Pure one makes greater effiencey claim than stp Extended life and fram ultra

[ZeeOSix]

Lots of the technical info I post is general tech info, and not tied to any specific brand or model of filter. It's funny that people latch onto some "conspiracy theory" that people are some kind of brand shill if they talk about certain brands or models in a positive way. Every think that people on this chat board talk positive or negative about certain filters (or oils, or whatever) for a technical reason? People need to get a grasp and take off the tin foil hats. There is also a lot of misconceptions by people, and a lot of strawman action. Funny stuff at times.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Lots of the technical info I post is general tech info, and not tied to any specific brand or model of filter. It's funny that people latch onto some "conspiracy theory" that people are some kind of brand shill if they talk about certain brands or models in a positive way. Every think that people on this chat board talk positive or negative about certain filters (or oils, or whatever) for a technical reason? People need to get a grasp and take off the tin foil hats. There is also a lot of misconceptions by people, and a lot of strawman action. Funny stuff at times.

Yes a very common issue on BITOG.

 

[Ablebody]

Fram and Purolator and most others choose a few or so of their best preforming filters as far as efficiency. Then they test them with injection test under controled environments and make blanket claims about how all their filters preforme the same as those.
That's marketing scheme
Wix provides the data on most of their regular wix line filters individualy Wich is so much more respectable They aren't so transparent with their xp line which sort of probably hurts them with a small portion of the marketrket that is anal retintive about filter efficiency. Because I'd bet the xp is better than 50% at 20u. Not that I care because the price range of the xp is not worth it to me anyway.
Fram uses 3 filters to test and blanket all theoi filters.

"Fram Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A, and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns

*Fram Group mulitpass testing of representative sampling of average filter capacity of comparable competitive retail products based on ISO4548-12 for XG8A and XG3387A.

**Compared to nitrile

êNot all features are available on every part number in the product line. Check the package for specific features of individual filters".

Then they list 99%+ efficient >20 u. But you can see that they say that their iso testing is for particles greater than 20u for those 3 filters that's not at 20u.
It's not possible for every one of their filters to preform equally either even if they use the same exact material for all filters in the line. They admit that not all features are available on every part number (although not all features are available on most actually). But as has been said, the typical patron just sees 99%efficient. If the truth were apparent to the average Joe concerning these products that market on their so called filtering efficiencies, it might be detrimental for those companies images.
The good news is it probably doesn't even really matter anyway because a full flow filter is really just more of a safety net than anything, Ive come to learn.
Once a guy has come to understand this he's pretty much came to the realization that to continue spending so much time discussing oil filters On an oil filter forum is really kinda pointess. Unless your real motive is to promote something.
Something more useful like learning to master the art of buying and selling options seems like a better way to spend time or beating your head against a wall or something.
The dual oil filters seem worth putting some energy into testing out. I'll update on that when I get to a point to do so. Seems like only one person has actually thourghly provided any experience on them around here that I can tell with the microgreens.
(edit - mod)

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Fram and Purolator and most others choose a few or so of their best preforming filters as far as efficiency. Then they test them with injection test under controled environments and make blanket claims about how all their filters preforme the same as those.
That's marketing scheme
Wix provides the data on most of their regular wix line filters individualy Wich is so much more respectable They aren't so transparent with their xp line which sort of probably hurts them with a small portion of the marketrket that is anal retintive about filter efficiency. Because I'd bet the xp is better than 50% at 20u. Not that I care because the price range of the xp is not worth it to me anyway.
Fram uses 3 filters to test and blanket all theoi filters.

"Fram Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A, and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns

*Fram Group mulitpass testing of representative sampling of average filter capacity of comparable competitive retail products based on ISO4548-12 for XG8A and XG3387A.

**Compared to nitrile

êNot all features are available on every part number in the product line. Check the package for specific features of individual filters".

Then they list 99%+ efficient >20 u. But you can see that they say that their iso testing is for particles greater than 20u for those 3 filters that's not at 20u.
It's not possible for every one of their filters to preform equally either even if they use the same exact material for all filters in the line. They admit that not all features are available on every part number (although not all features are available on most actually). But as has been said, the typical patron just sees 99%efficient. If the truth were apparent to the average Joe concerning these products that market on their so called filtering efficiencies, it might be detrimental for those companies images.
The good news is it probably doesn't even really matter anyway because a full flow filter is really just more of a safety net than anything, Ive come to learn.
Once a guy has come to understand this he's pretty much came to the realization that to continue spending so much time discussing oil filters On an oil filter forum is really kinda pointess. Unless your real motive is to promote something.
Something more useful like learning to master the art of buying and selling options seems like a better way to spend time or beating your head against a wall or something.
The dual oil filters seem worth putting some energy into testing out. I'll update on that when I get to a point to do so. Seems like only one person has actually thourghly provided any experience on them around here that I can tell with the microgreens.
(edit - mod)


So what are you promoting?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Fram and Purolator and most others choose a few or so of their best preforming filters as far as efficiency. Then they test them with injection test under controled environments and make blanket claims about how all their filters preforme the same as those.
That's marketing scheme
Wix provides the data on most of their regular wix line filters individualy Wich is so much more respectable They aren't so transparent with their xp line which sort of probably hurts them with a small portion of the marketrket that is anal retintive about filter efficiency. Because I'd bet the xp is better than 50% at 20u. Not that I care because the price range of the xp is not worth it to me anyway.
Fram uses 3 filters to test and blanket all theoi filters.

"Fram Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A, and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns


Just have to be able to understand what they are saying. They are not making that a "blanket statement" for all their oil filters ... they are specifically saying which filters were used in the testing. At least Fram used 3 different sized filters to average out any effect the filter's size has on the efficiency test. More than most companies do. Purolator use to reference their one largest spin-on filter when they made an efficiency rating statement. Purolator doesn't even list a micron size with the % efficiency any more.

Now why would WIX show the XP to be 50% @ 20u if it was actually better than that? Wishful thinking perhaps that it's better than the company that makes it says it is? ... lol.

There really isn't any good way besides the ISO efficiency test to compare oil filters - it was invented around 1999 to do just that, and has been used by the filter industry for almost 10 years. And I've shown collected data of actual UOAs off this site that had ISO particle counts, and the level of oil cleanliness per the PC correlated pretty well to the ISO efficiency rating of the filters involved. That's good enough for me ... if it's all misunderstood "magic" to someone else I could care less.

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Then they list 99%+ efficient >20 u. But you can see that they say that their iso testing is for particles greater than 20u for those 3 filters that's not at 20u.


Again ... 20.0001 micron and everything above that is "greater than 20 microns". Some people never do get it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Once a guy has come to understand this he's pretty much came to the realization that to continue spending so much time discussing oil filters On an oil filter forum is really kinda pointess. Unless your real motive is to promote something.


Guess the oil filter forum isn't really for you then ... but yeah, you seem like you're promoting something or you wouldn't keep debating stuff with no real info or data to back up your claims or viewpoints.

 

[wdn]

I see someone using name calling like troll, sock puppet and other ad hominems like tinfoil hat. Trying to run a newer member off a public forum. Falling back to ‘post count' as if being an old timer means they own the place, which is hilarious. Crass. Just plain rudeness. Cheapens the whole discussion. Unscientific, to say the least. Devalues any other points made, many of which are good points. Why the mods permit this is anyone's guess.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by wdn
I see someone using name calling like troll, sock puppet and other ad hominems like tinfoil hat. Trying to run a newer member off a public forum. Falling back to ‘post count' as if being an old timer means they own the place, which is hilarious. Crass. Just plain rudeness. Cheapens the whole discussion. Unscientific, to say the least. Devalues any other points made, many of which are good points. Why the mods permit this is anyone's guess.

Which ones are those? Technical ones I mean, not endless nonsense, for which people have been given vacations just as you wished.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by wdn
I see someone using name calling like troll, sock puppet and other ad hominems like tinfoil hat. Trying to run a newer member off a public forum. Falling back to ‘post count' as if being an old timer means they own the place, which is hilarious. Crass. Just plain rudeness. Cheapens the whole discussion. Unscientific, to say the least. Devalues any other points made, many of which are good points. Why the mods permit this is anyone's guess.

Which ones are those? Technical ones I mean, not endless nonsense, for which people have been given vacations just as you wished.


Yeah, when the Mods start banning people for posting technical information and there's nothing left beside endless nonsense, that's when the whole chat board should just disappear from the internet.