Wix vs Fram Ultra

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: Gabe


Look at it this way: ...That '>' makes a huge difference.


Exactly! That was a great illustration. So, if I have a mixture of particles from 20 microns up to marbles, it will trap 99%. That's a significant difference than all 20 micron particles! Trapping all the larger particles really increases their average.


Hopefully this is the last time I post this, we test and publish the efficiency ratings that way- What it means, the filter traps 99% of ALL particles that are even 20.1 microns and larger. Our efficiency is always better than WIX. They use cheaper media in all of their filters, plain and simple.
 
and Honeywell home air filters are better than 3M too.....


whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'd like to hear someone explain to everyone what they think Fram's "> 20 microns" statement really means. You know that 21 microns is larger than 20, and 20.1 is also larger than 20. Motorking has chimed in many times on this and says that it basically means at 20 microns and above.


Look at it this way: Guerrouj, the worlds fastest man, can run a mile in 3:44. I can run a mile in >3:44. In fact, I can walk a mile in >3.44. I can run half a mile, stop at Texas Roadhouse, eat a steak, go home and take a nap, then restart and still finish that mile with a time of >3.44.

My Bravada can do 0-60 in >2.4 seconds. My golf game averages >2 over par.

That '>' makes a huge difference.


Not even a close analogy for this discussion. But if you want to try and make the analogy, then anyone who could run a mile in 3:44000000001 or better would qualify.

Or I could simply say, that anyone who can run a half mile in 3:44 or slower is qualified for the job at hand. Just like saying 99% > 20 microns means it will essentially take out all particles that are 20 microns or larger. It's really quite simple and straight forward IMO.
 
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: Gabe


Look at it this way: ...That '>' makes a huge difference.


Exactly! That was a great illustration. So, if I have a mixture of particles from 20 microns up to marbles, it will trap 99%. That's a significant difference than all 20 micron particles! Trapping all the larger particles really increases their average.


You don't get it either. >20 microns can mean anything that is 20.000001 microns or larger. So if a filter can do that, then it IS "xx% @ 20 microns". And even more efficient (like 100%) at filtering particles well above the 20 micron size.

I thought what > and < means was taught like in grade school ... maybe not anymore.
frown.gif
 
On the ">20" & equal to 20 discussion, there is no deception in referencing the standard multiple pass test procedure to say "at 20". Maybe the folks having trouble are simply not getting its based on a standard test. We are all used to marketing deception and it feeds justified skepticism. Like when Pennzoil claims "unsurpassed wear protection", kind of an 'equal or >' topic meant to mislead.
 
Originally Posted By: Motorking
.

"Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in filter SPE(MP). Compared to a 40 micron filter, engine wear was reduced by 50% with 30 micron filtration." (98% point) "Likewise, wear was reduced by 70% with 15 micron filtration." (SAE TPS 881825 p5 - David R. Staley, General Motors Corp. 1988)


The bitog villagers with their pitchforks don't like that study. I like it.
 
Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
On the ">20" & equal to 20 discussion, there is no deception in referencing the standard multiple pass test procedure to say "at 20". Maybe the folks having trouble are simply not getting its based on a standard test. We are all used to marketing deception and it feeds justified skepticism. Like when Pennzoil claims "unsurpassed wear protection", kind of an 'equal or >' topic meant to mislead.


There is nothing "misleading" about >20 ... maybe just "confusing" for some people who never understood what "greater than" really means.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
On the ">20" & equal to 20 discussion, there is no deception in referencing the standard multiple pass test procedure to say "at 20". Maybe the folks having trouble are simply not getting its based on a standard test. We are all used to marketing deception and it feeds justified skepticism. Like when Pennzoil claims "unsurpassed wear protection", kind of an 'equal or >' topic meant to mislead.


There is nothing "misleading" about >20 ... maybe just "confusing" for some people who never understood what "greater than" really means.


Lets be fair.
They understand >.
People were just saying that IF Fram only used big particles,
say >50 microns,
they could literally claim 99% >20 and it would be True.
Of course Fram actually did use particles very near 20 microns (to measurement accuracy), so the paranoid can find comfort in that.
 
Originally Posted By: stickybuns
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
On the ">20" & equal to 20 discussion, there is no deception in referencing the standard multiple pass test procedure to say "at 20". Maybe the folks having trouble are simply not getting its based on a standard test. We are all used to marketing deception and it feeds justified skepticism. Like when Pennzoil claims "unsurpassed wear protection", kind of an 'equal or >' topic meant to mislead.


There is nothing "misleading" about >20 ... maybe just "confusing" for some people who never understood what "greater than" really means.


Lets be fair.
They understand >.
People were just saying that IF Fram only used big particles,
say >50 microns,
they could literally claim 99% >20 and it would be True.
Of course Fram actually did use particles very near 20 microns (to measurement accuracy), so the paranoid can find comfort in that.


Now how do you think Fram can say ">20 microns" and only use huge particles not even close to being as small as 20 microns? By the very definition of ">20 microns" they had to use particles small enough to measure and make the claim of ">20 microns".

Do you think they claim ">20 microns" and used particles that were 100 microns or larger? That's pretty ridiculous to even suggest. You do know that companies can get sued over false claims in performance. Do you think Fram is going to egg on a false advertising claim lawsuit by other filter manufacturer's or customers? I highly doubt it.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
... maybe just "confusing" for some people who never understood what "greater than" really means...
Do you think they claim ">20 microns" and used particles that were 100 microns or larger? That's pretty ridiculous to even suggest.


So 100 is not greater than 20? I guess you're right...I guess I don't know what "greater than" means.
 
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't the ISO 4548-12 procedure specify a contaminant with known properties (ISO 12103-1,A3 Medium Test Dust)??? So if all filter manufacturers is using the ISO 4548-12, they should all be using the same contaminant media?

I think the problem is that they report the results differently. If someone reports 99% at >20 microns, the might mean 99% of 20, 40, and 80 micron particles... OR it might only mean the 40 and 80 micron particles.

OTOH, if someone else reports 99% @20 microns, they probably mean particles at the 20, 40, and 80 micron level.

I don't think we can know for sure, since we don't see the test reports : (
 
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
... maybe just "confusing" for some people who never understood what "greater than" really means...
Do you think they claim ">20 microns" and used particles that were 100 microns or larger? That's pretty ridiculous to even suggest.


So 100 is not greater than 20? I guess you're right...I guess I don't know what "greater than" means.


You missed the whole point of the post. Is 20.001 greater than 20? If so, would you then conclude that 20 is basically the same as 20.001 for all practical purposes?
 
Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Please someone correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't the ISO 4548-12 procedure specify a contaminant with known properties (ISO 12103-1,A3 Medium Test Dust)??? So if all filter manufacturers is using the ISO 4548-12, they should all be using the same contaminant media?.


The main point of this thread is that people expect marketing claims to be deceitful. These same people understand the concept of greater-than, a no-brainer. So when they see greater than 20 people believe Fram might have used dust particles that were mostly huge by comparison to near 20 microns. Here there is really no cheating, as the standard test spec prevents unethical marketers from claiming stuff they are famous for.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
... maybe just "confusing" for some people who never understood what "greater than" really means...
Do you think they claim ">20 microns" and used particles that were 100 microns or larger? That's pretty ridiculous to even suggest.


So 100 is not greater than 20? I guess you're right...I guess I don't know what "greater than" means.


You missed the whole point of the post. Is 20.001 greater than 20? If so, would you then conclude that 20 is basically the same as 20.001 for all practical purposes?


Sigh...I'll try once more, but probably won't get anywhere. Here's why "greater than" is different from "equal to".

Let's say I can run pretty fast. I state that I can run faster than 80% of the guys in my town who are greater than age 20. Now, this includes, as you like to say, age 20.1. It also includes ages 30, 40, 60, 80, etc.

So, all the men age 20 or greater gather, and I race them all. I can outrun 80% of them, because though there are guys age 20.1 in the race, there are also guys age 80, 90, etc.

Now, lets say I claim to be able to outrun 80% of the guys in my town who are equal to age 20. Since I'm 39, I'd better be in darn good shape, and a really fast runner.

Can you now see why "greater than 20" and "equal to 20" are so different? In the first race, I mopped up because "greater than 20" included so many older guys, and that helped my average immensely. In the second race, all my competitors were 20, and so it was a much more difficult test.
 
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy
.Can you now see why "greater than 20" and "equal to 20" are so different? In the first race, I mopped up because "greater than 20" included so many older guys, and that helped my average immensely. In the second race, all my competitors were 20, and so it was a much more difficult test.


Dat oil filter test used dust particles that were near 20, but also 30 and 40 microns, so you are basically right. Some of the 99% is for particles way bigger than 20. Thing is, its a standard multiple pass test meaning we can use the same test to compare all oil filters. To me its just like using the same EPA fuel economy tests for all cars so we can compare car to car.
 
Originally Posted By: zrxkawboy

Can you now see why "greater than 20" and "equal to 20" are so different? In the first race, I mopped up because "greater than 20" included so many older guys, and that helped my average immensely. In the second race, all my competitors were 20, and so it was a much more difficult test.


Your analogy really doesn't jive with this discussion. You have to understand the ISO 4548-12 test to be able to understand that ">20 microns" is basically saying "at 20 microns".

The ISO 4548-12 test uses real time particle size measurement and counting instrumentation before and after the oil filter as oil is flowing through the filter. Here is a synopsis of ISO 4548-12.

================
Methods of test for full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines -- Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity.

This part of ISO 4548 specifies a multi-pass filtration test with continuous contaminant injection and using the online particle counting method for evaluating the performance of full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines.

The test procedure determines the contaminant capacity of a filter, its particulate removal characteristics and differential pressure.

This test is intended for application to filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min and with an efficiency of less than 99 % at a particle size greater than 10 microns.

ISO 4548-12 uses "muti-pass" filtering methods, versus a "single-pass" test method.
========================

Also see the "Multi-pass testing" (2nd paragraph) in this article.
http://www.lenntech.com/library/fine/beta/beta-ratio.htm

Here's another good link that explains filter testing, mulit-pass tests and beta ratio (ie, filter efficiency).
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/564/filter-beta-ratios

Here is a schematic showing the multi-pass test setup.
Backup_200401_understanding-fig1.gif


Backup_200401_understanding-fig2.jpg


Here's a discription of the test procedure.
============================
"Test dust of a known particle size distribution is added to the fluid in the injection reservoir until it reaches a specified concentration in grams of contaminant per liter of test fluid. The fluid in the injection reservoir is then pumped continuously into the clean fluid in the test reservoir, thereby creating a low concentration test solution. This test solution is circulated continuously to the test filter at a constant flow rate. The test solution is filtered by the element under test and travels back to the test reservoir (along with any unfiltered particles). This cleaned fluid is contaminated again by the injection fluid, and is once again pumped to the test filter.

During the test, the element differential pressure, the upstream and downstream particle counts and the amount of injected contaminant are continuously monitored. In most instances, the multi-pass test is completed when the element differential pressure reaches the specified limit or the Beta Ratios fall below a specified level."

============================

So, as particles are injected to the oil source the size of the particles are continuously upstream and downstream at the same time and the numbers are compared to determine the efficiency of the filter over the entire range of particles.

You might see a distribution like this from the test results:

5u = 50% efficient
10u = 70%
15u = 90%
20u = 99%
25u = 99.5%
30u = 99.9%
40u = 100%
50u = 100%

Any filter is going to become more efficient filtering out larger particles than smaller partials, so the distribution will always show increasing efficiency as particle size increases.

In a distribution like shown above, the tester can conclude that this filter will take out 99% of all particles that are 20 microns and larger. He could say the filter is 99% for particles >20 microns to be "conservative", or he could actually say it's 99% @ 20 microns.

So the ISO efficiency test is comparing each size of particle before and after the filter to see how each size is filtered out. That's the whole key to understanding that saying ">20 microns" is essentially the same as saying "at 20 microns".
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
You have to understand the ISO 4548-12 test to be able to understand that ">20 microns" is basically saying "at 20 microns".

That's the whole key to understanding that saying ">20 microns" is essentially the same as saying "at 20 microns".


...and you said that I didn't understand "greater than".

33.gif
 
Originally Posted By: boundarylayer
Dat oil filter test used dust particles that were near 20, but also 30 and 40 microns, so you are basically right. Some of the 99% is for particles way bigger than 20.


Thank you for reading what I wrote; I'm glad somebody did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top