The box says that they stop 90% of the dirt. To me that says that 10% makes it through the air filter. Does not say how big the dirt is but does not sound good to me.
STP air filters this bad?
- Thread starter Chris142
- Start date
- Status
That sounds odd. Do you have a picture?
?!?!?!? crazy! or truthful. ?
What do other automotive air filters claim percentage wise for dirt entrapment? My guess is the same or worse. Or do they even mention it? Why would any company knowingly advertise something that they lagged behind the competition in performance claims?
I think it's another ploy to try to attract the consumer however in this case I am not sure it worked.
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/09/full-14260-36265-1557591_8603196.jpg "[Linked Image]")
Originally Posted by joekingcorvette
I think it's another ploy to try to attract the consumer however in this case I am not sure it worked.
Didn't work on me. I live on a dirt road. If more than 2 cars drive by I must stop and wait for the dust to clear before I continue.
I think it's another ploy to try to attract the consumer however in this case I am not sure it worked.
Didn't work on me. I live on a dirt road. If more than 2 cars drive by I must stop and wait for the dust to clear before I continue.
Purolator says 99% for their air filter, based on ISO 5011 on A24278.
Interesting that it was tested on one filter size, maybe the efficiency varies with size and design of the filter. You would think the media is the important factor.
http://www.pureoil.com/en/do-it-yourself/air-filters/
Interesting that it was tested on one filter size, maybe the efficiency varies with size and design of the filter. You would think the media is the important factor.
http://www.pureoil.com/en/do-it-yourself/air-filters/
Would have been better had they quoted the ISO spec, probably unfortunate ad copy. Ninety percent still seems low, but note the 4x smaller quote, is that ISO? Is it really that much worse than Purolator? I bet that filter would trap 100% of gravel, so the devil is in the detail.
I've never been a stickler for closely looking at air filter quality other than it fit properly. My HVAC repair guy warns that many units are ruined by people who get the highest quality furnace filters choking off normal air flow. Seems like any filter has to measure filtering quality vs. throughput, or we'd all be using filtering media made of steel plate.
I've never been a stickler for closely looking at air filter quality other than it fit properly. My HVAC repair guy warns that many units are ruined by people who get the highest quality furnace filters choking off normal air flow. Seems like any filter has to measure filtering quality vs. throughput, or we'd all be using filtering media made of steel plate.
These Fram filters don't make any claims except they " Trap Double the Dirt" and are good for 12,000 miles.
Last edited:
So what is this buying us? The old filter was good for 12K. Traps double the dirt true or just hype? I'll bet the cost went up $2 a filter.
Originally Posted by billt460
What do other automotive air filters claim percentage wise for dirt entrapment? My guess is the same or worse. Or do they even mention it? Why would any company knowingly advertise something that they lagged behind the competition in performance claims?
Purolator 99 % per ISO 5011
Wix 99.5 % per ISO 5011
STP Premium air filter 98 % per ISO 5011 small dust test used
Fram Ultra 99 % per ISO 5011 small test dust used
So.. 90 % is terrible not matter what... And this math is super bad because it is based upon the power of 10s on a exponential form...
Even a 2 % difference is a big difference in what passes through a filter... A 9% difference is a MASSIVE/ Exponential increase in what passes through that filter...
That's why I have said the STP regular air filter should say it stops only horse flies, praying mantis, and hornets from entering your cars motor
What do other automotive air filters claim percentage wise for dirt entrapment? My guess is the same or worse. Or do they even mention it? Why would any company knowingly advertise something that they lagged behind the competition in performance claims?
Purolator 99 % per ISO 5011
Wix 99.5 % per ISO 5011
STP Premium air filter 98 % per ISO 5011 small dust test used
Fram Ultra 99 % per ISO 5011 small test dust used
So.. 90 % is terrible not matter what... And this math is super bad because it is based upon the power of 10s on a exponential form...
Even a 2 % difference is a big difference in what passes through a filter... A 9% difference is a MASSIVE/ Exponential increase in what passes through that filter...
That's why I have said the STP regular air filter should say it stops only horse flies, praying mantis, and hornets from entering your cars motor
Last edited:
The 90% efficiency statement appears to be at odds with actual performance, as demonstrated in the comparison posted at https://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/air-filter-study.html,
where the STP performed similarly to ACDelco and Wix. Of course that study was about 10 years ago and the quality may have changed.
where the STP performed similarly to ACDelco and Wix. Of course that study was about 10 years ago and the quality may have changed.
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by billt460
What do other automotive air filters claim percentage wise for dirt entrapment? My guess is the same or worse. Or do they even mention it? Why would any company knowingly advertise something that they lagged behind the competition in performance claims?
Purolator 99 % per ISO 5011
Wix 99.5 % per ISO 5011
STP Premium air filter 98 % per ISO 5011 small dust test used
Fram Ultra 99 % per ISO 5011 small test dust used
So.. 90 % is terrible not matter what... And this math is super bad because it is based upon the power of 10s on a exponential form...
Even a 2 % difference is a big difference in what passes through a filter... A 9% difference is a MASSIVE/ Exponential increase in what passes through that filter...
That's why I have said the STP regular air filter should say it stops only horse flies, praying mantis, and hornets from entering your cars motor
And 100% of golf balls.
Originally Posted by billt460
What do other automotive air filters claim percentage wise for dirt entrapment? My guess is the same or worse. Or do they even mention it? Why would any company knowingly advertise something that they lagged behind the competition in performance claims?
Purolator 99 % per ISO 5011
Wix 99.5 % per ISO 5011
STP Premium air filter 98 % per ISO 5011 small dust test used
Fram Ultra 99 % per ISO 5011 small test dust used
So.. 90 % is terrible not matter what... And this math is super bad because it is based upon the power of 10s on a exponential form...
Even a 2 % difference is a big difference in what passes through a filter... A 9% difference is a MASSIVE/ Exponential increase in what passes through that filter...
That's why I have said the STP regular air filter should say it stops only horse flies, praying mantis, and hornets from entering your cars motor
And 100% of golf balls.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
DELETE
Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by billt460
What do other automotive air filters claim percentage wise for dirt entrapment? My guess is the same or worse. Or do they even mention it? Why would any company knowingly advertise something that they lagged behind the competition in performance claims?
Purolator 99 % per ISO 5011
Wix 99.5 % per ISO 5011
STP Premium air filter 98 % per ISO 5011 small dust test used
Fram Ultra 99 % per ISO 5011 small test dust used
So.. 90 % is terrible not matter what... And this math is super bad because it is based upon the power of 10s on a exponential form...
Even a 2 % difference is a big difference in what passes through a filter... A 9% difference is a MASSIVE/ Exponential increase in what passes through that filter...
That's why I have said the STP regular air filter should say it stops only horse flies, praying mantis, and hornets from entering your cars motor
And 100% of golf balls.
And golf balls too for the regular STP air filter
Originally Posted by bbhero
Originally Posted by billt460
What do other automotive air filters claim percentage wise for dirt entrapment? My guess is the same or worse. Or do they even mention it? Why would any company knowingly advertise something that they lagged behind the competition in performance claims?
Purolator 99 % per ISO 5011
Wix 99.5 % per ISO 5011
STP Premium air filter 98 % per ISO 5011 small dust test used
Fram Ultra 99 % per ISO 5011 small test dust used
So.. 90 % is terrible not matter what... And this math is super bad because it is based upon the power of 10s on a exponential form...
Even a 2 % difference is a big difference in what passes through a filter... A 9% difference is a MASSIVE/ Exponential increase in what passes through that filter...
That's why I have said the STP regular air filter should say it stops only horse flies, praying mantis, and hornets from entering your cars motor
And 100% of golf balls.
And golf balls too for the regular STP air filter
Last edited:
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Lol... good commentary guys. But i have no issue using these.
- Status