STP premium air filter 5011 information...

[bbhero]

Just a interesting note here about this air filter... It states on the box this air filter is 98 percent per ISO 5011 testing FINE dust....

Interesting because I have yet to see a specific notation on any air filter mentioning using any specific size of dust... This one clearly mentions fine dust. Maybe this STP premium air filter could be better than some others that are 99 percent using coarse dust...

I do like that it does specify the dust size used. Also the coated media is a plus.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Those filters are awesome! I like the red media

 

[CR94]

If it's capable of "trapping 2X the contaminants as the standard STP air filter," that must mean the standard one is only 49% efficient. Really?!

It would easier to believe it lets through only half as many particles of some specified size.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

98% efficiency at what?

 

[RyanY]

Originally Posted by CR94
If it's capable of "trapping 2X the contaminants as the standard STP air filter," that must mean the standard one is only 49% efficient. Really?!

It would easier to believe it lets through only half as many particles of some specified size.

Lol the marketing language is always somewhat vague! I interpreted this to mean the filter can hold twice as much dirt as the regular stp. I'm not sure, though!

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
98% efficiency at what?



Well... Who totally knows

However... The mentioning of "fine" dust is of serious note here.... I have never seen any other air filter specify the dust size... So that is more meaningful than 99 percent at no dust size being mentioned at all...

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by RyanY
Originally Posted by CR94
If it's capable of "trapping 2X the contaminants as the standard STP air filter," that must mean the standard one is only 49% efficient. Really?!

It would easier to believe it lets through only half as many particles of some specified size.

Lol the marketing language is always somewhat vague! I interpreted this to mean the filter can hold twice as much dirt as the regular stp. I'm not sure, though!



Your insight is correct....

Twice the capacity... As you obviously know capacity and efficiency are two different metrics...

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by CR94
If it's capable of "trapping 2X the contaminants as the standard STP air filter," that must mean the standard one is only 49% efficient. Really?!

It would easier to believe it lets through only half as many particles of some specified size.



This is in regards to holding capacity... Nothing to do with efficiency... Two different metrics.

Having said that... The regular STP air filter is only 90%... Which for a air filter is quite bad actually. Kind of like a tearolater in action within the oil system

No bueno.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by slacktide_bitog
Those filters are awesome! I like the red media

Yes sir me too... I'm impressed with it mentioning "fine" dust testing per ISO 5011... That is far better than 99 percent at zero dust size being mentioned. 99 percent using coarse dust is no where near has good.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by CR94
If it's capable of "trapping 2X the contaminants as the standard STP air filter," that must mean the standard one is only 49% efficient. ...
This is in regards to holding capacity... Nothing to do with efficiency...
Probably so, but they should've so specified, instead of their very misleading vague statement.

Holding capacity is of much lesser practical significance, unless you're going much longer than most people between filter changes, or operating in a particularly dusty environment. In more typical circumstances, "trapping 2X the contaminants" before the filter gets replaced at some arbitrary fixed mileage would require 2X the efficiency.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
98% efficiency at what?



Well... Who totally knows

However... The mentioning of "fine" dust is of serious note here.... I have never seen any other air filter specify the dust size... So that is more meaningful than 99 percent at no dust size being mentioned at all...


You mean they got a little more clever at fooling you with marketing. The word "fine" is relative. The thickness of hair is considered "fine" to most which is around 80 microns.

 

[bbhero]

Actually captain....

No other mention ANY size whatsoever...none... Nada... Zero... Zilch.....

Size of gravel?? Size of sand?? Visible sand???

What does that mean captain?????

Please tell me...

The fact no other air filter mentions the size used could mean coarse or fine...

One of our members here from SA Tx made note that fine dust particle testing was actually well smaller than 70 microns... I cannot recall off the top of my memory what that was but it was well less than 80 or 70...

So... Good,bad or indifferent.... At a minimum... Making note of size is a notable differentiation... A very big difference from say Zero, Zilch, No, Nada, Zero mention of any size particle test used in that ISO 5011 testing...

Which again... No other one ever mentioned... Not Wix, not Fram, not Champion...

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by CR94
If it's capable of "trapping 2X the contaminants as the standard STP air filter," that must mean the standard one is only 49% efficient. ...
This is in regards to holding capacity... Nothing to do with efficiency...
Probably so, but they should've so specified, instead of their very misleading vague statement.

Holding capacity is of much lesser practical significance, unless you're going much longer than most people between filter changes, or operating in a particularly dusty environment. In more typical circumstances, "trapping 2X the contaminants" before the filter gets replaced at some arbitrary fixed mileage would require 2X the efficiency.



To be fair... It does specify this on the box clearly.

Again... A huge, huge difference in efficiency between 90 percent and 98 percent...