MC FL-500S vs BOSS 22500

[WellOiled]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I have come to the conclusion they are all shady about the efficiency % except Champ who uses the 98.7% efficiency point, the statistical limit of the test.

From the Fram paper that was published in 2003 you get this idea from.

"End-users should also be wary of numbers games – they can also be played
with B ratios. B ratios higher than 75 indicate little additional improvement in
filtering efficiency. Furthermore, the test procedure to develop the B ratio is valid only for B value up to 75. For B ratios of 75 and higher, there are not
enough particles in downstream liquid samples to make counting them
statistically significant."

The accuracy of the test depends on the test methods and equipment. The test methods and equipment has improved since 2003, so accurately measuring a beta ratio better than 75 is most likely possible today. Feetgaurd and others who make very high efficiency filters routinely show filters with beta ratios measured well above 75.

The Fram bulletin says 98.67% is the limit due to statistical limit, not test equipment limit. This is still valid. So if all cos. would put the micron value at 98.67% the confusion would lessen. Fram maybe is 18 microns, Boss may be 22 and so on. The way the are doing it now is so their box is the one people buy. People will buy 99 over 98.7. Some probably round 98.7 to 99 to put on the boxes.
The one that is old, unverified, and wrongly used is the Amsoil chart.

I read the report and the report was written in 2003. Here is the quote: "For B ratios of 75 and higher, there are not
enough particles in downstream liquid samples to make counting them statistically significant." This would have been related to the ability of the particle counters available in 2003. Advances in technology since 2003 should improve upon the statistical precision of measuring particle counts.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I have come to the conclusion they are all shady about the efficiency % except Champ who uses the 98.7% efficiency point, the statistical limit of the test.

From the Fram paper that was published in 2003 you get this idea from.

"End-users should also be wary of numbers games – they can also be played
with B ratios. B ratios higher than 75 indicate little additional improvement in
filtering efficiency. Furthermore, the test procedure to develop the B ratio is valid only for B value up to 75. For B ratios of 75 and higher, there are not
enough particles in downstream liquid samples to make counting them
statistically significant."

The accuracy of the test depends on the test methods and equipment. The test methods and equipment has improved since 2003, so accurately measuring a beta ratio better than 75 is most likely possible today. Feetgaurd and others who make very high efficiency filters routinely show filters with beta ratios measured well above 75.

The Fram bulletin says 98.67% is the limit due to statistical limit, not test equipment limit. This is still valid. So if all cos. would put the micron value at 98.67% the confusion would lessen. Fram maybe is 18 microns, Boss may be 22 and so on. The way the are doing it now is so their box is the one people buy. People will buy 99 over 98.7. Some probably round 98.7 to 99 to put on the boxes.
The one that is old, unverified, and wrongly used is the Amsoil chart.

I read the report and the report was written in 2003. Here is the quote: "For B ratios of 75 and higher, there are not
enough particles in downstream liquid samples to make counting them statistically significant." This would have been related to the ability of the particle counters available in 2003. Advances in technology since 2003 should improve upon the statistical precision of measuring particle counts.


Not at all what they say. There aren't enough particles to count. They can count them, there aren't enough of them. It does not say they can't count them. It's empty meaningless data, extrapolating above 98.67%. It's all about marketing for sales. Champ labs gives an efficiency at 98.7% which is actual data.

 

[WellOiled]

Nothing a little integration time or averaging can’t solve.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Not at all what they say. There aren't enough particles to count. They can count them, there aren't enough of them. It does not say they can't count them. It's empty meaningless data, extrapolating above 98.67%. It's all about marketing for sales. Champ labs gives an efficiency at 98.7% which is actual data.

If lab testing equipment can count particle size and numbers accurately, then it's an accurate measurement. If the particle counter can't count accurately, then the data is more variant and questionable. So as said earlier, it's all about how accurate the lab test methods and equipment are. Basic laboratory testing stuff.

From doing some on-line searching, looks like particle counters get slightly less accurate as the particle size decreases - that's based on 2004 testing measurement data - equipment could be better today. They seem to be very accurate at 30u and greater, and have more measurement deviation as the particle size goes down from around 30u or so.

I do agree that oil filter efficiency of 98.7% (beta ratio 75) and above (at any measured particle size) is "hair splitting" and won't make much difference. Personally, I think any efficiency at or better than 95% @ 20 microns should be good engine protection.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Not at all what they say. There aren't enough particles to count. They can count them, there aren't enough of them. It does not say they can't count them. It's empty meaningless data, extrapolating above 98.67%. It's all about marketing for sales. Champ labs gives an efficiency at 98.7% which is actual data.

If lab testing equipment can count particle size and numbers accurately, then it's an accurate measurement. If the particle counter can't count accurately, then the data is more variant and questionable. So as said earlier, it's all about how accurate the lab test methods and equipment are. Basic laboratory testing stuff.

From doing some on-line searching, looks like particle counters get slightly less accurate as the particle size decreases - that's based on 2004 testing measurement data - equipment could be better today. They seem to be very accurate at 30u and greater, and have more measurement deviation as the particle size goes down from around 30u or so.

I do agree that oil filter efficiency of 98.7% (beta ratio 75) and above (at any measured particle size) is "hair splitting" and won't make much difference. Personally, I think any efficiency at or better than 95% @ 20 microns should be good engine protection.


Nope, wrong as fur on a duck. There are not enough particles to count. They can count them. No where are they talking about counters, you want to add it in, but give up on it. If new counters count more 20 micron particles than the old, then all the old data is out the window every time a new counter arrives at the shop.
If they put 98.7% on a box and a box next to it says 99%, many people will buy the 99%, so they have to play the game. People see the 99 they don't know what the other number means. Purolator capitalized on this by just putting 99%.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

I'm going to make this easy for everyone; Is the Purolator Boss a good filter to use?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Nope, wrong as fur on a duck. There are not enough particles to count. They can count them. No where are they talking about counters, you want to add it in, but give up on it. If new counters count more 20 micron particles than the old, then all the old data is out the window every time a new counter arrives at the shop.

I can understand this kind of response from someone who's never worked in a testing lab environment. Ever think "new" particle counters have shown up since 2003?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
If they put 98.7% on a box and a box next to it says 99%, many people will buy the 99%, so they have to play the game. People see the 99 they don't know what the other number means. Purolator capitalized on this by just putting 99%.

Actually Purolator use to show 99.9% on their boxes and website with the old line of filters. Guess those test engineers were smoking something in the lab, eh?

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
...
The one that is old, unverified, and wrongly used is the Amsoil chart.


Care to elaborate or point me to prior discussion?

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Nope, wrong as fur on a duck. There are not enough particles to count. They can count them. No where are they talking about counters, you want to add it in, but give up on it. If new counters count more 20 micron particles than the old, then all the old data is out the window every time a new counter arrives at the shop.

I can understand this kind of response from someone who's never worked in a testing lab environment. Ever think "new" particle counters have shown up since 2003?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
If they put 98.7% on a box and a box next to it says 99%, many people will buy the 99%, so they have to play the game. People see the 99 they don't know what the other number means. Purolator capitalized on this by just putting 99%.

Actually Purolator use to show 99.9% on their boxes and website with the old line of filters. Guess those test engineers were smoking something in the lab, eh?

I have a pretty good resume as far as a world renowned research lab goes. Is that the discussion, or is it about the fact 98.67% is the maximum efficiency, supported by relevant, actual data, according to Fram.
Test engineers don't have to be present to write 99.9% on boxes. It only takes a marketer extrapolating data from a graph.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
...
The one that is old, unverified, and wrongly used is the Amsoil chart.


Care to elaborate or point me to prior discussion?


You must have seen the Amsoil graph from 2011 by now? The graph with numbers typed in, with no further evidence? It's taken on a life of it's own, yet is unverified.
You also must have seen where a Toyota copy filter beats the Fram Ultra in particle removal in use, from a stated reliable test lab?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You must have seen the Amsoil graph from 2011 by now? The graph with numbers typed in, with no further evidence? It's taken on a life of it's own, yet is unverified.

The Amsoil graph references ISO 4548-12 on the graph. That means the data shown on the graph was obtained from ISO 4548-12 testing of those filters. I'm sure some people will think they just wrote it on the graph and lied, just like efficiency numbers printed on filter boxes.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You also must have seen where a Toyota copy filter beats the Fram Ultra in particle removal in use, from a stated reliable test lab?

There was also someone here who sent in oil samples for a cleanliness code measurement. One sample was new oil from the bottle, and the other sample was the same oil after being ran in a motorcycle with a wet clutch and using an Ultra filter. The used oil came back cleaner than the new oil.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Man, y'all are taking this oil filter thread WAY TOO SERIOUS! It's like you're trying to see whom has the most brain cells to "FLEX", like in a body building contest.
I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar, but I know that every oil filter that I have installed on an engine has never failed me yet. If y'all know all of this data about oil filters, then which brand of oil filter is GOOD ENOUGH for you to use? How can you even use an oil filter and think about all of this "BRAIN CELL FLEXING" data and not think it's good enough for your engine?
I will ask again....Is the PUROLATOR BOSS a good choice to use on an engine? If I were to go buy one and install it on my engine, would you "FLEX" your data at me as to why I shouldn't have used said filter?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Nope, wrong as fur on a duck. There are not enough particles to count. They can count them. No where are they talking about counters, you want to add it in, but give up on it. If new counters count more 20 micron particles than the old, then all the old data is out the window every time a new counter arrives at the shop.

I can understand this kind of response from someone who's never worked in a testing lab environment. Ever think "new" particle counters have shown up since 2003?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
If they put 98.7% on a box and a box next to it says 99%, many people will buy the 99%, so they have to play the game. People see the 99 they don't know what the other number means. Purolator capitalized on this by just putting 99%.

Actually Purolator use to show 99.9% on their boxes and website with the old line of filters. Guess those test engineers were smoking something in the lab, eh?

I have a pretty good resume as far as a world renowned research lab goes. Is that the discussion, or is it about the fact 98.67% is the maximum efficiency, supported by relevant, actual data, according to Fram.
Test engineers don't have to be present to write 99.9% on boxes. It only takes a marketer extrapolating data from a graph.


World renowned, like the SWRI? Again, that Fram article was from 2003. The article says nothing about "extrapolating" data. It eludes to beta ratio data not being "statistically significant" due to the small numbers of particles downstream after the filter. If a particle counter can't accurately count a small number of particles in cleaned liquid then that's what they are talking about. But again, that article was 2003, and I'd bet particle counters have become better in the last 14+ years in terms of measurement accuracy. How accurate the measurement is at high beta ratios is directly dependent on the particle counters performance and accuracy.

I'd question a claim of 99.9% efficiency like Purolator use to do, but wouldn't necessarily question a claim of 99% efficient these days if the filters are being tested per ISO 4548-12 with modern equipment. BTW, ISO 4548-12 is very stringent on making sure everything is calibrated, including the particle counter per ISO 11171, and the on-line particle dilution system per ISO 11943. That's right out of ISO 4548-12.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Man, y'all are taking this oil filter thread WAY TOO SERIOUS! It's like you're trying to see whom has the most brain cells to "FLEX", like in a body building contest.
I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar, but I know that every oil filter that I have installed on an engine has never failed me yet. If y'all know all of this data about oil filters, then which brand of oil filter is GOOD ENOUGH for you to use? How can you even use an oil filter and think about all of this "BRAIN CELL FLEXING" data and not think it's good enough for your engine?
I will ask again....Is the PUROLATOR BOSS a good choice to use on an engine? If I were to go buy one and install it on my engine, would you "FLEX" your data at me as to why I shouldn't have used said filter?


Just don't take all this as "bickering" ... LoL.

Like I said before BOF, I think any filter that's 95% efficient at 20 microns is good enough is you want good filter efficiency. As far as the BOSS, per Purolator it's rated at 99% at 40 microns. My guess is that would come out to around 70~80% efficient at 20 microns. The regular now blue Purolator has better efficiency at 99% at 20 microns basically like the old yellow cans where. The blue Purolator will be cheaper cost than the BOSS too.

 

[WellOiled]

The original question was: “Are the BOSS filters better at filtration and quality than the FL500S? Its around $12 compared to $8 for the motorcraft.”

With respect to filtration efficiency, Motorcraft trumps the Boss.

With respect to capacity and service duration, Boss trumps Motorcraft.

With respect to cost, Motorcraft is cheaper.

With respect to quality, we have not seen a lot of Boss cut & posts. Since the media is reinforced I would give the nod to the Boss. On the other hand we have seen less than good ADBVs.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Man, y'all are taking this oil filter thread WAY TOO SERIOUS! It's like you're trying to see whom has the most brain cells to "FLEX", like in a body building contest.
I'm not the smartest cookie in the jar, but I know that every oil filter that I have installed on an engine has never failed me yet. If y'all know all of this data about oil filters, then which brand of oil filter is GOOD ENOUGH for you to use? How can you even use an oil filter and think about all of this "BRAIN CELL FLEXING" data and not think it's good enough for your engine?
I will ask again....Is the PUROLATOR BOSS a good choice to use on an engine? If I were to go buy one and install it on my engine, would you "FLEX" your data at me as to why I shouldn't have used said filter?


Just don't take all this as "bickering" ... LoL.

Like I said before BOF, I think any filter that's 95% efficient at 20 microns is good enough is you want good filter efficiency. As far as the BOSS, per Purolator it's rated at 99% at 40 microns. My guess is that would come out to around 70~80% efficient at 20 microns. The regular now blue Purolator has better efficiency at 99% at 20 microns basically like the old yellow cans where. The blue Purolator will be cheaper cost than the BOSS too.

That was a good one Z06! That put a HUGE smile on my face!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
That was a good one Z06! That put a HUGE smile on my face!

That's good, hope you're doing well BOF.

 

[jongies3]

Boss because it wont tear. Seem like good filters if you can get around the fact the ADBV likes to get cut on the inlet holes. The filter in your Ford sits at a vertical angle so that's probably irrelevant. Just make sure to inspect the center tube louvers and make sure they are open.

I'd go for an Ultra or TG myself, personally. More efficient and much higher quality.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
But again, that article was 2003, and I'd bet particle counters have become better in the last 14+ years in terms of measurement accuracy. How accurate the measurement is at high beta ratios is directly dependent on the particle counters performance and accuracy.

I haven't followed this debate too terribly closely, but how much of this might be just because of the statistical analysis conducted?

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
...
The one that is old, unverified, and wrongly used is the Amsoil chart.


Care to elaborate or point me to prior discussion?


You must have seen the Amsoil graph from 2011 by now? The graph with numbers typed in, with no further evidence? It’s taken on a life of it’s own, yet is unverified.


I have, it comes from Amsoil’s oil filter Data Bulletin. It would be nice to see additional details but it does say:

Average Filter Efficiency @ 20 Microns (ISO 4548-12)
February 2011 Test Results

Still, things may have changed since 2011 and without knowing how many filters were tested (IE did they test 1 or 20 samples) it is hard to know how representative the test might be.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You also must have seen where a Toyota copy filter beats the Fram Ultra in particle removal in use, from a stated reliable test lab?


That I have not seen.