Mobil 1 filters

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Like I said, 170k miles and 28 cartridge filters of various manufacturers. The current fram is the only one to fail. The only crushed one I've had.


What year and make/model/engine, and which filter model?

2008 Ford fusion s. 2.3 l. I don't remember the filter# and don't care.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Like I said, 170k miles and 28 cartridge filters of various manufacturers. The current fram is the only one to fail. The only crushed one I've had.

What year and make/model/engine, and which filter model?

2008 Ford fusion s. 2.3 l. I don't remember the filter# and don't care.


You sure seem to "care" that's it's crushed. Sure the right filter number was installed?

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Like I said, 170k miles and 28 cartridge filters of various manufacturers. The current fram is the only one to fail. The only crushed one I've had.

What year and make/model/engine, and which filter model?

2008 Ford fusion s. 2.3 l. I don't remember the filter# and don't care.


You sure seem to "care" that's it's crushed. Sure the right filter number was installed?

I don't care about the fram filter# because I won't be buying another one for that car.
Will post it when I get up that way to change it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

 

[Al]

Originally Posted by CT8
Prove any filter is better.

LOL..for sure.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by CT8
Prove any filter is better.

LOL..for sure.


As far as efficiency, look for the ISO particle count data from the UOA forum I plotted showing how a 99% @ 20μ filter kept the oil noticable cleaner than a 99% @ 40μ filter. Cleaner oil is better than not, regardless if anyone thinks it doesn't make any wear difference.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by CT8
Prove any filter is better.

LOL..for sure.


As far as efficiency, look for the ISO particle count data from the UOA forum I plotted showing how a 99% @ 20μ filter kept the oil noticable cleaner than a 99% @ 40μ filter. Cleaner oil is better than not, regardless if anyone thinks it doesn't make any wear difference.

 

[newtoncd8]

Originally Posted by Linctex


From a purely practical, "everyday commuter car" perspective?

Then none - - or, hardly any are, or would make any difference.

People dog the Bosch Distance+ plus for being rated at 40 microns......

GUESS WHAT?!?!!? It wasn't until just the last decade or so that ANY oil filters were rated better than 40 microns!

In the REAL world, it just doesn't make much difference.




Concur. I use the OEM Toyota rock catcher filter (a dated Amsoil study showed the Toyota filters were 50% efficiency @ 20 microns) on our RX330 with 240,000 miles and our Camry had just over 352,000 miles (engine strong, but rust and a rear main seal leak deemed it for donation) using OEM filters. Hard to beat the Toyota OEM filter at $4.50 per.

On our RX, I tried the Ultra for a couple of changes and after hearing an engine knock at startup I have never heard before, I removed it and went back to OEM -- quiet ever since. Not sure what was going on, but scary noise.

In the end, maybe the Amsoil study is wrong and the Toyota filter is more efficient or perhaps in everyday real-world driving (5k-7.5k intervals), it doesn't matter. It is likely time for the 99% efficiency @ 20 microns crowd to show me otherwise ...

 

[Al]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by CT8
Prove any filter is better.

LOL..for sure.


As far as efficiency, look for the ISO particle count data from the UOA forum I plotted showing how a 99% @ 20μ filter kept the oil noticable cleaner than a 99% @ 40μ filter. Cleaner oil is better than not, regardless if anyone thinks it doesn't make any wear difference.

I certainly agree that a filter that is certified to filter smaller microns at a given Beta is better than one that is rated at higher micron numbers at the same Beta. The rub is getting accurate numbers.

Urban legend says the the Ultra is 99% at 20 microns. But that is not from the manufacturer. Can't get a number out of K&N, Purolator, or Mobil1 from the manufacturer. Love to see actual numbers From the Manufacturer

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by CT8
Prove any filter is better.

LOL..for sure.


As far as efficiency, look for the ISO particle count data from the UOA forum I plotted showing how a 99% @ 20μ filter kept the oil noticable cleaner than a 99% @ 40μ filter. Cleaner oil is better than not, regardless if anyone thinks it doesn't make any wear difference.

I certainly agree that a filter that is certified to filter smaller microns at a given Beta is better than one that is rated at higher micron numbers at the same Beta. The rub is getting accurate numbers.

Urban legend says the the Ultra is 99% at 20 microns. But that is not from the manufacturer. Can't get a number out of K&N, Purolator, or Mobil1 from the manufacturer. Love to see actual numbers From the Manufacturer


Urban legend? Not from the manufacturer? Look at Fram's website and the reference to efficiency test spec ISO 4548-12. That has been the industry standard to measure efficiency since the year 1999~2000.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by newtoncd8
Originally Posted by Linctex


From a purely practical, "everyday commuter car" perspective?

Then none - - or, hardly any are, or would make any difference.

People dog the Bosch Distance+ plus for being rated at 40 microns......

GUESS WHAT?!?!!? It wasn't until just the last decade or so that ANY oil filters were rated better than 40 microns!

In the REAL world, it just doesn't make much difference.

Concur. I use the OEM Toyota rock catcher filter (a dated Amsoil study showed the Toyota filters were 50% efficiency @ 20 microns) on our RX330 with 240,000 miles and our Camry had just over 352,000 miles (engine strong, but rust and a rear main seal leak deemed it for donation) using OEM filters.


Just because an engine "runs strong" at 325,000 miles doesn't mean it's not significantly worn. I've seen engines worn outside specs and they still run good. Engines need to almost be destroyed before someone driving it notices something isn't right.

 

[Al]

Quote
Urban legend? Not from the manufacturer? Look at Fram's website and the reference to efficiency test spec ISO 4548-12. That has been the industry standard to measure efficiency since the year 1999~2000.[

OK..sorry I looked at the video and they mentioned there-thanks!