Here’s the latest filter comparison. This channel is awesome.
Comparatively, meaning it makes a bit more dP vs flow compared to the others tested. But with a positive displacement oil pump it still flows the same oil volume as long as the pump isn't in relief.Amsoil filters the best but flows the worst.
Yeah I understand that. I just thought the comparison was a little ridiculous, then the PF comment came out, which made things more rediculous. It’s entertaining to watch but the only kind of (sort of) meaningful thing they did was the filtration test in my opinion.Comparatively, meaning it makes a bit more dP vs flow compared to the others tested. But with a positive displacement oil pump it still flows the same oil volume as long as the pump isn't in relief.
There attempting to generate youtube clicks, which is why I have not clicked on the link.Therefore I don't understand what they are really doing with this testing
They tested each filter similarly so it was repeatable & fair as possible. We should be cautious yes but they've put more money into their testing equipment so maybe they'll keep getting better at their testing. We should commend them for trying to get through the marketing hype of these companies. It's fun data!In their previous video they made the comment:
"We're by no means are implying we're conducting and ISO 4548 test here, those tests would require million dollar equipment, a lab we just don't have. But we want to make sure we incorporate best practices to make this testing as fair and repeatable as possible."
Therefore I don't understand what they are really doing with this testing and how the results can be credible. I also don't understand the need to be loud, fast and the attempts at entertainment.
I say check the M+H Spec Sheet and do the logical math. BR tested the Boss PLB10241. The Spec Sheet shown below says its ISO 4548-12 efficiency is 99% >46u. How could a filter with that kind of official ISO efficiency come in better in the PC testing than filters rated much higher in ISO efficiency without something weird going on? The Boss that Ascent tested (PLB22500) came in around 99% @ 30u in official ISO 4548-12 testing.That's great that this Purolator Boss is in third place, out of twelve, for filtering. What do the puro disliker's say now... crickets.
I'm sure the ISO 4406 particle count data they get shows the whole particle size spectrum, but they choose not to show the bottom three ranges of the ISO 4406 test data (4u, 6u and 14u). I think they should at least show the 14 micron and above ranges. If you go watch their other videos, they use that 10u absolute filter to clean-up the dust loaded test oil so they can reuse it because it's expensive. So maybe that's why they only show the 21u and above PC data.It's also odd that they're not measuring particles under 21 micron, when any lab would have this capability.
Is this variation possible across the four filters?I'm sure the ISO 4406 particle count data they get shows the whole particle size spectrum, but they choose not to show the bottom three ranges of the ISO 4406 test data (4u, 6u and 14u). I think they should at least show the 14 micron and above ranges. If you go watch their other videos, they use that 10u absolute filter to clean-up the dust loaded test oil so they can reuse it because it's expensive. So maybe that's why they only show the 21u and above PC data.
BTW, for those who don't know, the particle count data below means that there is 2,447 particles per mL that are 4u and larger, which also includes all the particles above 4u shown in the table. So the number of particles between 4u and 6u is 2,447-1,032 = 1,415/mL.
View attachment 195245
Sure, it all depends on the efficiency of the filter in that range of particles. Here's Ascents ISO 4548-12 test data. If you look at the filter's efficiency between 21 and 38 microns (range shown by the red lines), and passed 4.4 grams of test dust through each filter, I'd expect them to show a resulting particle count as follows from best to worse as follows.Is this variation possible across the four filters?
I knew someone would bite..HA! J/K. It's PBL22500 not PLB22500 LOL. I'd like to see the Puro spec sheet for PBL22500. So, I've put in a request for those sheets. I'm a little surprised you've not put in this filters spec sheet request since that Ascent test is your most referenced bookmark LOL. I'm going to speculate a little bit & say that the spec sheet for that filter might show worse efficiencies than the Ascent test results. I'll post up when I get them back for us to discuss further.I say check the M+H Spec Sheet and do the logical math. BR tested the Boss PLB10241. The Spec Sheet shown below says its ISO 4548-12 efficiency is 99% >46u. How could a filter with that kind of official ISO efficiency come in better in the PC testing than filters rated much higher in ISO efficiency without something weird going on? The Boss that Ascent tested (PLB22500) came in around 99% @ 30u in official ISO 4548-12 testing.
View attachment 195243
View attachment 195244
That's all ya got? I'll leave the Spec Sheets up to you since you mention them so often. Of course I had to point it out, because its tech data that doesn't correlate with BR testing.It's PBL22500 not PLB22500 LOL.
I'm posting them in a few I just got them...That was quick!That's all ya got? I'll leave the Spec Sheets up to you since you mention them so often. Of course I had to point it out, because its tech data that doesn't correlate with BR testing.
The difference could be due to filter size, and/or test parameters used within the ISO 4548-12 test procedure.Ascent Filtration test shows better efficiency than the Purolator spec sheet. Ascent shows 99%@34um while the spec sheet shows 99%@46um. Maybe these Purolator filters are better than advertised.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...0-classic-l22500-specification-sheets.377503/
But those results are using the exact same filter & size. I'd say it's similar to what you've stated about the Fram testing better in Ascent's test than what Fram advertises. And you could be right about them just simulating a round about efficiency that errors on the side of caution. Not so bad after all eh? Do I hear crickets again...The difference could be due to filter size, and/or test parameters used within the ISO 4548-12 test procedure.
I still think that many of the M+H Spec Sheets are based on computer modeling to determine efficiency for different models & sizes. No way they are going to test 100s of different filter models.