Champion Labs: Mistakes or Lies?

[BigAl]

Out of curiosity I called up the Champion Labs tech hotline. I asked the guy on the other end about whether there is some sort of Good-Better-Best guideline he could give me on the filters they made. I told him that I could walk into AutoZone and buy AC, STP, or Valucraft filters all at different prices, or I could go to WM and buy a SuperTech . . . and from the outside they all look the about same. His reply: “Unless you buy a Mobil 1 filter which has higher efficiency, the others are pretty much alike.” I said so a $4 AC, a $3 STP, and a $2 Valucraft are the same quality. “Yes,” he said, “it just depends how much you want to pay for a name. SuperTech is about the best for the money you can find.”

People who have cut these filters apart have found measurable differences in the media between these brands. Somebody’s either mistaken or lying about this issue.

Anybody know where I can get the straight story?

[ November 01, 2005, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: BigAl ]

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

unless they have several sources of physically different but functionally equivalent material.

---

I would imagine that this is the case. I would think that media production uses various consistancies of raw materials ..but the processes are identical for production of any given type of media. They are probably assigned a "class" (performance) upon completion and marketed as such. So a media that "proofs" at a given Champ spec is sold to Champ (or anyone else who wants it).

On the lower end products the spec may be very easy to obtain, hence several vendors can have acceptable offerings.

This is just speculation, naturally. I briefly (25 years ago+/-) worked for an outfit that made filter media (fabric type - like a blanket material). We used various materials and sources for our raw material ..but the process was the same for everything (minor variations in the spinning and laying out of spun material before it went through the needle board). You then rated the product on a flow bench and other test equipment. The customer had specs that fell between two figures.

 

[kenw]

"It would follow that there would be differences in performance "

didn't say that there weren't differences, but that the differences were irrelevant. In other words, one may filter media in fact be "better" than the other, but there are too many other variables both known and unknown to say that those differences make a measureable difference in engine life expectancy.

But yes, I would agree that a manufacturer would be the best sourse for technical data on the issue. The trick is to get the engineering data before the marketing people filter (sorry!)and put a spin on it.

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

In other words, I don't think Champion Labs is going to product a Sears, good, better, best ranking of their products

---

I work for a consumer products company that produces many models under different names. If a customer called we could tell them things like "Products A and B are the same except for styling. Procuct C adds more durable hardware. For a couple of dollars more, product C features a more durable finish, etc."

Chanp could say things like, "Filter A is our mainstream model. Filter B costs a little less, has the same efficiency, but less capacity. For the extra buck, filter C gives you a thicker can, etc."

The old and new SuperTech filters boast 98% efficiency. The Ecore brochure shows the old filters at 79.81% efficient, but the new Ecores at 85.14% efficient. All these filters can't be equivalent. Somebody is dispensing misinformation here.

 

[doitmyself]

It's becoming increasingly difficult to talk to a knowledgeable tech. person at most companies. For the sake of economics, most companies put a low payed person in front of a FAQ list to handle phone inquiries. Gone are the days you use to talk to real expert at a company.

 

[Ray H]

Regardless, if your engine craps due to a problem that can be directly attributed to the oil filter, the oil filter manufacturer ultimately pays the bill - even if the process has to go through several channels before it lands in that manufactirer's lap. (GM dealer -> GM Corporate -> Champion Labs, or WalMart store -> WalMart Corporate -> Champion Labs, etc. - you get the idea) My point is that if Champion Labs, or any other filter manufacturer, is laying its reputation (aka: m-o-n-e-y) on the line, nothing it produces is gonna go out the door defective very long if it'll end up costing 'em money in the end.

 

[Filter guy]

of course the other option is that Champ private labels for various brands.

Would you as the company of Brand A want Champ's hotline to say your filters aren't as good as brand B or Brand C that Champ makes?

As for marketing.. how much extra in the retail price does one think Fram, Wix, Purolator, etc have versus say Wal Mart and the Super Tech? Ever see Super Tech advertised? Didn't think you did..

AC advertises and sponsors racing, STP..advertises..and has that racing connection
ValueCraft..not to my knowledge..

BigAl..now do you have an idea about retail pricing? Beside of course the difference in pleat count..

 

[T-Keith]

He apears to be refering to construction, and not everything about the filter. AC delco filters have higher efficiency then Supertechs and that information is backed up with proof.

I don't think that he is saying that AC filter = ST filters. If he is, he is full of it.

Also contruction can vary between brands as well. Compate a ST3600 to a PF400L, quite different.

 

[Donald]

Many of the people who are the HELP DESK and answer the phones for companies are not that well trained and only somewhat knowledgeable. And then there are the HELP DESKs not located in the USA.

While I am sure there are many situations where a company makes filters for several brands and just slaps a different name on it, there are also situations where a company contracts with a filter maker to have filters made to a certain spec. All of these situations may be hard to tell by merely looking at the filter.

There are oil filter tests (where the filters were tested not just cut apart and media measured) on this forum and also SAE806 tests which the filter makers may publish.

But at the end of the day, why not get one of the top tier filters and be done with it (Pure One, Mobil 1, Amsoil). How much would a replacement engine in your car or boat cost?

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

But at the end of the day, why not get one of the top tier filters and be done with it (Pure One, Mobil 1, Amsoil). How much would a replacement engine in your car or boat cost?

---

In another post I said that I decided to use ACDelco filters on my GM-built cars. I'm not convinced that the trade off of the higer restriction and more bypass time of the "top tier" filters for more nominal efficiency is necessarily a good thing. I'll let the GM engineers worry about that balancing act when they specify how their filters are to perform. They have access to better data than I do.

Oh, and in answer to your question, for the next 89,000 miles on our good car, engine replacement is free. The other car I drive is a disposable. It gets SuperTech filters. Engine replacement is not a realistic option. If it dies, I'm only out the towing fee.

My question was more out of curiousity. It does seem that Champ can't get its story straight.

quote:

---

I don't think that he is saying that AC filter = ST filters. If he is, he is full of it.

---

That's essentially what he said . . . and I'm sure you are right.

quote:

---

of course the other option is that Champ private labels for various brands.

Would you as the company of Brand A want Champ's hotline to say your filters aren't as good as brand B or Brand C that Champ makes?

---

Of course you're right. It is in their favor to keep us in the dark.

[ November 01, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: BigAl ]

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

of course the other option is that Champ private labels for various brands.

Would you as the company of Brand A want Champ's hotline to say your filters aren't as good as brand B or Brand C that Champ makes?

---

Oops, too late to edit. If that was the case, then the hotline rep could have said, "We private label for these companies and we are not at liberty to compare one against the other, but they all meet a certain minimum standard." That would have been honest, and would have protected the interests of the different brands. Claiming there was no real difference was obviously not true.

 

[Filter guy]

BigAl..did you ask in general or by specific part number for those three brands?

If you asked "in general"..that's the answer you got.

There are a number of variables. Is the filter an E-core design in each brand? Is the filter the standard design?

For all intents and purposes there isn't any difference between those three brands other than the pleat count. So you got an honest answer.

Shells are the same, gaskets the same, back plates the same, ADBV the same, tension spring the same, media likely to be the same or nearly similar. Burst the same. Collapse the same. micron rating the same ( or very similar).

So unless you want to jump up to the premium brand filters..the rest are similar.

And those that answer the hotline live near the plant..

Now I doubt Champ will tell you the pleat count.
You could ask what the dirt holding capacity is.....that would seperate the foam from the beer....

 

[labman]

I agree there is a limit to what cutting apart a filter tells you. I have seen differences in older ST, STP, and an AC of unknown manufacturer. On the other hand, I have cut up a bunch of ST 3950's and L 10193's. Guess what, no 2 of either brand were alike. I have concluded that since I can't find the PF 1177, I am just as well off with the cheaper ST 3950. Been around here over 2 years and have yet to see any credible posts suggesting otherwise.

 

[kenw]

most of the so-called "differences" that people here love to wax eloquently upon here are irrelevant. A visual inspection for example, comparing media types, densities and dimensional properties is more than useless, it's very misleading.

However, I would dare say that your source would be considered a bit prejudiced and most likely not an unbiased source of this info. But he probably is correct in a general sense.

One that would appear to have some basis in reality is a CONSISTENT build quality, or lack thereof. I beleive most of the issues with so-called "bad" filters are of this nature, ie, not assembled correctly and/or consistently, which would in fact be an indicator of poor quality and potential performance issues.

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

most of the so-called "differences" that people here love to wax eloquently upon here are irrelevant. A visual inspection for example, comparing media types, densities and dimensional properties is more than useless, it's very misleading.

---

Yes, but there are visual and measurable differences in the media. It would follow that there would be differences in performance . . . efficiency, capacity, strength, etc. I can't believe that Champ would just put them in at random, unless they have several sources of physically different but functionally equivalent material. There must be a Good-Better-Best scenario, and who would be a better source for the information than the manufacturer?

 

[LarryL]

There are two parts to a product, the marketing image and the physical properties. The marketing properties sell the thing, and may not have a direct relationship to the physical properties, unless you are a product geek and really know the difference, yourself. When you buy an ST filter you're buying the Wally World image of marketing. There is no guarantee that the quality follows. You've got to figure that a higher price gets a better filter. But that price might go into the image instead and you get an average product. That's kind of what this web site is for, seperating the two with some discussion and facts. In other words, I don't think Champion Labs is going to product a Sears, good, better, best ranking of their products.

 

[LarryL]

labman, you have hit on why I'm testing cleanable full flow filters. It's taking some time, because when I started, I had a long commute, and now I'm working at home, again. I cut up several AC Delco filters with the same part number that looked different, inside. I think all these filters are designed around a slightly fragile filter media that can be characterized as good enough. I have only seen one filter that had a colapsed element which indicates that these bypass valves are protecting the elements. Another element has a big hole in it, but that was because the oil had not been changed for a long time. And I've seen some filters that were so junked up, that they had to be on bypass mode for a great part of their running time, but this is from drivers that you will never see on bitog. There is that bit of doubt when you buy some oil filters, about what's inside the can. Two Champ filters sold for the same price with different labels can be different in performance and how would you know?

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

For all intents and purposes there isn't any difference between those three brands other than the pleat count. So you got an honest answer.

---

I mentioned four brands: ACDelco, STP, Supertech, and Valucraft.

So GM doesn't specify anything special? The Grease study indicates otherwise. The ACDelco website says that their media has high efficiency right from the start, unlike other brands. The Supertech box claims 98% efficiency on their Ecores, but the Champ website clams 85.14%. Somebody is giving out the wrong information. Who?

 

[kenw]

define "High Efficiency" media.

 

[BigAl]

quote:

---

define "High Efficiency" media.

---

I think what they are claiming is that their media doesn't need to get a little dirty before it filters well.