Oil Filter Filtration and Flow Testing per ISO 4548-12

[RDY4WAR]

Earlier this year, several oil filters were tested in a multi-pass filtration and flow test per ISO 4548-12. The tests were conducted at Ascent Filtration Testing LLC, an independent lab based out of Michigan. The filters tested were based on requests from myself and others in the oil community.

All filters have synthetic media except for the ACDelco filter which is cellulose.

In order of efficiency at capturing particles 20 um and larger...

#1 Fram Ultra - 99.96%
#2 Royal Purple - 99.08%
#3 ACDelco Gold - 96.49%
#4 Purolator Boss - 61.80%
#5 Wix XP - 61.61%

In order of flow by pressure drop through the filter at a steady 30 LPM... (higher pressure drop = less flow)

#1 Wix XP - 4.98 psid
#2 Fram Ultra - 5.23 psid
#3 Purolator Boss - 6.82 psid
#4 ACDelco Gold - 6.82 psid
#5 Royal Purple - 8.84 psid

In order of loading capacity before clogging...

#1 Wix XP - 18.1 grams
#2 Fram Ultra - 13.6 grams
#3 Purolator Boss - 12.5 grams
#4 Royal Purple - 10.1 grams
#5 ACDelco Gold - 9.1 grams

These filters were also put through a bubble point test which they all tested well in except for the Wix XP which exhibited a bypass failure.

Here's a comparison of the results to the advertised filtration rating of the filter from their manufacturer.

Fram Ultra
- Advertised: >99% @ 20 um
- Actual: 99.96% @ 20 um
- Claim: Valid

Royal Purple
- Advertised: 99% @ 25 um
- Actual: 99.56% @ 25 um
- Claim: Valid

ACDelco Gold
- Advertised: 98% @ 25 um
- Actual: 98.85% @ 25 um
- Claim: Valid

Purolator Boss
- Advertised: 99% @ 25 um
- Actual: 87.79% @ 25 um
- Claim: False

Wix XP
- Advertised: 95% @ 35 um
- Actual: 87.68% @ 35 um
- Claim: False

Here's the graphs for the data. The first one is all data ranges from 15-50 um. The next two are close ups of the most efficient filters. The last one is the flow data.

Efficiency Compairson Graph Pic 2.jpg

Efficiency Compairson Graph Pic 3.jpg

Efficiency Compairson Graph Pic 4.jpg

Capacity Compairson Graph Pic 1.jpg

[RDY4WAR]

Here's the video for the bubble point testing: https://youtu.be/pHkeSjnyxEs?t=662

[Roundybout]

Excellent info. Thanks for posting this. I guess Fram has come a long way since I said never again. Also suprised by the Wix performance. I read a study a while back where they compared filters and change intervals on big Diesel engines. It was an eye opener on how much clean filtered oil matters in engine longevity. The size of the particles filtered was the biggest factor.

[RDY4WAR]

I was disappointed and surprised by the Wix XP as well. I've been concerned about Wix since they were bought by Mann+Hummel. M+H ran Purolator in the ground several years ago with media tearing and ADBV issues.

Fram was bought by Rank Group and later Trico. A lot of R&D was invested in turning the brand around and it shows here.

[BOOT]

That's funny, local store clearanced their fram ultra's, talls for SBC since they didn't sell for some reason, so I bought like 6 at less than $2 ea. Figured I'd use em for flushes or break in But not anymore

[RDY4WAR]

That's funny, local store clearanced their fram ultra's, talls for SBC since they didn't sell for some reason, so I bought like 6 at less than $2 ea. Figured I'd use em for flushes or break in But not anymore

A bad reputation is hard to break. Fram went through a dark era when Honeywell had them imprisoned down in Mexico.

[BOOT]

A bad reputation is hard to break. Fram went through a dark era when Honeywell had them imprisoned down in Mexico.

I know a guy who lost a $$$$$$ engine due to a fram filter

[Ken_Parkman]

I had one come apart and the resulting crap plugged the regulating valve. This is after years of saying the internet was over reacting on Fram and still buying them.

It will take a fair amount to recover from that experience and regain confidence.

[rebelyell]

Anyone willing to share a copy of ISO 4548-12 xxxx ????
seems purchase price about $150 USD.

I like & will continue to use WIX OF, but haven't used any XP series & no plans to do so either.

I have THREE Ford 4.6L modular and for those I use the very good Motorcraft FL-820S

[RDY4WAR]

Anyone willing to share a copy of ISO 4548-12 xxxx ????
seems purchase price about $150 USD.

I like & will continue to use WIX OF, but haven't used any XP series & no plans to do so either.

I have THREE Ford 4.6L modular and for those I use the very good Motorcraft FL-820S

I would reconsider the FL-820S. Motorcraft filters are made by Purolator and have been suffering the same media tearing problems as Purolator for the past several years. They're kinda the Fram of today, to the point people are calling them "tear-o-lator."

There's several documented media tears and end cap issues posted on BITOG. The issues began when Mann+Hummel bought out Purolator. M+H also recently acquired Wix.

Motorcraft FL820S failure

Another motorcraft failure

We're Done, Motorcraft

[rebelyell]

Interesting BITOG gripes, but not enough to dissuade me. Also running FL-400S retrofit on a 16 yo briggs 20hp Vtwin; did that retrofit when brand new, primary mower 2 acres. YMMV

All in a temperate climate w/ good multi vis full syn 5W-40 in the old, hi-mileage Fords and GMs. I'm usually gentle on warm-up.

got a copy of that ISO 4548-12xxxx ?

[RDY4WAR]

Interesting BITOG gripes, but not enough to dissuade me. Also running FL-400S retrofit on a 16 yo briggs 20hp Vtwin; did that retrofit when brand new, primary mower 2 acres. YMMV

All in a temperate climate w/ good multi vis full syn 5W-40 in the old, hi-mileage Fords and GMs. I'm usually gentle on warm-up.

got a copy of that ISO 4548-12xxxx ?

If you're wondering how that test is conducted, here's the data sheet on that using the one from the ACDelco Gold as the example. It may be a little difficult to see. I tried to blow it up as best as I could.

AFT Filtration Testing ACD-G Data.jpeg

[Roundybout]

That result contains a lot of usual info. It appears that between >15 to the next >20 particle size is where you really start to see the efficiency ramp up. Basically anything larger than 20 microns is being trapped.

I’d be really interested in the differences in efficiency on the small particle sizes. I’ve always been believer the smaller the particle size you can trap efficiently the better. Without impacting pressure and volume of course within limits. Maybe a good reason to run a dual filtration system with different filter efficiencies in series.

Also the graph on mass injected and mass retained in the filter. 10.5G vs 9.1g retained. Would that 1.4g not trapped be majority >15 size? Too small to trap? Borderline size and could be trapped the next pass through the filter? Fascinating stuff. Thank you again for these posts.

[kohnen]

I'm glad I stumbled across this - it's amazing how little actual numerical facts and data is available on oil filters. I was going to replace my Fram Ultra with a Purolator Boss, but I wanted to be sure that I was taking a step up in performance. It turns out that I would have actually been going from the very best filter performance to the second to worst filter performance.

You can't tell ANYTHING about the filter performance by dissecting a filter and showing pretty pictures of it on YouTube! And, vendors don't help by not making their filtering performance data widely available. If I were Fram, I'd be crowing my numbers everywhere!

I really liked the idea of the MicroGreen filters. If you'll recall, these combined a regular 30ish micron filter (I'm guessing here) with a built-in 5ish micron bypass filter. I didn't buy them in order to extend my change interval (as MicroGreen tried to tell folks to do) but to have the best filtering I could find. Alas, MicroGreen ran into troubles and ended up bankrupt. I thought they were the best for cleaning the oil really well.

Great Work!

[i82much]

It would be interesting to try this test with 10 of each filter with different manufacture dates to see if the results are consistent.