Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As for the efficiency, I'd have to say that the FU is certainly excellent, but the real performance of it, versus the others, has yet to be established. Here's what's officially posted on the relevant brand sites:
FU: 99%* "FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns." (note that they only state this applies to particles "> 20 um" and not at 20um) - that is somewhat ambiguous, because "greater than" is not the same as "at" ...
P1S: 99% "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
NP: I cannot find any claim on their efficiency, but as they are a rebrand of the Wix XP, we can presume that they would echo the Wix rating of "B2=20". The Wix XP has what several of us suspect to be a "typo" in their efficiency statement. I cannot fathom such a premium filter only being 50% at 20um, as could any other informed BITOGer. At best, it's an unknown.
So, I would ask, as a matter of conversation, you defend your statment and explain just how the Fu "beats" the others. Price is awlays in flux, construction is a total equal alternate, and efficney statements are basically ambiguous and/or flawed. On what peg are you able to hang your hat to support your claim? I'm curious ... And please be specific and detailed in your reponse.
How are the efficiency statements ambiguous or flawed for the FU and P1S? If they their efficiency is based on ISO 4548-12 testing, then that's as good as it gets right now in the oil filter world to determine what you're getting in terms of efficiency and holding capacity. The FU is better in both compared to the P1S.
As far as the your comment of: "(note that they only state this applies to particles "> 20 um" and not at 20um) - that is somewhat ambiguous, because "greater than" is not the same as "at" ..."
Technically, 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns, so what FRAM essentially means is @ 20 microns or greater. Even Jay (Motorking) has chimed in on this and says the same. It would be in FRAM's best interest to change the statement to say something like " ... for particles 20 microns or larger."
The NP efficiency statement on the other hand is ambiguous and flawed, as most of us know here that 50% @ 20 microns is pretty pathetic for a full synthetic filter.
As for the efficiency, I'd have to say that the FU is certainly excellent, but the real performance of it, versus the others, has yet to be established. Here's what's officially posted on the relevant brand sites:
FU: 99%* "FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns." (note that they only state this applies to particles "> 20 um" and not at 20um) - that is somewhat ambiguous, because "greater than" is not the same as "at" ...
P1S: 99% "*Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001"
NP: I cannot find any claim on their efficiency, but as they are a rebrand of the Wix XP, we can presume that they would echo the Wix rating of "B2=20". The Wix XP has what several of us suspect to be a "typo" in their efficiency statement. I cannot fathom such a premium filter only being 50% at 20um, as could any other informed BITOGer. At best, it's an unknown.
So, I would ask, as a matter of conversation, you defend your statment and explain just how the Fu "beats" the others. Price is awlays in flux, construction is a total equal alternate, and efficney statements are basically ambiguous and/or flawed. On what peg are you able to hang your hat to support your claim? I'm curious ... And please be specific and detailed in your reponse.
How are the efficiency statements ambiguous or flawed for the FU and P1S? If they their efficiency is based on ISO 4548-12 testing, then that's as good as it gets right now in the oil filter world to determine what you're getting in terms of efficiency and holding capacity. The FU is better in both compared to the P1S.
As far as the your comment of: "(note that they only state this applies to particles "> 20 um" and not at 20um) - that is somewhat ambiguous, because "greater than" is not the same as "at" ..."
Technically, 20.001 microns is larger than 20 microns, so what FRAM essentially means is @ 20 microns or greater. Even Jay (Motorking) has chimed in on this and says the same. It would be in FRAM's best interest to change the statement to say something like " ... for particles 20 microns or larger."
The NP efficiency statement on the other hand is ambiguous and flawed, as most of us know here that 50% @ 20 microns is pretty pathetic for a full synthetic filter.
