A beta ratio of only 10 vs one of 60 is a huge difference though... For every 100,000 perticles 10,000 get past a regular STP air filter... While only 1,667 out of 100,000 get past a STP Premium air filter with a beta ratio of 60. Plus the STP premium air filter test used small dust.
STP air filters this bad?
- Thread starter Chris142
- Start date
- Status
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I've used K&N for hundreds of thousands of miles in the past with zero issue. I'd hardly worry about a well constructed, properly fitting OE style, woven fiber filter's efficiency.
Originally Posted by MaximusN8
Is the STP premium a good air filter? I've been using it with out any issues and always spoke highly of it. Is a beta ratio of 60 good?
A beta ratio of 60 means 98.3% efficient. But at what micron particle size and above is that beta ratio rating associated with?
Is the STP premium a good air filter? I've been using it with out any issues and always spoke highly of it. Is a beta ratio of 60 good?
A beta ratio of 60 means 98.3% efficient. But at what micron particle size and above is that beta ratio rating associated with?
From what I have read... The ISO testing is not specific to microns size for air filter testing.... Though there is a distinction between small dust test used and large dust test used in the testing... Obviously small dust testing results being good greater than 98 percent is very good.
Originally Posted by MaximusN8
Is the STP premium a good air filter? I've been using it with out any issues and always spoke highly of it. Is a beta ratio of 60 good?
It is very good... Nothing wrong with 98% efficient with that using small just.
Is the STP premium a good air filter? I've been using it with out any issues and always spoke highly of it. Is a beta ratio of 60 good?
It is very good... Nothing wrong with 98% efficient with that using small just.
Originally Posted by bbhero
From what I have read... The ISO testing is not specific to microns size for air filter testing.... Though there is a distinction between small dust test used and large dust test used in the testing... Obviously small dust testing results being good greater than 98 percent is very good.
Both the large and small test dust used in ISO 5011 for air filter efficiency testing is defined to have a certain dust size distribution in it's make up. An internet search might find the particle size distribution definition. Some companies will purposely use the large test dust in order to get higher ISO 5011 efficiency test numbers.
When I contacted Fram about their Ultra air filter they told me they use the fine dust spec when performing ISO 5011 testing. Agreed that an air filter with 98+% efficiency with the fine dust are pretty good filters.
From what I have read... The ISO testing is not specific to microns size for air filter testing.... Though there is a distinction between small dust test used and large dust test used in the testing... Obviously small dust testing results being good greater than 98 percent is very good.
Both the large and small test dust used in ISO 5011 for air filter efficiency testing is defined to have a certain dust size distribution in it's make up. An internet search might find the particle size distribution definition. Some companies will purposely use the large test dust in order to get higher ISO 5011 efficiency test numbers.
When I contacted Fram about their Ultra air filter they told me they use the fine dust spec when performing ISO 5011 testing. Agreed that an air filter with 98+% efficiency with the fine dust are pretty good filters.
Here's test dust specs for various filter testing.
https://www.particletechnology.com/test-dust
ISO 5011 for air filter testing calls out:
5 Test materials and test conditions
5.1 Test dust
5.1.1 Grade
The test dust to be used shall be ISO 12103 - A2 (ISO Fine) or ISO 12103 - A4 (ISO Coarse), subject
to agreement between the filter manufacturer and client. The chemical analysis and the particle size
distribution shall conform to ISO 12103-1.
In the absence of an agreement on the dust
— for single-stage filters, use ISO Fine test dust, and
— for multistage filters, use ISO Coarse test dust.
https://www.particletechnology.com/test-dust
ISO 5011 for air filter testing calls out:
5 Test materials and test conditions
5.1 Test dust
5.1.1 Grade
The test dust to be used shall be ISO 12103 - A2 (ISO Fine) or ISO 12103 - A4 (ISO Coarse), subject
to agreement between the filter manufacturer and client. The chemical analysis and the particle size
distribution shall conform to ISO 12103-1.
In the absence of an agreement on the dust
— for single-stage filters, use ISO Fine test dust, and
— for multistage filters, use ISO Coarse test dust.
Page 5 in this report shows the particle size distribution graph of the course test dust -- ISO 12103 - A4 (ISO Coarse). See attached PDF file for course dust distribution.
Couldn't find a similar graph for the fine dust, but didn't look very hard. The fine dust probably has a similar volumetric distribution, but comprised of finer particle size range.
Couldn't find a similar graph for the fine dust, but didn't look very hard. The fine dust probably has a similar volumetric distribution, but comprised of finer particle size range.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted by MaximusN8
So STP premium or Fram Ultra air filters seem to be a better choice over the regular STP.
Yes. It's their top line filter
So STP premium or Fram Ultra air filters seem to be a better choice over the regular STP.
Yes. It's their top line filter
Last edited:
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I'm currently running a WIX but a few months back bought an AZone flyer special where you get the oil, e.filter and o.filter as a pkg, so had planned on using that next year.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Duplicate, sorry
Rather have a donaldson.
Does anyone have any percentage numbers on what these reusable air filters, like K&N and the like are rated at?
Don't take this has gospel...
From somewhere I have read the K&N air filters were at 96 percent. . That is the initial efficiency of course.
Not super great but not all that bad either. Beats 90 percent for the regular STP air filter. That is no bueno in my opinion.
From somewhere I have read the K&N air filters were at 96 percent. . That is the initial efficiency of course.
Not super great but not all that bad either. Beats 90 percent for the regular STP air filter. That is no bueno in my opinion.
Originally Posted by bbhero
Don't take this has gospel...
From somewhere I have read the K&N air filters were at 96 percent. . That is the initial efficiency of course.
Link in the first post of the link below shows some comparative filter testing (from some time ago). I recognize the test graphs, and they original test data source (which I can't find at this time) indicated that the ISO coarse dust was used in those tests.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...iency-vs-restriction-testing#Post5080986
Don't take this has gospel...
From somewhere I have read the K&N air filters were at 96 percent. . That is the initial efficiency of course.
Link in the first post of the link below shows some comparative filter testing (from some time ago). I recognize the test graphs, and they original test data source (which I can't find at this time) indicated that the ISO coarse dust was used in those tests.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...iency-vs-restriction-testing#Post5080986
Better to say that your filters are 90% efficient, but have them actually be 98% efficient in real-world conditions. That way, people will see you massively exceeding your baseline, and consider that a good thing.
If you say you're 99% efficient but come up at only 98%, everyone loses their minds.
If you say you're 99% efficient but come up at only 98%, everyone loses their minds.
Originally Posted by SirTanon
Better to say that your filters are 90% efficient, but have them actually be 98% efficient in real-world conditions. That way, people will see you massively exceeding your baseline, and consider that a good thing.
If you say you're 99% efficient but come up at only 98%, everyone loses their minds.
Anybody that understands air filter efficiency ratings would never buy a 90% efficiency rated air filter in the first place.
Better to say that your filters are 90% efficient, but have them actually be 98% efficient in real-world conditions. That way, people will see you massively exceeding your baseline, and consider that a good thing.
If you say you're 99% efficient but come up at only 98%, everyone loses their minds.
Anybody that understands air filter efficiency ratings would never buy a 90% efficiency rated air filter in the first place.
- Status