Canister versus Cartridge

[CodeJockey]

Hello BITOG people,

I spoke with a guy who works for an oil filter manufacturing company here in NC (and no it’s not Wix) and he was telling me that we will be seeing more canister type (as opposed to cartridge style) oil filter systems on more cars in the future due to EPA/landfill concerns.

I used to have an old Mercedes 180D with the cartridge type. I did not seem to have any negative issues with it. You certainly don’t have to work about bypass valves and anti drain back seals.

What are some of your thoughts on this system? BTW I'm really enjoying this site!!!!

 

[LARKBILL]

I worked in a German car repair shop in the '70s, I was convinced M-B used the cannisters because of the pressures they ran. Typical 220/280 sedan 6 cyl. carried about 40 at idle, jumped to peg (around 100 I think) when off idle and cold, dropped to around 80 at cruise after warm. As recall we put in 10w30 in winter, SAE 30 in summer, same as the bugs and Porsches.

 

[kanling]

They do seem to be becoming much more common these days. I haven't ever used one, but I believe they are usually placed in an easy to access location. That's nice. I also appreciate that they have less waste material and should be cheaper to manufacture and purchase.

My problem is that, despite this, they seem to be much much much higher priced than regular spin-on filters right now. I guess due to lower production volumes and trying to recoup design costs.

 

[labman]

I understand some designs are a PITA. I like the one on my Cavalier. I got some Purolators on sale for $3. Other than that, prices are a big rip off.

 

[Eddie]

I used to have one in an old air cooled Porsche. They are a pain in the butt, Talk about a big step backwards. Messy but, good for the enviorment.

 

[Blake Sobiloff]

My motorcycle uses one and I don't find changing the filter to be very messy--certainly no more so than changing a canister filter. What torques me off is that I'm paying a lot more money for less material, and only Wix publishes any sort of filtration efficiency information. That makes it hard to determine which brand of filter I want to use.

 

[CodeJockey]

I have to correct my original post.
It was a Mercedes 220D and not a 180D that I had.

It did have a rubber o-ring to seal the canister. I guess the o-ring was designed to be reused as I never had an issue with an oil leak from the seal and I probally performed a half dozen OC's before giving it back to my father-in-law (It was a loaner).

 

[Kestas]

^^^what kanling and blake said^^^

If they priced it in line with the manufacturing costs, people wouldn't mind seeing the Mercedes-type design. Right now they're too expensive. Kinda like paying more for brown sugar or unbleached paper products, which are actually cheaper to make.

BTW, which design is canister and which is cartridge? I see the above posts flip-flopping the use of these words.

 

[LARKBILL]

"BTW, which design is canister and which is cartridge? I see the above posts flip-flopping the use of these words"
I noticed that too after I posted, actually if you go by the shop manuals we had on the German makes they are both terms for the same thing, Porsche called the more modern design "spin-on" as did M-B.

 

[Cycle Freak]

I have these filters on my 1984 Nighthawk and on old tractors, most new cars and motorcyles use a one piece "spin-on" type filter like my Goldwing, the old type cartridge style were also called flow thru filters since the filter is surrounded typically by a heavy metal casing which is sometimes finned(I would assume to aid cooling) like on my nighthawk which takes the place of the thin metal skin on a "spin-on" type filter. These are a pain to change since in my experience you have to change up to two O-rings each time you change the filter and it is best to torque the whole assembly to the suggested torque spec. and no more. I always get oil in uniintended places when changing this type of filter.

 

[Papa Bear]

I don't understand how a cannister/cartridge filter is better for the environment than a spin-on ??
I hope we don't go back to cartridge filters, the spin-on is the best thing to come along. Cheap, easy.....not perfect but way ahead of whatever is in second place.
Just my $0.02 Canadian.
P.B. (smoke free in '06)

 

[Papa Bear]

This filter discussion is like saying:
"What's better, vacuum or electric windshield wipers ??"

P.B.

 

[UncleS2]

I gotta vote with Papa Bear on this one. Compared to the old canister filters I changed so many years ago(on my 57 Chevy, among others!), give me a good spin-on oil filter any day!
Canister = :

Spin-on =

 

[labman]

Done right, like GM did on the Ecotec, the canister is better than the best of the spin ons. The moderators frown on the language to describe many of the spin ons.

 

[homeporttx]

As a long time owner of British cars - which all have canister filters - this is not the direction to go. I've converted all that could be to spin ons, the lone exceception is my v12 Jag that doesn't have a spinon conversion availble. It's on the bottom of the engine, oval in shape, can't be changed without a mess and if the Oring slips out of the groove while you are tightening the canister you loose 6 quarts of oil when you fire it up to test for leaks.

 

[Volvohead]

One advantage of the canister/cartridge style is that the element is in full view for inspection before you install it. Spin ons are always an inside mystery until the end of the OCI.

I don't like surprises, and it's harder to conceal substandard product with an open cartridge design. I'll trade a little more mess for that knowledge.

 

[Filter guy]

Apples and oranges type discussion.

Spin-ons are the choice of those who change oil.

Cartidge styles aren't.

But times are changing. Newer designs of cartridge filters have the canister they are contained in easier to drain before you change the element out.

The reason for the much higher price with the newer style cartridge elements is the patent process that eliminates competition from copying your design.

They didn't patent the media or the endcaps. Those are to common in design.

They patent the way the cartridge seals inside the canister along with the by-pass connections.

Which is why the designs of the newer cartridges just aren't some simple looking element sans the filter can around it.

Environmentalist started the trend in Europe. It's easier to dispose of the element cartridge itself rather than the "metal" that is part of spin-ons.

With globalization, this too will come to the USA.

But there are always more unique ways to make the same "environmentally" friendly filter. And if you patent it..the price goes up. If a filter is more easily copied the price stays lower.

 

[labman]

The first logical explanation for the rip off pricing on the cartridge filters. It is that little tip for the ADBV defeat that I am paying for. When you unscrew the cap on my Ecotec, it pulls the cartridge up and the tip out of the hole allowing the oil in the filter to run out. Pull it out and hold a rag under it to catch the last few drips, and you have a very neat filter change, Neater than any spin on I have ever done. Topside! No ramps or jacks. I can reach under to remove the oil plug on the Cavalier. I do the Zerk on each side through the wheel spokes.

So why can I buy 3 L 15436's for the price of one CH 9018? Not that I want a Fram.

 

[alreadygone]

Have to say new cartridge/canisters are MUCH easier to change than old 283/327 Chevy's from the stone age! As mentioned it's super easy to see defects or design shortcuts (I'll bet Fram HATES them also!).

Price is a kicker right now, but if manufacturers ever single out just a few part numbers that become more popular then you'll see prices come down.

Don't understand ecological issue though, pitch spinons in a blast furnace and they become raw material and fuel! Furnace filters and scrubbers are'nt gonna let any more polutants out than they would from any other raw material.

Bob

 

[Papa Bear]

You have to go under the car on most vehicles to remove the drain plug, so remove the spin-on at the same time. No big deal.
Me thinks that MONEY is the reason that cartridge filters are making a return. The company must be making them cheaper and charging us MORE !!
The old-timers will remember the round headlights on the old cars. I could replace one on my '51 Ford for about $1.25.......Then came those rectangular bulbs, I believe GM got them accepted under the guise that it kept the front end lower and improved visibility, new bulb $6.00 (same amount of light). GM soon went and put the headlights one above the other which made the front ends higher like they used to be but kept the $6.00 lamps.
Now we have halogen bulbs in their fancy enclosures that cost hundreds to replace if broken. I would really like to have my $1.25 bulbs back but PROGRESS took them away. I hope progress doesn't replace my $2.00 spin-on with a $10.00 cartridge !!
P.B. (askin' they leave well enough alone)