Rethinking idea that Fram Ultra is the best filter

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I used your quote about the 10 micron test limit. So now you come up with something to say that's wrong too. Maybe the extra counter is the 16889 test calibration as it contains 50 like Mann uses, whereas the other only goes to 40.

Sorry to say you're not grasping the statement in the ISO 4548-12 summary about the 10 micron limit correctly.

"This test is intended for applications to filter elements with an efficiency of less than 99% at particle size greater than 10 microns."

That means ISO 4548-12 should not be used if the filter has an efficiency that is better than 99% at 10 microns. For instance, if it's 98.9% >10u 4548-12 should be used. If it's 99% >10 microns then don't use 4548-12, but instead use 16889. The Ultra for instance is 99% >20 so it obviously should be tested per ISO 4548-12. I'd think practically every high efficiency lube filter made for IC engines are going to be less efficient than 99% >10u so 4548-12 would be the stipulated and correct efficiency test to use.

And just what did I say that's wrong? ... they weren't related comments. No, the "extra counter" is not for ISO 16889 because the Section 9.3.7 I showed is right out of ISO 4548-12 which has nothing at all to do with ISO 16889. That's also why the report table in 4548-12 I showed has spots to report the >5 micron particle measurements.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
BOF - at that price, I'd certainly jump all over a Wix/NG!
Wix isn't the "best", only because I refuse to get into a rant about what it "best".
Wix is a great filter; one that I trust and seems to have minimal reports of quality issues.


There are many very good filters; best is only in the eye of beholder.

D3, I still don't know why RA sold that WIX at that price, but I wasn't going to Q? them. I'm not that sharp when it comes to the BETA RATIO and such, but if a WIX oil filter does not filter as well as everyone states, why do they sell so many of them? I like the idea of it being a base plate by-pass oil filter, instead of having the oil flow over dirty pleats, then going into the engine. Am I wrong for thinking this way? I know, the FU in my application flows the latter way I explained, but it's a FU with a proven track record. I don't know where my thought process is sometimes; I guess I rely on members like you to help me sift through all of the trash and use the better ones.

To be clear, just as Fram, Purolator, and others have a tiered marketing structure for their products, so does Wix. Most all the majors have a "good, better, best" philosophy and target markets.

I, for one, won't use a Wix XP; I am not willing to trade away efficiency for capacity, especially when a "normal" Wix (equiv NG) has way more capacity than I already need. I do use the traditional Wix/NG products with no reservations.

If you want to see the "real" Wix beta data for many of their filters, slide on down to see Reverend Cleophus at the Fleetfilter website (that's an obscure humorous reference to the Blues Brothers .... I don't want some of you getting your anti-"R" panties all wadded up, so get your cursor off the notify button). My point is that they archived much of the beta data prior to Wix white-washing their own site. I don't think most folks are against a traditional Wix; it's the XP series that some of us (myself included) are not at all impressed with. So maybe I'm wrong, but I think you're painting with too broad of a brush here.

As for the base-end bypass ...

My personal opinion is that it's moot. Yes - I get the concept; I understand the supposed benefit. But if it were THAT important, all filters would be like that. The reality is that filters spend VERY LITTLE time in BP, and therefore the effect of BP valve position is inconsequential in actual application. First, the fact that a BP valve functions is FAR, FAR more important than where is sits within the canister. Second, the fact that it functions VERY, VERY infrequently, makes me not able to care less about it. But by gosh, if it matters to you, then have at it and buy what makes you happy.

I am encouraged that you believe there are "better" filters; that I would agree with. Many good choices out there. I will never say there is a "best" filter for the masses, because the application and use details are way too broad to make a general claim as to something being "best". (Just as it is with lubes, so goes it with filters; many good ones, not one is "best").


I recommend filters based on a considered range of criteria, not just one characteristic. I don't recommend a filter solely on efficiency. I also take into account the application, the intended FCI, the condition of the equipment, the tolerable price points, etc.


There is no one best filter. There are many good filters to choose from, based upon a host of multiple input conditions that far too many BITOGer are willing to ignore.
No one should chose a product based upon a singular criteria; a "best fit" choice is not the same things as a "best at everything" utopian dream.
Find the horse that will help you get to the end of your daily chores; be it a race horse, a trail rider, or a draft horse.
Quit looking for the unicorn, because it does not exist!

 

[MParr]

dnewton3
Pretty well sums it up.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I used your quote about the 10 micron test limit. So now you come up with something to say that's wrong too. Maybe the extra counter is the 16889 test calibration as it contains 50 like Mann uses, whereas the other only goes to 40.

Sorry to say you're not grasping the statement in the ISO 4548-12 summary about the 10 micron limit correctly.

"This test is intended for applications to filter elements with an efficiency of less than 99% at particle size greater than 10 microns."

That means ISO 4548-12 should not be used if the filter has an efficiency that is better than 99% at 10 microns. For instance, if it's 98.9% >10u 4548-12 should be used. If it's 99% >10 microns then don't use 4548-12, but instead use 16889. The Ultra for instance is 99% >20 so it obviously should be tested per ISO 4548-12. I'd think practically every high efficiency lube filter made for IC engines are going to be less efficient than 99% >10u so 4548-12 would be the stipulated and correct efficiency test to use.

And just what did I say that's wrong? ... they weren't related comments. No, the "extra counter" is not for ISO 16889 because the Section 9.3.7 I showed is right out of ISO 4548-12 which has nothing at all to do with ISO 16889. That's also why the report table in 4548-12 I showed has spots to report the >5 micron particle measurements.


Sorry to say you're not grasping it. How do you like being told that. Pleasant? The 12 test is not for testing below 10 u, that's what it says. It doesn't say 5 u. You can put whatever unknown filter you like through the test, makes no difference. It remains a mystery where the 80% figure comes from, except a man said it. Mann says 16889 is a calibration, which fits with your other box with two particle counter settings.

 

[dnewton3]

Let me make this clearer for some of you.
Quit arguing about which filter is "best".
Quit worrying about which filter test is more accurate.
NONE OF IT MATTERS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD.

Read and learn ...

Graph 1 = what you all believe happens
Graph 2 = what actually happens

Series 1 would represent a dino lube and normal filter
Series 2 would represent a semi-syn and upgraded filter
Series 3 would represent a syn and premium filter
Series 4 is what happens during the "normal" stage of an OFCI

These would be representative of Fe wear; typically tracks with exposure duration. Other wear metals don't typically exhibit nearly as clear a delineation.



If you go read my "Normalcy" article, you can see what I claim is proven beyond any doubt.

Regardless of what products you select, your wear rates are fairly flat for the first 12-15k miles. Let me repeat that ...
REGARDLESS OF WHAT PRODUCTS YOU SELECT, YOUR WEAR RATES ARE NOT AFFECTED IN A TANGIBLE MANNER IN A NORMAL OFCI.

Unless you have an outside influence greatly shift an input (air filter leak, coolant intrusion, etc), the engine wear rates are not going to change much at all in the first part of your OFCI. Using a syn fluid with a premium filter does NOT, in any manner, give you a "better" or "best" wear rate.

The charts represent the mean (average) wear rates. But please do realize (as I've discussed before in other threads) that wear is not a stagnant phenomenon, but rather has variation in it. Hence, the point of my lengthy article. You have to understand what is "normal" variation before you can ever be able to discern and identify a trend shift based upon product inputs. In nearly all engines, the "normal" variation FAR EXCEEDS the changes due to products. I didn't put the "ranges" on the charts because it would make it more difficult to see for many of you. Simple is best in this regard. The graphs help illustrate the phenomenon that I describe, and are based upon my study data, out to 15k miles.

Now, please do not construe the graphs above to mean that all equipment wears the exact same in terms of actual rates. That is patently untrue. What is true is that each and every engine family, gearbox design, etc will have a unique wear rate for some application. The point to understand is that once that is established, it's fairly consistent regardless of what you dump in the sump or screw on the filter mount, within a "normal" OCI duration.
Example: the 4.6L Ford mod motors. The wear rate at 3k miles is slightly higher than at 5, 7, or 10k miles. But once that first drop is establish, it's darn near flat!
3K miles = 3.2ppm / 1k miles
5k miles = 2.5ppm / 1k miles
7k miles = 2.5ppm / 1k miles
10k miles = 2.3ppm / 1k miles
As you can see, as the duration increases, the wear rate is pretty darn flat. I don't care what you put in the crankcase or on the motor, it won't vary a whole lot.
QUIT LOOKING AT SINGULAR WEAR VALUES IN A UOA, AND START LOOKING AT OVERALL WEAR RATES. Until you do that, you're hopelessly lost.


Those who've read my rants over the years will recall that I famously state, in hundreds of threads, that premium products don't do things "better", but they do them "longer". In fact, it's even in my signature line! That is the distinction you all need to grasp. Until any particular product combination is overwhelmed by the operating conditions, no other combination can be "better". This is a matter of capacity and capability, not how large your wallet is! You can buy a product that will possibly last LONGER in service, but it's ONLY a true advantage if you actually USE IT PAST WHERE A LESSOR PRODUCT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPLETED. If that does not occur, you have WASTED your money on an unused resource.


Some of you hopefully will have an "ah-Ha!" moment, and the rest will probably never get it, because they are drunk with lube kool-aid.


Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: MParr
dnewton3
Pretty well sums it up.

Yeah he does. But, I have my mess-up-meter honed in on him! One of these days.........

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Sorry to say you're not grasping it. How do you like being told that. Pleasant? The 12 test is not for testing below 10 u, that's what it says. It doesn't say 5 u. You can put whatever unknown filter you like through the test, makes no difference. It remains a mystery where the 80% figure comes from, except a man said it. Mann says 16889 is a calibration, which fits with your other box with two particle counter settings.

Said I'm sorry, but you don't see what I'm saying. I"ll try one more time to make it clear what the test descriptions are saying.

You finally discovered yourself that filter beta ratios really do exist way above 75 as shown by the Donaldson hydraulic filter bulletin you linked the other day. In fact, that hydraulic filter bulletin was talking all about ISO 16889 because ISO 16889 specifically applies to high efficiency filters meant to be used in hydraulic power applications. That is also said right in the ISO 16889 test description. It even uses the word "hydraulic" and says use ISO 16889 if the filter is above beta 75. Recall the Fram bulletin you kept referencing a while back that said ISO 4548-12 was good for only up to beta 75. Well, ISO 16889 is used for where 4548-12 leaves off if you want to think of it that way. Hydraulic power equipment require very high efficiency filters, and ISO 16889 is specifically geared toward those kind of filters. Says so right in the summary description of 16889.

Look carefully at those summary description statements for each efficiency test (ISO 4548-12 and ISO 16889). They are distinguishing which test should be applied to what kind of oil filters. They are very specific. It's making the tester chose the appropriately designed test method based on the type of filter to test.

Once it's been determined that 4548-12 is the appropriate procedure, then go into 4548-12 and follow it. Section 9.3.7 says if you have at least 6 channels on your particle counters then set the chnnels to the particle sizes listed, and the 5 micron particles are included. If the particle counters only have 5 channels, then the 5 micron particles are not included, and 10 microns is the lowest setting in that specific case.

ISO 4548-12 says it's meant for filters that have an efficiency below 99% for particles >10 microns. Like said before, even an efficient filter like the Ultra being at 99% for particles >20 is way under that defined criteria, so it means that ISO 4548-12 should be used. For some reason M+H uses some "recalibrated" version of 4548-12 "according yo 16889" for filters that are obviously way under the 99% for particles >10 as defined in 4548-12. They are "doing their own thing" and not using 4548-12 based on the criteria on which efficiency test to use. Very confusing thing to do IMO instead of just using 4548-12 as intended. They are playing with established test specs.

Don't know what else to say to make it anymore clear.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I think it's Z06 that doesn't like WIX, or frustrates members from buying them.

It's as good as before ... no change, no worries.

I like WIX filters, just not certain ones. People choose a filter based on facts, and there's a reason some people don't like certain filters for various reasons.

You like your "vacation"?

I still don't know why I was chosen to go on one. I'll PM you later.
Do you blame me for buying that WIX at that price? I am a die hard FU fan now, but what's this about them being bad? Is there a kink in the FU's armor that I'm not aware of? DO TELL!
That's a great deal on an XP-even the $5 off $10 codes for O'Reilly wouldn't get me close to that price. The XP has a somewhat low efficiency rating (50% at 20 microns), but in your well maintained truck it would be a great choice.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
You like your "vacation"?

I still don't know why I was chosen to go on one. I'll PM you later.
Do you blame me for buying that WIX at that price? I am a die hard FU fan now, but what's this about them being bad? Is there a kink in the FU's armor that I'm not aware of? DO TELL! [/quote]That's a great deal on an XP-even the $5 off $10 codes for O'Reilly wouldn't get me close to that price. The XP has a somewhat low efficiency rating (50% at 20 microns), but in your well maintained truck it would be a great choice. [/quote]
Why, thank you there sir!
Where have you been hiding? Or, have you and Rocky been busy!

 

[Yah-Tah-Hey]

In eleven months I can start mentioning my favorite oil filter. Until then, mums the word.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
In eleven months I can start mentioning my favorite oil filter. Until then, mums the word.


I'll give you a freebe ...

DENSO

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: HosteenJorje
In eleven months I can start mentioning my favorite oil filter. Until then, mums the word.


I'll give you a freebe ...

DENSO

MANN?

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
You like your "vacation"?

I still don't know why I was chosen to go on one. I'll PM you later.
Do you blame me for buying that WIX at that price? I am a die hard FU fan now, but what's this about them being bad? Is there a kink in the FU's armor that I'm not aware of? DO TELL!
That's a great deal on an XP-even the $5 off $10 codes for O'Reilly wouldn't get me close to that price. The XP has a somewhat low efficiency rating (50% at 20 microns), but in your well maintained truck it would be a great choice. [/quote]
Why, thank you there sir!
Where have you been hiding? Or, have you and Rocky been busy!

[/quote]I've been around, running my Ultras for multiple OCIs...whoops!

 

[WellOiled]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Let me make this clearer for some of you.
Quit arguing about which filter is "best".
Quit worrying about which filter test is more accurate.
NONE OF IT MATTERS FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORLD.

Read and learn ...

Graph 1 = what you all believe happens
Graph 2 = what actually happens

Series 1 would represent a dino lube and normal filter
Series 2 would represent a semi-syn and upgraded filter
Series 3 would represent a syn and premium filter
Series 4 is what happens during the "normal" stage of an OFCI

These would be representative of Fe wear; typically tracks with exposure duration. Other wear metals don't typically exhibit nearly as clear a delineation.



If you go read my "Normalcy" article, you can see what I claim is proven beyond any doubt.

Regardless of what products you select, your wear rates are fairly flat for the first 12-15k miles. Let me repeat that ...
REGARDLESS OF WHAT PRODUCTS YOU SELECT, YOUR WEAR RATES ARE NOT AFFECTED IN A TANGIBLE MANNER IN A NORMAL OFCI.

Unless you have an outside influence greatly shift an input (air filter leak, coolant intrusion, etc), the engine wear rates are not going to change much at all in the first part of your OFCI. Using a syn fluid with a premium filter does NOT, in any manner, give you a "better" or "best" wear rate.

The charts represent the mean (average) wear rates. But please do realize (as I've discussed before in other threads) that wear is not a stagnant phenomenon, but rather has variation in it. Hence, the point of my lengthy article. You have to understand what is "normal" variation before you can ever be able to discern and identify a trend shift based upon product inputs. In nearly all engines, the "normal" variation FAR EXCEEDS the changes due to products. I didn't put the "ranges" on the charts because it would make it more difficult to see for many of you. Simple is best in this regard. The graphs help illustrate the phenomenon that I describe, and are based upon my study data, out to 15k miles.

Now, please do not construe the graphs above to mean that all equipment wears the exact same in terms of actual rates. That is patently untrue. What is true is that each and every engine family, gearbox design, etc will have a unique wear rate for some application. The point to understand is that once that is established, it's fairly consistent regardless of what you dump in the sump or screw on the filter mount, within a "normal" OCI duration.
Example: the 4.6L Ford mod motors. The wear rate at 3k miles is slightly higher than at 5, 7, or 10k miles. But once that first drop is establish, it's darn near flat!
3K miles = 3.2ppm / 1k miles
5k miles = 2.5ppm / 1k miles
7k miles = 2.5ppm / 1k miles
10k miles = 2.3ppm / 1k miles
As you can see, as the duration increases, the wear rate is pretty darn flat. I don't care what you put in the crankcase or on the motor, it won't vary a whole lot.
QUIT LOOKING AT SINGULAR WEAR VALUES IN A UOA, AND START LOOKING AT OVERALL WEAR RATES. Until you do that, you're hopelessly lost.


Those who've read my rants over the years will recall that I famously state, in hundreds of threads, that premium products don't do things "better", but they do them "longer". In fact, it's even in my signature line! That is the distinction you all need to grasp. Until any particular product combination is overwhelmed by the operating conditions, no other combination can be "better". This is a matter of capacity and capability, not how large your wallet is! You can buy a product that will possibly last LONGER in service, but it's ONLY a true advantage if you actually USE IT PAST WHERE A LESSOR PRODUCT WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPLETED. If that does not occur, you have WASTED your money on an unused resource.


Some of you hopefully will have an "ah-Ha!" moment, and the rest will probably never get it, because they are drunk with lube kool-aid.


Thus endeth the lesson.

Dnewton3 - Thanks for the lesson. This helps my understanding.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I, for one, won't use a Wix XP; I am not willing to trade away efficiency for capacity, especially when a "normal" Wix (equiv NG) has way more capacity than I already need.

XP pricing up here doesn't do it any favours, either.

Fram retailers don't do themselves any favours either with their orange can, when the Baldwins from Acklands, of all places, are under $5 and with Casites for $1.67.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
...and with Casites for $1.67.


$1.67 in Canada ... that's super cheap.

 

[Garak]

When I saw that, I fell over. The previous cheapest filter I could buy was AC Delco back in 1989 for just over $2. Any filter under $5 here over the last many, many years is a miracle in itself.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
but in your well maintained truck it would be a great choice.

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Why, thank you there sir!
Where have you been hiding? Or, have you and Rocky been busy!

I've been around, running my Ultras for multiple OCIs...whoops!

NO! Say it isn't so! First Z06, now you? I see the force is NOT strong in you 2 Padawan!

Garack, for those prices you could stock up and NEVER have to buy an oil filter again for your ride/rides.

 

[Garak]

Almost.

I've seen some cut open Casite filters, and I'm not terribly impressed with these Clarcor jobbers, but I have no problem with buying a fistful of the Baldwins at under $5 as needed.

 

[jongies3]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Ever since discovering the microgreen filters are not what they're claimed to be, I've spent a bit of time researching particle count results.

Firstly, I went to Dr Dave's Amsoil EA15K51 particle counts. He ran one filter for 22k miles and another filter for 43k miles.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4131246/1

From this, somewhere after 14.4k is when the particle count drops dramatically. At 14.4k, the ISO cleanliness code was 19/18/16. By 22k, it became 15/14/11 which is a big improvement.

The improvement lasts for a 20k miles or so which is excellent. But it was necessary to wait sometime after 14.4k miles to begin getting the benefit.

Compare this to btanchors particle counts with M1 filters.

http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/btanchors/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxODIyNDE3NQ==/?ref=1

At 5k miles, he got a cleanliness code of 16/15/13.

There is another case with an M1 and a FilterMag where the cleanliness code after just 2.5k miles was 15/14/12.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2531272/1



While the Ultra has tested in ISO tests as having very high filtering efficiency along with high capacity / life, it seems that high efficiency and lower capacity / life cellulose filters may in the real world end up producing lower particle counts and provide the benefit of that sooner.

With the M1 now 99% efficient at 30 microns, it may be that a ToughGuard or a PureOne, optionally with magnets, would actually be much more effective than a Ultra at reducing the real world particle counts.

For me it comes down to price. Why would I pay extra for a filter with a syn blend cellulose media when I can get one a full synthetic, wire backed media for $9? (Although I bought some TG's on clearance from my local TSC recently, how could I resist 65 cents a filter?!) The reason M1 filters are more expensive is just that fancy logo on the can. I'd rather have that money go towards the filtering components themselves. Amsoil filters are the same way, excellent filter, but, again you're paying for a name more than a filter. I just feel more comfortable running a Ultra 10k miles than I would a cellulose filter, even though I'm probably overthinking it. I wouldn't run a Purolator on my worst enemy's lawnmower, FYI.