Originally Posted By: JB357
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: sayjac
As for Fram specing 99% > 20um as opposed to @, that's the way they do it. Consensus here seems to be that it implies @ but it has been a topic of discussion in the past as other brands do use @. I'd really not be concerned as the Ultra is a quality filter with excellent ISO efficency spec.
All good points in sayjac's post. Just wanted to comment about the FRAM filtering performance spec that FRAM uses. I consider it to basically mean "99% @ 20 microns or greater" because technically 20.0001 microns is greater than 20 microns. I think FRAM may use >20 microns to mean the filter will catch 99% of all particles greater than 20 microns, because saying "@20" microns may be misinterpreted by some people to mean just 20 micron particles would be filtered. Of course, most people who are oil filter savvy will know that if it can catch 99% of 20 micron particles, it should catch 99% (or better, like 100%) of larger particles. Technically, if that is FRAM's intention, then they should really say "99% @ 20 microns or greater". I think that's what they basically mean.
I am skeptical that Fram actually means their filter filters 99% @ 20 microns when they actually say their filter filters 99% > 20 microns. This is a night and day difference, 99% @ 20 microns being very precise and meaningful and 99% > than 20 microns being practiaclly meaningless. I believe a filter company as big as Fram, without question, knows the difference between the two statements and hopes most people reading the statement 99% > 20 microns won't realize the statement is practically meaningless.
I doubt FRAM is going to risk a lawsuit by one of the other big filter manufacturers because the they use a performance statement that is ambiguous and useless.
In other words, Purolator could take the filter that FRAM references in their performance statement and test it per the same ISO standard. If they found it was 99% efficient at say 40 microns but less than 99% efficient at say 35 microns, then they could sue FRAM for false advertising because the filter was not 99% efficient at 35, 30, 25, and 20.1 microns. In order for FRAM to make the claim of "99% for >20 microns", the filter would technically have to filter 99% @ 20.1 microns also. 20.1 microns is still greater than 20 microns, and is close enough to 20.0 microns to just say it's basically 99% @ 20 microns. Like I said, if that is FRAM's intention, then they would do themselves a favor if they said "99% efficient at 20 microns or greater" just to be crystal clear.
Maybe our FRAM Rep Motorking could chime in on this one to clarify FRAM's intentions if he reads this thread.