MC FL-500S vs BOSS 22500

[goodtimes]

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?


There is bickering and then there is standing up for oneself against a person who can be somewhat of a bully. The Fram article from 2003 is clear, there aren't enough particles after 98.67% to be statistically relevant. According to them.

All I am doing is saying what they said, facts, and making the point if all the cos. would state at 98,7% and not round up or extrapolate, to get more sales from box advertising, we would have a better picture. Need more oil filter cut opens, less talking.

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... There is bickering and then there is standing up for oneself against a person who can be somewhat of a bully. ...

Who's being a bully? Who are you referring to? All I see is a discussion/debate about oil filter efficiencies.

 

[Linctex]

Let's all switch to Volkswagen's Type 1 "screen door" oil filters!

I'd like to know more about the BOSS - it sounds like it's durable, but not very efficient.

I think Fram Ultra and Amsoil/Donaldson are the winners for premium filtration.

I'm slowly reading through this particle count thread:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1493077

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: Linctex
Let's all switch to Volkswagen's Type 1 "screen door" oil filters!

I'd like to know more about the BOSS - it sounds like it's durable, but not very efficient.

I think Fram Ultra and Amsoil/Donaldson are the winners for premium filtration.

I'm slowly reading through this particle count thread:
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/1493077

I really don't know much about Amsoil/Donaldson oil filters, but I will say that the FRAM ULTRA is, IMO. the best oil filter currently on the market.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 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?

I'll have to look at ISO 4548-12 test spec again, but I don't recall it showing any "statistical analysis" invoved to get the final efficiency vs partical size test results.

Like mentioned earlier, there are steps in the test procedure to verify calibration of the partical counter per ISO 11171. If the partical counter is verified to be accurate at measuring a small number of particles downstream relative to the number of upstream particals, then there's no reason that beta ratios above 75 (98.7% efficiency) can't be measured. Anyone can Google search for ISO 4548-12 and ISO 11171 procedures (look for the PDF files) and can see what they entail.

Partical counters made today are most likely more accurate than ones available 14+ years ago when the Fram article was written.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... There is bickering and then there is standing up for oneself against a person who can be somewhat of a bully. ...

Who's being a bully? Who are you referring to? All I see is a discussion/debate about oil filter efficiencies.

Some people seem to think that someone else is a "bully" if they don't have the same viewpoint as them, and have technical information and references to backup their own viewpoint. Nobody has to believe what anyone else says, they can go do lots of research and make their own conclusions.

Isn't this kind of discussion the whole purpose of a chat board?

If everyone agreed with each other there wouldn't be much to talk about, and nothing to learn from each other.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'll have to look at ISO 4548-12 test spec again, but I don't recall it showing any "statistical analysis" invoved to get the final efficiency vs partical size test results.

Some tests do list a reporting protocol, like to what accuracy, and so forth. Or, perhaps some engineer somewhere in some lab at some company has decided their company will only report to a certain level.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'll have to look at ISO 4548-12 test spec again, but I don't recall it showing any "statistical analysis" invoved to get the final efficiency vs partical size test results.

Some tests do list a reporting protocol, like to what accuracy, and so forth. Or, perhaps some engineer somewhere in some lab at some company has decided their company will only report to a certain level.

Look at a full blown copy of ISO 4548-12 (PDF can be found on the 'net) and it walks through how to conduct the test and collect the data to produce the efficiency vs particle size curve. Nothing said that I can see discussing "statistical analysis" or that the test is only accurate up to beta 75.

 

[Garak]

There we go then. Then it's not obviously part of the standard itself, but there could be some rationale somewhere else.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
There we go then. Then it's not obviously part of the standard itself, but there could be some rationale somewhere else.


That's why I think it stems from the accuracy of particle counters used in the ISO 4548-12 testing. Obviously, the more accurate and stable/repeatable the particle counters the more confidence you have in the higher beta ratios being claimed/reported.

 

[Garak]

Yes, who knows. If we had a better view of the rationale for the number, we'd know.

 

[goodtimes]

It has nothing to do with counters but with the scarcity of particles. According to Fram.

Bullies attack the messenger's credentials as reasons, instead of staying on the topic. Not the first time on here either. That's exactly how bullies operate.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It has nothing to do with counters but with the scarcity of particles. According to Fram.

Bullies attack the messenger's credentials as reasons, instead of staying on the topic. Not the first time on here either. That's exactly how bullies operate.

Actually what I observe most on forums like this is that when someone has run out their attempts at making sound technical arguments they sometimes run away crying that they are being "bullied". They are the one turning it personal because they don't want to look like a fool.

At least that's what I've seen.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All I am doing is saying what they said, facts, and making the point if all the cos. would state at 98,7% and not round up or extrapolate, to get more sales from box advertising, we would have a better picture. Need more oil filter cut opens, less talking.

Are you suggesting you can determine efficiency from cutting open a filter?

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All I am doing is saying what they said, facts, and making the point if all the cos. would state at 98,7% and not round up or extrapolate, to get more sales from box advertising, we would have a better picture. Need more oil filter cut opens, less talking.

Are you suggesting you can determine efficiency from cutting open a filter?

Z06, be careful answering any of "these" Q?'s. Remember what happened to us last time, right?

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All I am doing is saying what they said, facts, and making the point if all the cos. would state at 98,7% and not round up or extrapolate, to get more sales from box advertising, we would have a better picture. Need more oil filter cut opens, less talking.

Are you suggesting you can determine efficiency from cutting open a filter?

Z06, be careful answering any of "these" Q?'s. Remember what happened to us last time, right?

OK, well how would you interpret his statement then?

And what do you mean by "us"? ZeeOSix and I have discussed a lot of things on this board and never have I remembered it being an issue. We may have our own opinions about interpreting things but he keeps it on a technical level. Is that bad?

Besides, the question wasn't to him anyway. I asked the person who made the post.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All I am doing is saying what they said, facts, and making the point if all the cos. would state at 98,7% and not round up or extrapolate, to get more sales from box advertising, we would have a better picture. Need more oil filter cut opens, less talking.

Are you suggesting you can determine efficiency from cutting open a filter?

Z06, be careful answering any of "these" Q?'s. Remember what happened to us last time, right?

OK, well how would you interpret his statement then?

And what do you mean by "us"? ZeeOSix and I have discussed a lot of things on this board and never have I remembered it being an issue. We may have our own opinions about interpreting things but he keeps it on a technical level. Is that bad?

Besides, the question wasn't to him anyway. I asked the person who made the post.

EZ there baby moose! What I was referring to had NOTHING relevant to do with your discussion. It's an inside joke between Z06 and I.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
EZ there baby moose! What I was referring to had NOTHING relevant to do with your discussion. It's an inside joke between Z06 and I.

That much I will agree with.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Z06, be careful answering any of "these" Q?'s. Remember what happened to us last time, right?

OK, well how would you interpret his statement then?

And what do you mean by "us"? ZeeOSix and I have discussed a lot of things on this board and never have I remembered it being an issue. We may have our own opinions about interpreting things but he keeps it on a technical level. Is that bad?


What BlueOvalFitter is talking about is that he and myself got banned for a week because apparently someone thought we were "bickering" too much. No warning, just a thread lock and a week vacation for both of us.

Kind of put a bad taste in my mouth, thinking is it even worth trying to have any discussion on this board without it being perceived as "bickering".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It has nothing to do with counters but with the scarcity of particles. According to Fram.


I believe it does boil down to the particle counter sensitivity and accuracy. If there are particles there, no matter how few, if they can be accurately counted by the equipment then there should be confidence in beta ratios higher than 75. Again, Fram bulletin was written in 2003. Possible that particle counters back when the article was written aren't as good as they are today.