Purolator boss, pure 1 vs napa/wix vs fram ultra

[SirTanon]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Fram says "99+%" for the Ultra. 901Memphis has said a few times now that Fram will be updating the spec on the Ultra soon to show it at 99.9% instead of 99+%.

99% is not 10x less than 99.9% ... 10x less than 99.9% would be 1/10th of 99.9 = 9.99 ... call it 10 (just like 10 is 10 times less than 100).


Actually, he's correct from a 'beta' standpoint.. and also from a "sigma" standpoint.. 99.9% is 10x more efficient from a beta standpoint. Think about it

If you have oil with 1000 particles in it, and you run it through a filter with 99% efficiency, you end up with 10 particles getting through (99% of 1000 is 990, leaving 10)

.. but if you run that same oil with 1000 particles through a filter with 99.9% efficiency, then you end up with only 1 particle getting through (99.9% of 1000 is 999, leaving 1)


... so 99% leaves you with 10, and 99.9% leaves you with 1. I don't know about your math, but mine says that 10 is 10x as much as 1.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Izb
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Fram says "99+%" for the Ultra. 901Memphis has said a few times now that Fram will be updating the spec on the Ultra soon to show it at 99.9% instead of 99+%.

99% is not 10x less than 99.9% ... 10x less than 99.9% would be 1/10th of 99.9 = 9.99 ... call it 10 (just like 10 is 10 times less than 100).


- Unknown marceter from Fram said "99+%". Is it better or worse then "99*%" or "99&%"? No useful information for customers.
- From which date Fram Ultra oil filters(by the way, with the same partnumber for orders) will have 99.9% instead of 99%?


"99+" means higher than 99%. It's not some kind of footnote marker, etc.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Fram says "99+%" for the Ultra. 901Memphis has said a few times now that Fram will be updating the spec on the Ultra soon to show it at 99.9% instead of 99+%.

99% is not 10x less than 99.9% ... 10x less than 99.9% would be 1/10th of 99.9 = 9.99 ... call it 10 (just like 10 is 10 times less than 100).


Actually, he's correct from a 'beta' standpoint.. and also from a "sigma" standpoint.. 99.9% is 10x more efficient from a beta standpoint. Think about it

If you have oil with 1000 particles in it, and you run it through a filter with 99% efficiency, you end up with 10 particles getting through (99% of 1000 is 990, leaving 10)

.. but if you run that same oil with 1000 particles through a filter with 99.9% efficiency, then you end up with only 1 particle getting through (99.9% of 1000 is 999, leaving 1)

... so 99% leaves you with 10, and 99.9% leaves you with 1. I don't know about your math, but mine says that 10 is 10x as much as 1.


In terms of beta, 99.999999999% is "10 times less efficient" than 99.9999999999%. You can only split a hair so many times.

 

[Tony10s]

^^^ I was thinking the same thing ZeeOSix. Moreover, in terms of the number of captured particles out of 1000, 990 is not 10 times less than 999. So, you were also correct in your original post.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s
^^^ I was thinking the same thing ZeeOSix. Moreover, in terms of the number of captured particles out of 1000, 990 is not 10 times less than 999. So, you were also correct in your original post.


Yep, apparently the statement "that is 10x less !!!!" can be seen a couple different ways in the world of filters if it's not clear exactly what the writer means.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
...Yep, apparently the statement "that is 10x less !!!!" can be seen a couple different ways in the world of filters if it's not clear exactly what the writer means.
It's the sort of meaningless ambiguous statement favored by advertisers. Bad math.