 18, less than 20, and be the winner.
If Fram is saying that, then how can you believe without any test data (or even with test data because of the Fram bulletin) that someone saying their micro disc filters are 100% at 2u? If you believe what Fram says, no filter maker/tester in the world can claim theirs filters particles above beta 75 because of insignificant test data. So MG just "says" it's so, and you believe them. But if a filter maker says their filter is 99.5 or 99.9% efficient >20 microns you don't believe it because of a 17 year old bulletin Fram wrote - hummm. Seems you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
If you're so confident that Fram's 17 year old bulletin still applies, it has to apply to every filter, and anyone advertising "100% efficiency" at any particle size is false advertising because supposedly the test data can't support such a claim. My position is that's not actually the case, and you must think that too if you somehow believe a micro disc is 100% at 2u just because a company "says so".
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
Sure a size spec has to be proven ... it's called manufacturing to spec/drawing and then QA to ensure it's built & performs correctly. But in the case of the 2u disc, it should be tested to some recognized test spec to validate the claimed performance spec. You can bet someone measured some 16" wheels (personally I like 19" wheels) that were manufactured to ensure they met the drawing (so tires fit correctly and safely), and also that they were tested for strength, etc to ensure they were meeting other design specs.
And I don't think people reading this stuff are bored at all, they probably like to read some good technical debates once and awhile.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Multi pass test uses standard procedures and test dust.
Yes it does, and to add, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test is an industry standard that was developed by an International testing organization, and it's recognized world wide. The test is actually quite involved and requires a pretty complex test rig to perform. You can buy a "turn key" test rig for around $250K.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says 98.67% is the limit because the particles are too few to have accurate data any higher than that. Sounds reasonable as most say 99% which is the same thing to two figures. Fram's Ultra could probably say 98.67% @ 18, less than 20, and be the winner.
If Fram is saying that, then how can you believe without any test data (or even with test data because of the Fram bulletin) that someone saying their micro disc filters are 100% at 2u? If you believe what Fram says, no filter maker/tester in the world can claim theirs filters particles above beta 75 because of insignificant test data. So MG just "says" it's so, and you believe them. But if a filter maker says their filter is 99.5 or 99.9% efficient >20 microns you don't believe it because of a 17 year old bulletin Fram wrote - hummm. Seems you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
If you're so confident that Fram's 17 year old bulletin still applies, it has to apply to every filter, and anyone advertising "100% efficiency" at any particle size is false advertising because supposedly the test data can't support such a claim. My position is that's not actually the case, and you must think that too if you somehow believe a micro disc is 100% at 2u just because a company "says so".
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
Sure a size spec has to be proven ... it's called manufacturing to spec/drawing and then QA to ensure it's built & performs correctly. But in the case of the 2u disc, it should be tested to some recognized test spec to validate the claimed performance spec. You can bet someone measured some 16" wheels (personally I like 19" wheels) that were manufactured to ensure they met the drawing (so tires fit correctly and safely), and also that they were tested for strength, etc to ensure they were meeting other design specs.
And I don't think people reading this stuff are bored at all, they probably like to read some good technical debates once and awhile.
OMG
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Multi pass test uses standard procedures and test dust.
Yes it does, and to add, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test is an industry standard that was developed by an International testing organization, and it's recognized world wide. The test is actually quite involved and requires a pretty complex test rig to perform. You can buy a "turn key" test rig for around $250K.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says 98.67% is the limit because the particles are too few to have accurate data any higher than that. Sounds reasonable as most say 99% which is the same thing to two figures. Fram's Ultra could probably say 98.67% @ 18, less than 20, and be the winner.
If Fram is saying that, then how can you believe without any test data (or even with test data because of the Fram bulletin) that someone saying their micro disc filters are 100% at 2u? If you believe what Fram says, no filter maker/tester in the world can claim theirs filters particles above beta 75 because of insignificant test data. So MG just "says" it's so, and you believe them. But if a filter maker says their filter is 99.5 or 99.9% efficient >20 microns you don't believe it because of a 17 year old bulletin Fram wrote - hummm. Seems you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
If you're so confident that Fram's 17 year old bulletin still applies, it has to apply to every filter, and anyone advertising "100% efficiency" at any particle size is false advertising because supposedly the test data can't support such a claim. My position is that's not actually the case, and you must think that too if you somehow believe a micro disc is 100% at 2u just because a company "says so".
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
Sure a size spec has to be proven ... it's called manufacturing to spec/drawing and then QA to ensure it's built & performs correctly. But in the case of the 2u disc, it should be tested to some recognized test spec to validate the claimed performance spec. You can bet someone measured some 16" wheels (personally I like 19" wheels) that were manufactured to ensure they met the drawing (so tires fit correctly and safely), and also that they were tested for strength, etc to ensure they were meeting other design specs.
And I don't think people reading this stuff are bored at all, they probably like to read some good technical debates once and awhile.
OMG
You kidding Me
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Multi pass test uses standard procedures and test dust.
Yes it does, and to add, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test is an industry standard that was developed by an International testing organization, and it's recognized world wide. The test is actually quite involved and requires a pretty complex test rig to perform. You can buy a "turn key" test rig for around $250K.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says 98.67% is the limit because the particles are too few to have accurate data any higher than that. Sounds reasonable as most say 99% which is the same thing to two figures. Fram's Ultra could probably say 98.67% @ 18, less than 20, and be the winner.
If Fram is saying that, then how can you believe without any test data (or even with test data because of the Fram bulletin) that someone saying their micro disc filters are 100% at 2u? If you believe what Fram says, no filter maker/tester in the world can claim theirs filters particles above beta 75 because of insignificant test data. So MG just "says" it's so, and you believe them. But if a filter maker says their filter is 99.5 or 99.9% efficient >20 microns you don't believe it because of a 17 year old bulletin Fram wrote - hummm. Seems you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
If you're so confident that Fram's 17 year old bulletin still applies, it has to apply to every filter, and anyone advertising "100% efficiency" at any particle size is false advertising because supposedly the test data can't support such a claim. My position is that's not actually the case, and you must think that too if you somehow believe a micro disc is 100% at 2u just because a company "says so".
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
Sure a size spec has to be proven ... it's called manufacturing to spec/drawing and then QA to ensure it's built & performs correctly. But in the case of the 2u disc, it should be tested to some recognized test spec to validate the claimed performance spec. You can bet someone measured some 16" wheels (personally I like 19" wheels) that were manufactured to ensure they met the drawing (so tires fit correctly and safely), and also that they were tested for strength, etc to ensure they were meeting other design specs.
And I don't think people reading this stuff are bored at all, they probably like to read some good technical debates once and awhile.
Very good post ZeeOSix. What you are saying makes perfect sense.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Multi pass test uses standard procedures and test dust.
Yes it does, and to add, the ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test is an industry standard that was developed by an International testing organization, and it's recognized world wide. The test is actually quite involved and requires a pretty complex test rig to perform. You can buy a "turn key" test rig for around $250K.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Fram says 98.67% is the limit because the particles are too few to have accurate data any higher than that. Sounds reasonable as most say 99% which is the same thing to two figures. Fram's Ultra could probably say 98.67% @ 18, less than 20, and be the winner.
If Fram is saying that, then how can you believe without any test data (or even with test data because of the Fram bulletin) that someone saying their micro disc filters are 100% at 2u? If you believe what Fram says, no filter maker/tester in the world can claim theirs filters particles above beta 75 because of insignificant test data. So MG just "says" it's so, and you believe them. But if a filter maker says their filter is 99.5 or 99.9% efficient >20 microns you don't believe it because of a 17 year old bulletin Fram wrote - hummm. Seems you're talking out both sides of your mouth.
If you're so confident that Fram's 17 year old bulletin still applies, it has to apply to every filter, and anyone advertising "100% efficiency" at any particle size is false advertising because supposedly the test data can't support such a claim. My position is that's not actually the case, and you must think that too if you somehow believe a micro disc is 100% at 2u just because a company "says so".
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
A size spec doesn't have to be proven, they say the disk has 2 or whatever pores, so that's how it's made. If they tell you your engine has three piston rings, you are going to say no, prove it? If they say your wheel are 16 inches do you go measure to prove it? If MG says 2 micron pores I believe them. They have a patent on it.
My eyes are opened fine, but others are bored with the arguing I'm sure. Go ahead and win now.
Sure a size spec has to be proven ... it's called manufacturing to spec/drawing and then QA to ensure it's built & performs correctly. But in the case of the 2u disc, it should be tested to some recognized test spec to validate the claimed performance spec. You can bet someone measured some 16" wheels (personally I like 19" wheels) that were manufactured to ensure they met the drawing (so tires fit correctly and safely), and also that they were tested for strength, etc to ensure they were meeting other design specs.
And I don't think people reading this stuff are bored at all, they probably like to read some good technical debates once and awhile.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
... apparently too much for your one-way viewpoint.
Yeah, I know.
People really shouldn't make contradictory posts, especially not within the same thread, lol (and I'm not referring to you).
Yeah, I know.
- Status
Similar threads
