Filter Guy: I just bought some LuberFiner (Champ Labs) filters for an older Gold Wing and the filters had a date code and made in China printed on the bottom of the filter. These I'm sure are re-badged though. The cans where plan white other than the origin information, only the boxes had any branding on them.
Bypass psi critical?
- Thread starter Dude-Man
- Start date
- Status
Collapsed center tube..
Sounding the end of the nylon/plastic center-cage of the E-Core?
I always thought that was a fishy thing. No one ever did make the contention that nylon cages were stronger than a galvanized steel center.
Sounding the end of the nylon/plastic center-cage of the E-Core?
I always thought that was a fishy thing. No one ever did make the contention that nylon cages were stronger than a galvanized steel center.
****, do the auto manufactuers publish their filter requirement specs or do the filter companies have to reverse engineer them?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I believe that FG said that unless Champ is the OEM supplier, they had to reverse engineer the offerings for aftermarket.
And do you have any evidence that Amsoil requires the filters to be made with several grades of media? Manufacturers generally try to standardized as much as they can to save on costs, not to mention the quality control issues involved. Sometimes it just doesn't make economic sense to procure, store, inventory and change manufacturing equipment calibrations to save a few pennies. While I know that all oil filter manufacturers use several grades of medias, I think you blow this out of proportion with your FUD.
The best way Dude-Man can check if the EAO36 provides any advantage over the EA013 is run them both under close to identical conditions for his intended interval and have a UOA with a particle count done.
Note that the filter in Filter Guy's test was an EA36 size ST3600
Somehow I just have a hard time believing the filter on the left will filter as well (dirt holding capacity, efficiency, flow) as the filter on the right. Why would they bother developing new high tech media with such differences in capability?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
All things being equal ..the larger filter should sustain higher loading without developing higher baseline PSID (naturally variable 'depending'). Whatever flow it encounters will not accellerate as much as the smaller filter (or will decellerate more).
When comparing applications, the 6607 appears to be limited to smaller (lawn tractors, etc.) or newer engines that peak out at 3.5L (Infinity), while the 3600 goes as far back as 81 with displacements as high a 4.6 liters. In Wix, the two have different flow design capabilities. The larger one having less.
Assuming the spec'd engines have the same OCI and like sump capacities ..the bigger should be better..however..I think both have more then enough capacity for long spec'd service without loading side effects.
When comparing applications, the 6607 appears to be limited to smaller (lawn tractors, etc.) or newer engines that peak out at 3.5L (Infinity), while the 3600 goes as far back as 81 with displacements as high a 4.6 liters. In Wix, the two have different flow design capabilities. The larger one having less.
Assuming the spec'd engines have the same OCI and like sump capacities ..the bigger should be better..however..I think both have more then enough capacity for long spec'd service without loading side effects.
So you believe that to obtain more flow, with less than half the volume, yet maintain the same efficiency, they developed a special Ea media that is twice as good for the smaller filter than the special Ea media they developed for the larger filter?
Sorry about that, but I have done some crude testing and found the similar plastic center tube out of an L 15436 is much more crush resistant than the steel tube out of an ST 3950, and so posted here. The plastic center tubes have a very sucessful history in cartridge elements. You would have to be blind to miss a colapsed one when you changed it. Undummy's isn't a plastic center tube.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
(sudden random thought of a retro commercial I saw)
Hmm ..why do I want to bark like Lassie
"What's the matter, girl? Arf-arf - whine-arf
"What? There's a fire ..and someone's trapped in the cabin up by the lake ..with a broken leg ..and they're bleeding?"
Arf-whine!
"Okay, let's go! Timmy, get the first aid kit!"
(sorry, I'm over my episode now
I think that they roll the same stuff in every filter running down the line on an ST run (probably others). We've seen dinky filters take a good long while to do nothing in terms of loading.
I will take filter guy's word on different qualities of media. I will take my eyeball's, hacksaw's, and tape measure's word that they pack the media in tighter in smaller filters partly making up for the smaller space they take up.
I somewhat agree. The big filter manufacturers probably do more tailoring of media type and quantity as shown by the large part number lists and several levels of quality. But my eyeballs, filter cutter, and tape measure have demonstrated to me that in the top-of-the-line filters of the same manufacturer, media area is roughly proportional to can volume. And media type is identical as far as an unaided eye can visually see, although I know that's not conclusive. And that song and dance about each filter is designed for your car by aftermarket filter manufacturers is a bunch of hooey. If aftermarket filter manufacturers have a filter in their inventory that meets or exceeds the original filter spec, or, a back engineered one, they ain't designing a new one, they'll specify one already in their inventory.
Look at the filters I posted above. One is spec'd for a 3.5L Nissan, the other for a 3.0L Ford. You're willing to bet there's an equivalent amount of media area in those two filters?
Now this thread was about Ea filters. In this case, they're trying to cover as many vehicles as possible with as few as part numbers and specs as they can. The odds are, they're specifying the most difficult spec for each size, thread, bypass rating, efficiency, flow, etc, to cover as many vehicles as they can. Whats the sense of building a bigger filter with less efficiency and flow with high-tech media?
Will the specified part number work as intended? Certainly. But I'm not buying Filter Guys's line that a larger size in a specialized line like the Ea filters will compromise flow or efficiency just because they're bigger.
427Z06..why don't you take a tour of Champs Enginineering department..I'll arrainge it for you.
Then you can tour the plants and see the various rolls of media.
Nothing like seeing for yourself.
------------------------
You don't half try to confuse issues.
A few simple things for you..
Media is cut to size to fit between the endcaps. No one is stationed on the production lines trimming media.
So the two Super Tech filters pictured use different medias.
Just because the thickness of the media might look the same. Just because the color of the media might look the same ( and the color is determined by the heating of the resins in the media..unless the media is precured in which case the media is "whiter".)---Does not mean the medias are the same.
Each blend has cellulose and synthetics. You don't know how much synthetics there are. Which ..like the EAO Nano technology..more synthetic fibers in the cellulose media improves efficiency and improves dirt holding capacity. The same thing Amsoil claims with their Nano media.
So the taller filter may have 2% synthetics and the smaller one 10%. You won't know cutting media out of new filters and looking at them. You would need to run the SAE or ISO test on a section of the media to determine what's what.
Size makes not one bit of difference.
That is why smaller filters "can" out perform larger filters. And why the nonsense of going to larger filters means your gaining something. Generally people think a bigger filter means more life...and they are probably wrong. A few onces of extra oil capacity..sure.
But unless one knows that the exact same media blend is used in two filters of different heights..then you would be right. Chances are--at least at Champ--different grades of media are used. Along with different pleat counts.
Now another point..
Both filters using different grades of media can both be rated the same at nominal and/or absolute rating.
One is a Ford filter the other a Nissan. Each has different OEM test criteria to determine the minimum performance needed of the media.
Nissan could use lower flow rates for their testing which will allow "better" numbers for efficiency.
Champ does numerous foreign automotive filters OEM wise. ( Kubota was my account for instance). They do not reverse engineer as much as other US filter manufacturers because Champ private labels more for OEM's as opposed to selling their own brand which competes with the OEM filter which the other US filter companies do. Not to mention Champ have some working agreements with other non US Filter OEM's who share engine spec OEM information for engines manufactured outside the US.
And lastly, the Champion laboratory manager is the USA's SAE representative for ISO. Which may not mean much to some in here but it should for reasons that should be clear.
Then you can tour the plants and see the various rolls of media.
Nothing like seeing for yourself.
------------------------
You don't half try to confuse issues.
A few simple things for you..
Media is cut to size to fit between the endcaps. No one is stationed on the production lines trimming media.
So the two Super Tech filters pictured use different medias.
Just because the thickness of the media might look the same. Just because the color of the media might look the same ( and the color is determined by the heating of the resins in the media..unless the media is precured in which case the media is "whiter".)---Does not mean the medias are the same.
Each blend has cellulose and synthetics. You don't know how much synthetics there are. Which ..like the EAO Nano technology..more synthetic fibers in the cellulose media improves efficiency and improves dirt holding capacity. The same thing Amsoil claims with their Nano media.
So the taller filter may have 2% synthetics and the smaller one 10%. You won't know cutting media out of new filters and looking at them. You would need to run the SAE or ISO test on a section of the media to determine what's what.
Size makes not one bit of difference.
That is why smaller filters "can" out perform larger filters. And why the nonsense of going to larger filters means your gaining something. Generally people think a bigger filter means more life...and they are probably wrong. A few onces of extra oil capacity..sure.
But unless one knows that the exact same media blend is used in two filters of different heights..then you would be right. Chances are--at least at Champ--different grades of media are used. Along with different pleat counts.
Now another point..
Both filters using different grades of media can both be rated the same at nominal and/or absolute rating.
One is a Ford filter the other a Nissan. Each has different OEM test criteria to determine the minimum performance needed of the media.
Nissan could use lower flow rates for their testing which will allow "better" numbers for efficiency.
Champ does numerous foreign automotive filters OEM wise. ( Kubota was my account for instance). They do not reverse engineer as much as other US filter manufacturers because Champ private labels more for OEM's as opposed to selling their own brand which competes with the OEM filter which the other US filter companies do. Not to mention Champ have some working agreements with other non US Filter OEM's who share engine spec OEM information for engines manufactured outside the US.
And lastly, the Champion laboratory manager is the USA's SAE representative for ISO. Which may not mean much to some in here but it should for reasons that should be clear.
427Z06,
For what it'w worth, there are actually quite a few more Amsoil EAO filters (35) than there were ASF filters. So they are trying to match the OEM specs with a higher degree of fidelity than before. For example, the SDF-42 has been replaced by the EAO 40/41/42/43 filters....
TS
For what it'w worth, there are actually quite a few more Amsoil EAO filters (35) than there were ASF filters. So they are trying to match the OEM specs with a higher degree of fidelity than before. For example, the SDF-42 has been replaced by the EAO 40/41/42/43 filters....
TS
Yes Ted, I noticed that. Unfortunately it may be a step backwards for tweekers. I remember seeing an Amsoil filter cross reference page that stated that the certain filters applications could use a larger substitute since the filter media was identical. As long as everything else matched up, you were good to go. It may not apply anymore.
[ August 24, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
[ August 24, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
I would like to bring up another point before this thread gets locked. I have used a variety of brands of PF 1177 equivalents on my truck. They were all about the same on the outside, same 3'' X 3 3/4'', and inside varied in media area by a factor of 3. They included the well thought of Purolator PP and Hastings as well as the Delco I liked due to its far more area.
Now most here would agree I could have better filter if I coughed up for a WIX, Pure One, Mobil 1, Amsoil, Baldwin, etc. So, how can the same size filter be better? So if the same size of filters can vary in quality, why can't different sizes of filter have the same quality?
Now most here would agree I could have better filter if I coughed up for a WIX, Pure One, Mobil 1, Amsoil, Baldwin, etc. So, how can the same size filter be better? So if the same size of filters can vary in quality, why can't different sizes of filter have the same quality?
labman:
You're touching on a subject that I have mentioned before.
In your instance you used one part number, OEM at that, and have seen three different medias ( and constructions) over time.
The first answer is all three met or exceeded OEM specs. Even though they all were different.
As you noted the media changed in the three.
Again, this could primarily be due to the differences in the amount of synthetics added to the media blend.
If you were more specific about the number of pleats and other visual information..then maybe I could get a bit more specific.
But i'll give it a shot anyway.
It is possible to have more pleats with cellulose, go to less pleats when synthetics are added, then add more pleats with the synthetics because of complaints there were less pleats. I've seen that happen with customers...
So you have X efficiency with cellulose and a larger amount of pleats and Y dirt holding capacity.
Go to better efficiency with less pleats and equal or better the dirt holding capacity.
Then add more pleats with the better efficiency and have even more dirt holding capacity.
and all three "meet or exceed"...
You're touching on a subject that I have mentioned before.
In your instance you used one part number, OEM at that, and have seen three different medias ( and constructions) over time.
The first answer is all three met or exceeded OEM specs. Even though they all were different.
As you noted the media changed in the three.
Again, this could primarily be due to the differences in the amount of synthetics added to the media blend.
If you were more specific about the number of pleats and other visual information..then maybe I could get a bit more specific.
But i'll give it a shot anyway.
It is possible to have more pleats with cellulose, go to less pleats when synthetics are added, then add more pleats with the synthetics because of complaints there were less pleats. I've seen that happen with customers...
So you have X efficiency with cellulose and a larger amount of pleats and Y dirt holding capacity.
Go to better efficiency with less pleats and equal or better the dirt holding capacity.
Then add more pleats with the better efficiency and have even more dirt holding capacity.
and all three "meet or exceed"...
- Status
