Do you think they are testing oil filters correctly?

[crasch]

I saw these series videos on YouTube. I know it's not true lab testing, but do you think they are providing good information on oil filters based on their testing. (I would love to see them do filter tests with multiple different batches of the same filter.)

• Are Car Dealership Oil Filters a RIP-OFF? (Engineer tested)
• Best Oil Filters of 2024 (Engineer Tested) - Amsoil | Mobil 1 | Mann | K&N

Please share your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[BrendanC]

no, they do not have certified equipment for the tests, non certified testing methods and they aren’t certified testing centers.

 

[RagnarokCamaro]

As close as they're going to get to the ISO testing. I think their method has merit, it doesn't take a million dollar machine to show how well an oil filter performs, but the ISO test will at least confirm what a filter can do.

 

[crasch]

no, they do not have certified equipment for the tests, non certified testing methods and they aren’t certified testing centers.

Sorry I didn't have the "NOT" in there. **** my bad proof reading.

 

[ZeeOSix]

As close as they're going to get to the ISO testing. I think their method has merit, it doesn't take a million dollar machine to show how well an oil filter performs, but the ISO test will at least confirm what a filter can do.

They aren't "getting close" to ISO 4848-12 testing because they don't use real time particle counters. They use a post test PC of the test oil, but there's some room for skews and errors in doing it that way. All their testing can show is the relative ranking (hence the name of their YT channel) of the filters. And there's a few (like the Boss) in the ranking that don't correlate with the official ISO 4548-12 testing data ranking shown by Asent's testing.

 

[fantastic]

They're was some chatter here about a Toyota filter that had low efficiencies this YT channel tested & that would agree somewhat with previous ISO testing of Toyota filters. but that one channel is not ISO testing to be able to accurately tell how it relates to other tested filters. It's more of a best effort DIY testing machine that's loosely ranked according to this YT channels results. It can be fun to watch the results since they are testing their filters fairly similar to one another so there is some data here. It just can't be compared to official ISO testing standards.

 

[ZeeOSix]

They're was some chatter here about a Toyota filter that had low efficiencies this YT channel tested & that would agree somewhat with previous ISO testing of Toyota filters. but that one channel is not ISO testing to be able to accurately tell how it relates to other tested filters.

The Toyota filter also ranked low in member River Rat's bench testing done many years ago.

What stood out in BRs testing that didn't correlate with Asent's official ISO tesing was the Boss. And the same model of Boss that BR tested has an official M+H Spec Sheet showing the ISO efficiency to be 99% >46u, so pretty hard to believe it ranked as high as it did in BRs test with an ISO 4548-12 efficiency that bad.

 

[fantastic]

The Toyota filter also ranked low in member River Rat's bench testing done many years ago.

What stood out in BRs testing that didn't correlate with Asent's official ISO tesing was the Boss. And the same model of Boss that BR tested has an official M+H Spec Sheet showing the ISO efficiency to be 99% >46u, so pretty hard to believe it ranked as high as it did in BRs test with an ISO 4548-12 efficiency that bad.

And for that result I have no clear answer as to why it was able to filter their dust above what we'd expect other than what they've shown. It filtered pretty well for unknown reasons we just can't explain.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And for that result I have no clear answer as to why it was able to filter their dust above what we'd expect other than what they've shown. It filtered pretty well for unknown reasons we just can't explain.

Either Ascent and M+H are both wrong with their official ISO test data, or BR is wrong with their test ranking results. Obviously I'll pick the latter for logical reasons. Most of the rankings seem to correlate for the most part, but there seems to be a few outliers in the mix. When YT watches believe home made test rig results over official ISO or SAE testing procedures used for decades, then you have to wonder why. Of course, lots of the people watching YT videos like that don't even know what ISO 4548-12 is, or what a filter's efficiency really means. They just see a ranking (ie, product xyz is the "best") and take it as gospel.

 

[fantastic]

Either Ascent and M+H are both wrong with their official ISO test data, or BR is wrong with their test ranking results. Obviously I'll pick the latter for logical reasons. Most of the rankings seem to correlate for the most part, but there seems to be a few outliers in the mix. When YT watches believe home made test rig results over official ISO or SAE testing procedures used for decades, then you have to wonder why. Of course, lots of the people watching YT videos like that don't even know what ISO 4548-12 is, or what a filter's efficiency really means. They just see a ranking (ie, product xyz is the "best") and take it as gospel.

And as they say the actual truth may be "somewhere in the middle" . It's definitely troublesome to the uninformed Youtube watcher. Especially, how they brag about being "Engineers" w/obvious lack of knowledge about what they're testing . Maybe one day they'll get to the level of ISO testing.

 

[RagnarokCamaro]

You're right Zee, I should have taken that test into account from Purolator. Definitely weird how the Boss did much better in their test rig than the ISO test according to the manufacturer. Maybe a farfetched CYA thing?

 

[ZeeOSix]

And as they say the actual truth may be "somewhere in the middle" . It's definitely troublesome to the uninformed Youtube watcher. Especially, how they brag about being "Engineers" w/obvious lack of knowledge about what they're testing . Maybe one day they'll get to the level of ISO testing.

The only way to "get to the level of ISO testing" is to have all the test equipment that is actually designed for ISO certified level of testing, like real time upstream and downstream calibrated and certified particle counters, which would take 100s of thousands of dollars to achieve.

 

[kschachn]

The only way to "get to the level of ISO testing" is to have all the test equipment that is actually designed for ISO certified level of testing, like real time upstream and downstream calibrated and certified particle counters, which would take 100s of thousands of dollars to achieve.

And this is critical. It’s also an aspect of these ad hoc tests that most posters obviously do not understand. Standardized tests exist for several reasons, and fundamentally it is to allow valid comparisons between laboratories and to assure accurate testing. It’s also so that within those valid tests it provides a known statistical validity including known repeatability and reproducibility.

These “gee whiz” tests have none of that. No mathematical analysis and no reproducibility. They are (sometimes) interesting but at the end of the day only they are only county fair projects.

 

[Pablo]

These guys a) have some fun b) earn YT bux c) learn something

It's all good, but not bankable.

 

[Glenda W.]

YouTube*

*for entertainment purposes only

 

[Reloader59]

Their testing may not be certified but they are all tested equally. So this is still great material. They take the time to do it and its better than heresy on here.

 

[kschachn]

Their testing may not be certified but they are all tested equally. So this is still great material. They take the time to do it and its better than heresy on here.

So he came up with a new testing standard? You do realize that takes a lot to accomplish, what with the statistical validation of the results including repeatability values. Kind of like that other website that "tests" oils that actually does nothing of the kind.

What "heresy" is there on here? Either we are discussing actual comparable testing values or they aren't. Did you mean hearsay?

 

[Pablo]

So he came up with a new testing standard? You do realize that takes a lot to accomplish, what with the statistical validation of the results including repeatability values.

Kind of like that other website that "tests" oils.

Maybe a step better

 

[kschachn]

Maybe a step better

Maybe

 

[ZeeOSix]

Their testing may not be certified but they are all tested equally. So this is still great material. They take the time to do it and its better than heresy on here.

I think there is some room for error/skew in the particle count testing to determine filtering efficiency ranking. I say that because some of their ranking does not correlate with official ISO 4548-12 efficiency test ranking of the same filters. It's only a ranking system, nothing else.

The dP vs flow testing is more like actual directly measured test data, and also used for ranking, but IMO more useful because it's a direct measurement. I'd like to see them use a high quality calibrated digital readout dP pressure gauge in the setup. Also a calibrated temperature sensor right before the filter inlet to monitor any viscosity changes between test runs. They have a temperature sensor, but don't think it's near the filter.