Will a less Efficient Filter Keep Oil as Clean as More Efficient One

[Al]

Yea I know. But Fram has a 99% efficiency at 20 microns and a K&N filter has say an 80% ? efficiency at 20 microns.
Since the oil constantly recirculates I am wondering if the 20 micron particles will virtually all be captured with both filters. And yes I realize that particles way less than 20 microns exist. But I would guess that perhaps even the 15micron particles will be removes or particles less than 20 microns will cause insignificant wear.

I ask the question bc I know K&N filters are built like a tank. I am leery about a replacement filter. (Yea, anal on my part.) Who pays if the filter fails???

 

[BrendanC]

K&N filters are just a M1 filter in another can. buy a premium guard if you want something built like a tank. outer case is thick and takes forever to cut through, coil spring instead of leaf spring and silicone gasket/adbv.

regardless i’m going to go with the highest efficiency every time. which at the moment is the Fram endurance. built better than any M+H product besides the BOSS.

 

[jhellwig]

It will be fine. Don’t loose sleep over it.

 

[himemsys]

Yea I know. But Fram has a 99% efficiency at 20 microns and a K&N filter has say an 80% ? efficiency at 20 microns.
Since the oil constantly recirculates I am wondering if the 20 micron particles will virtually all be captured with both filters. And yes I realize that particles way less than 20 microns exist. But I would guess that perhaps even the 15micron particles will be removes or particles less than 20 microns will cause insignificant wear.

I ask the question bc I know K&N filters are built like a tank. I am leery about a replacement filter. (Yea, anal on my part.) Who pays if the filter fails???

Good point, and it kind of makes sense that smaller particles will eventually be captured even in media that isn't rated low enough to catch them on the first pass. I don't have the answer, but I was recently laid into in another thread for suggesting that the Purolator BOSS would be a good option for someone because of how "terribly inefficient" it is. As if all these BOSS users are posting on here about how much crud is in their oil when they drain it.

And the person asking for advice was wanting a high capacity filter, which the BOSS most certainly is.

 

[fantastic]

Unfortunately, Fram's are marketed as, 95%-99%@20 High efficiency, but they are deceiving the public on some of their filters.
Here's a Fram filter that is 85%@20 microns that is advertised as 95%@20. Again, this is why we need ISO tested spec sheets for any filter we'd like to purchase to cut out the marketing.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...win-cam-harley-davidsons.383554/#post-6910408

Some of the K&N filters I've seen are 99%@30 microns. These filters are going to remove a huge amount of wear metal that cause wear. Use synthetic oil to help hold onto & encapsulate those smaller particles the filter doesn't catch. Depending on what you're putting it on & what the OEM specifications are it could be an upgrade.

I went 9,443 hauling my camper. Look at the particle count. ONLY 1.7% of particles 21 um & non bigger. This is running a Purolator One Filter, that some here hate on, rated for 99%@40 microns. The wear is great on that UOA to boot.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...t6-5w-40-uoa-9-443-miles.374967/#post-6661183

Here's my Onan Generator that has no oil filter. Check out the particle count on it. You can see how well a filter collects a ton of small particles on the Purolator above. It caught 59% more particles at 14um & x13 times more at 4um size.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...9-total-w-particle-count.374430/#post-6647069

 

[bjboertje]

No

 

[atikovi]

Since the oil constantly recirculates I am wondering if the 20 micron particles will virtually all be captured with both filters.

Maybe, but if only after 1000 trips through engine, is that still good?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Gum and varnish will do some nice particle capturing; Just don't clean it off with R&P
j/k

Test dust on a bench vs. in situ in an operating engine environment are two vastly different things.

Given current filter form factor and resultant media area small enough to enclose in your palm, I'll take flow over efficiency.
Bypassing events can let loose big nasty particle just waiting in the dome end and shoot then right to the bearings.
So what good is high efficiency now?!

Big filters with synthetic media improve overall performance and can reduce wear. Can you adapt a remote mount and run a large can?

p.s: don't forget your air filter's contribution to wear.

 

[fantastic]

Good point, and it kind of makes sense that smaller particles will eventually be captured even in media that isn't rated low enough to catch them on the first pass. I don't have the answer, but I was recently laid into in another thread for suggesting that the Purolator BOSS would be a good option for someone because of how "terribly inefficient" it is. As if all these BOSS users are posting on here about how much crud is in their oil when they drain it.

And the person asking for advice was wanting a high capacity filter, which the BOSS most certainly is.

Most of us want a "High Efficiency" filter no doubt there. However, Those Purolator haters don't understand that they are easily sold into marketing rather than actual testing facts. Purolator Specification Sheets are wonderful in that regard while we only see crickets from Fram & others. They go to Fram's site & see 95%@20 microns on every PH filter & think it's all true b/c "Marketing" says so. Fortunately, You & I need more data to back up that claim. Unfortunately, Fram's not talking much but I am happy to see them respond to @RevRider on his recent inquiry. We all have our standards of where we believe or not believe but that's the great thing about testing data it cuts out the BS & some of this forums "Opinions". I watched a WCW video that showed a Boss filter loaded pretty good during break-in period.

 

[Reloader59]

Purolator doing it's job!

 

[Artem]

No

Agreed. Title literally doesn’t make any logical sense.

A less efficient filter will OBVIOUSLY filter LESS stuff over the interval.

I avoid the low hanging fruit like the plague. Only the high end stuff for me and my customers. This just so happens to be Fram Titanium (from Advance Auto) or Fram Ultra / Endurance, depending on how I feel at the time of purchase.

Puro BOSS prices have gotten outta control for some models. $21.99 for a filter that used to be $12.99 at most before Corona…?!?!!! No thanks.

 

[Reloader59]

Some bad information. I've bought several BOSS filters on Amazon for $11.41 each

 

[himemsys]

Some bad information. I've bought several BOSS filters on Amazon for $11.41 each

It's about the same price as the Endurance, comparing WM (Endurance 7317) to Amazon (BOSS PBL14610).

 

[4WD]

I have asked a similar question - if the removal rate is faster than the production rate - is it keeping up …

 

[Mewbs]

Before this thread degrades into another Fram vs Purolator vs Ascent Testing thread. If you do some searching you'd find lots of compelling arguments and discussions how cleaner oil overtime works well for extended drains... In fact that synthetic media originally pioneered by Donaldson all states that filtering smaller fine particles that less efficient media such as cellulose cannot does assist at reducing wear long term and extending engine life. Theres a SAE / Cummins PDF document study somewhere in the internet that also covers the said topic which will answer your questions.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-hpl-oci-5200miles.377578/page-4#post-6737984

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...20195-one-pl20195-specification-sheet.375618/

You don't have to take my word for it, just ask the man themself @OVERKILL @ZeeOSix

If you're very invested in getting some data, then you can always try doing in service oil analysis on particle counts after an oil service interval to gauge filtration performance of various filters, as long as its the same vehicle, consistent driving habbits, routines.

At the end of the day its your car and money, and I would go with whats available in your area as long you willing to pay for it and not over think it.

 

[fantastic]

Before this thread degrades into another Fram vs Purolator vs Ascent Testing thread. If you do some searching you'd find lots of compelling arguments and discussions how cleaner oil overtime works well for extended drains... In fact that synthetic media originally pioneered by Donaldson all states that filtering smaller fine particles that less efficient media such as cellulose cannot does assist at reducing wear long term and extending engine life. Theres a SAE / Cummins PDF document study somewhere in the internet that also covers the said topic which will answer your questions.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-hpl-oci-5200miles.377578/page-4#post-6737984

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...20195-one-pl20195-specification-sheet.375618/

You don't have to take my word for it, just ask the man themself @OVERKILL @ZeeOSix

If you're very invested in getting some data, then you can always try doing in service oil analysis on particle counts after an oil service interval to gauge filtration performance of various filters, as long as its the same vehicle, consistent driving habbits, routines.

View attachment 223961

At the end of the day its your car and money, and I would go with whats available in your area as long you willing to pay for it and not over think it.

We all want clean oil, low wear, high efficiency w/good capacity, so show us the competitions ISO Specification Sheets for the filter we'd like to run. The handles you mentioned don't have the data & "The Man Himself" is not telling anyone what they don't already know on that topic. You referenced an ISO tested Spec Sheet I posted w/the other one opinion, great but that is only 50% of the comparison & 100% data goes to Purolator. No one is doubting high efficiency is one of the way's for removing wear contaminates but I'd really like to see data on the filters I'd like to use first to cut out the marketing.

Can you find me ISO standard tested efficiency data on a TG9549 & XG10415 for the vehicles in my signature?

Do you have that data? I'd appreciate it & would really help my buying decision towards a potentially better filter as some here claim.

 

[BrendanC]

At the end of the day its your car and money, and I would go with whats available in your area as long you willing to pay for it and not over think it.

this is correct. if you want to run substandard filtration then do it. to the OP, higher efficiency is better, do not count on a lower efficiency filter.

 

[himemsys]

Purolator Specification Sheets are wonderful in that regard while we only see crickets from Fram & others. They go to Fram's site & see 95%@20 microns on every PH filter & think it's all true b/c "Marketing" says so.

Yes. I recently requested data sheets from Mann (Purolator BOSS 14610) and Fram (Endurance 7317).

Here is what Fram sent me:

Unfortunately Engineering has not released a data sheet, I can provide all of the specs I have on the filter below.

FE7317
Micron rating 99% @ 20 Micron
Height (Inch) 3.39

Outside Diameter (Inch) 2.702

Anti-Drain Back Valve  Yes

Bypass Relief Valve    Yes

Gasket Inside Diameter (Inch) 2.2

Gasket Outside Diameter (Inch) 2.47

Gasket Thickness (Inch) 0.281

Gasket Type Base

Attachment Type Spin-On

Burst Pressure (Pounds per Square Inch)   300

Bypass Relief Valve Setting (Pounds per Square Inch)  11-17

Filter Media Material   Synthetic

Inlet Type  Threaded

Inside Thread Diameter (Millimeter) M20x1.5

Thread Size Metric

Torque Nut  No

So no datasheet. Just the "99% @ 20 Micron" line that is everywhere on nearly ALL their products (including Tough Guard) and reads like marketing. Whereas MANN sent me an actual datasheet with results that are backed by ISO 4548-*. Lots of more relevant information in the MANN data sheet than the copy-paste text I was sent from Fram.

 

[BrendanC]

Yes. I recently requested data sheets from Mann (Purolator BOSS 14610) and Fram (Endurance 7317).

Here is what Fram sent me:

So no datasheet. Just the "99% @ 20 Micron" line that is everywhere on nearly ALL their products (including Tough Guard) and reads like marketing. Whereas MANN sent me an actual datasheet with results that are backed by ISO 4548-*. Lots of more relevant information in the MANN data sheet than the copy-paste text I was sent from Fram.
View attachment 223978

enjoy 99% @ >46um.

 

[fantastic]

enjoy 99% @ >46um.

You mean 99%@34 microns in that Ascent test you've been posting regularly? If it's good enough for you to use it for Fram it's good for Purolator too right... Oh, you've decided not to this round...got it.

this is correct. if you want to run substandard filtration then do it. to the OP, higher efficiency is better, do not count on a lower efficiency filter.

I don't want to run a lower efficiency filter if I can help it so would you grab me the ISO data on some Endurances I want to run...Oh shoot Their not available for my app. Unavailability, lack of information seems to be okay here to attack others. If you have more inside Fram data than the rest of us then please share. They seem to be perfectly ok with lying about their efficiency so why should we trust marketing exactly?