is fram's extra guard 95% efficiency worrysome? or is it fine for low OCI?
- Thread starter apollo18
- Start date
There's a good interview with a filtration engineer on Lubrication Explained. He explains that with some oil filters, efficiency actually increases with dirt loading, but that it depends on the filter and media design.
The only ISO test I've seen that shows the effect of dirt loading on efficiency is the Ascent test, and I think they only showed the result for the AC Delco filter with cellulose media. I'd be interested to see this type of data for some other filters with different types of media.
If you go by the published numbers it might seem good.
The reality seems to be a little different though
If electric is on the horizon there might be a market for filters claiming to extend the life of your ICE vehicle.
I'm curious what you believe to be so bad about the Fram filters. Even the cheapest oil filters these days are pretty decent. I'd buy the $2 SuperTech and Champs and sleep well at night if my Jeep wasn't temperamental about having a silicone ADBV. I've cut open several Fram Extra Guards, and several Supertechs and they all looked good. The only issues I saw were actually from torn Motorcrafts but that was a few years ago.
I'd say rarely the efficiency would increase with loading with an oil filter.
I'd have to go back and look at that thread, but I think it was mentioned they all lost some efficiency with loading. Some worse than others. Like I've mentioned before, if an oil filter has a high ISO 4548-12 efficiency, it will be much less prone to losing efficiency as it loads up and the dP increases. That stems from the way the ISO efficiency is determined, which is the average of the starting and finishing multi-pass efficiency data.
Start reading the Ascent test thread from this post.
Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?
Andrew, thank you very much for posting this. I hope this means you're feeling better. The Wix XP going longer before clogging is likely due to it letting so much through. Those results for the XP are very disappointing. It's no wonder they are shy to release the numbers.
bobistheoilguy.com
My point is that if a filter is always bypassing over 1% of the oil flow, it won't reach 99% efficiency for any particle size (so long as the particle is smaller than the gap the oil is leaking through). As an example, the WIX XP in the Ascent test was defective and its efficiency plateaued at under 90% efficiency.
Obviously if there is a leak in the filter somewhere, it's going to hurt the efficiency. But that's not a common thing to happen ... it's a defect in design and/or production. The WIX XP with the leaky bypass was probably a rare case ... or maybe not without testing many of them in random production lots to determine if it's a design or a production issue.
Agreed, and I doubt the Extraguard is fundamentally leaky. Though, it's so restrictive that the bypass valve might start opening by the end of the ISO test, depending on the chosen flow rate and how the dP limit is defined.
It might be that they just rate it at 95% for marketing reasons, so they can upsell the 99% efficient Ultra. Efficiency is probably more intuitive than micron ratings for the average consumer.
dnewton3
Staff member
Did you happen to catch that he was describing the effects of these efficiency concerns at a delta-P of "35psi; 50psi"? He describes this as a "very low differential pressure". (around 37:50 minute mark)
Ummmmm ... No "normal" oil filter for a typical light duty car or truck is going to get ANYWHERE NEAR that dP. The bypass would open way before any media loaded up to a dP of a couple of "atmospheric bar".
So that point he makes is NOT applicable to our daily lives; hence your point is not substantiated by the video information relative to this discussion. Yes; in some cases the media loading may result in improving the efficiency. But the conversation we're having is not the same as what we're talking about; it's an accurate but moot point because it doesn't apply to "normal" car engine filters.
Yes, his background is in industrial filters for hydraulics, turbines, heavy duty engines, etc. Most of the different media technologies discussed are the same as those used in automotive filters, maybe the "lower quality" filters he discusses that drop in efficiency over time are a lot more typical of automotive filters.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2016
- Messages
- 207
To put things into perspective, OE filters like Toyota, Mahle, Mann, etc are "only" ~50% efficient at 20 microns.
95% at 20 micron does not seem possible when filters that are 80% at 20 micron perform better.
I can think of some possibilities:
1) Fram tested with a pre-production filter
2) Fram tested with a non-defective filter. We see lot of OCODs don't seal the end caps properly.
3) Fram cheated in some other way.
95% at 20 micron actually doesn't upsell the Ultra that well. It already better than virtually all OE filter specs, and why would the consumer want to pay double for a mere extra 5% at 20 micron?
The BR testing methology is different, but there is a huge disparity between Ultra and OCOD. If the differences is only 5% at 20 micron there shouldn't be such a big difference. The OCOD performed roughly the same as Toyota, which is what? 50% at 20 micron?
If the ISO test was independently performed on the OCOD I doubt it would meet 95% at 20 micron.
Last edited:
The ISO 4848-12 end test point should be chosen to be below the bypass valve setting, like Andrew (Ascent) did in his testing. I think he picked 8 PSI of dP for all the filters he tested.
Fram always uses the statement "for particles greater than 20 microns" in their efficiency statements - that's the way it should be done. Were as, other filter companies will play the "99%" efficiency rating game to make it look like all their oil filters are 99% efficient to the people who don't realize that they also need an associated micron size to fully understand the efficiency rating.
Last edited:
Yes that’s the way the test says to report the results.
Where are you coming up with this data?
1) The oil filter models Fram references were most likely actual production filter that they used in an ISO 4548-12 test to determine the efficiency rating.
2) Wouldn't every company want to efficiency test a non-defective filter? Don't know what you're after making that statement.
3) Based on Ascents official ISO 4548-12 testing, it looks more like Fram was conservative in their efficiency claims. The Ultra actually tested better than Fram's claimed efficiency.
The BR testing on "efficiency" isn't anything like a real ISO 4548-12 test, and people need to keep that in mind. I've see discrepancies in their "efficiency" test "ranking" that makes me take it with a grain of salt. When their "efficiency" testing is way off in the weeds compared to a an official ISO 4548-12 test, guess which one I'm going to believe.
I bet it would if Ascent tested one. If you believe it wouldn't base on BR's testing, then you'd probably be wrong when an official ISO 4548-12 test was done.
Yes, the ISO 4548-12 test procedure says to report it that way ... but obviously some filter makers play the "99%" efficiency game instead.
I have an idea.
