Originally Posted By: goodtimes
As long as efficiency used as a catch all word is referenced to the multi test, of course it compares the filters the same way, it's fine. Not my point at all. There is no test for real world conditions in the lab, but you keep asking over and over for one regardless. The multi test is good and does show something about highly loaded filters in 4 hours. Probably because it is impossible to do, or costs too much, with the tiny amounts of particles in real life use. I stand by my idea.
I keep asking someone to show a lab test that simulates real word filter efficiency because there isn't one. That means that the ISO efficiency test (which has been around since 1999) is what everyone has to go by because there isn't anything better. And what I've tried to show with the bus study data is that filters that were tested with accelerated efficiency testing in the lab also directly correlated to how clean they kept the oil in real world use - it's a pretty clear correlation, look at the graphs again. This is how you put pieces of the puzzle together instead of waiting for someone to spoon feed you. It's not that difficult.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"Some dude" probably still reads here, nice. It was a test between two oil filters and Blackstone lab found the results. The member didn't make a chart himself and make a claim like Amsoil. The Ultra lost, allowed more particles to be in the oil. Another member, not another "dude", found not so good ISO cleanliness numbers. That's two members, not one.
It was one test on the motorcycle filter ... so again, one data point, not two. Testing a different filter by a different guy on a different engine and comparing isn't really a direct test. If different filters were put on the same engine, and everyone involved with the particle count testing were involved with all samples, then I might believe it a bit more.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The motorcycle test you refer to was one member having his oil tested with one filter. There was no comparison between two filters. The claim the Ultra makes oil better than new oil based on that is laughable.
Yes, again one data point ... so why is your one 'data point' valid and that one is "laughable". Take off the one-way glasses.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Another member once tried to say his Ultra on a motorcycle was better than a Frantz. Problem is the Frantz took used oil from a diesel engine and cleaned it while the motorcyclist simply had his new oil tested after use, which was a another laughable comparison.
I'm sure a Frantz would have higher filtering ability than most spin-ons. But it wasn't really an apples-to-apples test, both filters were not ran on the same engine.
As long as efficiency used as a catch all word is referenced to the multi test, of course it compares the filters the same way, it's fine. Not my point at all. There is no test for real world conditions in the lab, but you keep asking over and over for one regardless. The multi test is good and does show something about highly loaded filters in 4 hours. Probably because it is impossible to do, or costs too much, with the tiny amounts of particles in real life use. I stand by my idea.
I keep asking someone to show a lab test that simulates real word filter efficiency because there isn't one. That means that the ISO efficiency test (which has been around since 1999) is what everyone has to go by because there isn't anything better. And what I've tried to show with the bus study data is that filters that were tested with accelerated efficiency testing in the lab also directly correlated to how clean they kept the oil in real world use - it's a pretty clear correlation, look at the graphs again. This is how you put pieces of the puzzle together instead of waiting for someone to spoon feed you. It's not that difficult.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"Some dude" probably still reads here, nice. It was a test between two oil filters and Blackstone lab found the results. The member didn't make a chart himself and make a claim like Amsoil. The Ultra lost, allowed more particles to be in the oil. Another member, not another "dude", found not so good ISO cleanliness numbers. That's two members, not one.
It was one test on the motorcycle filter ... so again, one data point, not two. Testing a different filter by a different guy on a different engine and comparing isn't really a direct test. If different filters were put on the same engine, and everyone involved with the particle count testing were involved with all samples, then I might believe it a bit more.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The motorcycle test you refer to was one member having his oil tested with one filter. There was no comparison between two filters. The claim the Ultra makes oil better than new oil based on that is laughable.
Yes, again one data point ... so why is your one 'data point' valid and that one is "laughable". Take off the one-way glasses.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Another member once tried to say his Ultra on a motorcycle was better than a Frantz. Problem is the Frantz took used oil from a diesel engine and cleaned it while the motorcyclist simply had his new oil tested after use, which was a another laughable comparison.
I'm sure a Frantz would have higher filtering ability than most spin-ons. But it wasn't really an apples-to-apples test, both filters were not ran on the same engine.