dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: steveh
Someone had posted a flow chart and the TG was the worst flowing filter.
I'll bite ...
I want to see that data, and I want to understand what is being defined as "worst" in terms of "flow". It may flow less than some other product, but I suspect it probably flows 2x more than any engine will typically need to pass. Remember the old complaints about P1s being "too restrictive"? But true data showed there was no rational fears to be held. So show me the data please or I call bunk on this.
As for the EG/TG/XG topic ...
That is the beauty of an open market place; buy what you want. They have a "good/better/best" offering. Pick one you like and move on. Leave it to a BITOGer to whine about too much choice ...
I have started to use TGs; but then I actually run longer OCIs than most of you would ever fear to tread. TGs have good filtration. Long FCIs. Easily attained at a good price. What's not to like?
(I speak not directly to my quoted fellow above, but am making a general observation to the masses here on this site). Someone is going to whine about the leaf spring, but they often shut up when I remind them that Amsoil uses leaf springs in many of their filters, rather than coil springs. And someone will complain about the "cardboard" end caps, although they cannot point to a specific failure of those fiberboard products which can be affirmed to be a true cause of failure and not just subject to hypothetical bias ... And the media of a TG is a glass-enhanced product, just like many other mid-grade filters. And since there is likely NOT ONE Bitoger here that ever runs an FCI out far enough to blind media off, I don't understand how they can sanely state an XG is "better" when they would never even blind off an EG ... Extra capacity that goes grossly underutilized is not "cheap insurance"; it's waste. How many of you actually take your filter and weigh your particulate loading after an FCI? Can you say, with absolute certainty, that an EG or TG is inferior for your application because you can PROVE that your FCI induces "X" grams of loading? Probably not. You're probably the typical BITOGer who subscribes to the "more is always better" mentality, regardless of any evidence you may or may not be able to produce.
So go ahead you all, use your bias and misunderstanding to pick your products. I've come to expect that from many of you.
Someone had posted a flow chart and the TG was the worst flowing filter.
I'll bite ...
I want to see that data, and I want to understand what is being defined as "worst" in terms of "flow". It may flow less than some other product, but I suspect it probably flows 2x more than any engine will typically need to pass. Remember the old complaints about P1s being "too restrictive"? But true data showed there was no rational fears to be held. So show me the data please or I call bunk on this.
As for the EG/TG/XG topic ...
That is the beauty of an open market place; buy what you want. They have a "good/better/best" offering. Pick one you like and move on. Leave it to a BITOGer to whine about too much choice ...
I have started to use TGs; but then I actually run longer OCIs than most of you would ever fear to tread. TGs have good filtration. Long FCIs. Easily attained at a good price. What's not to like?
(I speak not directly to my quoted fellow above, but am making a general observation to the masses here on this site). Someone is going to whine about the leaf spring, but they often shut up when I remind them that Amsoil uses leaf springs in many of their filters, rather than coil springs. And someone will complain about the "cardboard" end caps, although they cannot point to a specific failure of those fiberboard products which can be affirmed to be a true cause of failure and not just subject to hypothetical bias ... And the media of a TG is a glass-enhanced product, just like many other mid-grade filters. And since there is likely NOT ONE Bitoger here that ever runs an FCI out far enough to blind media off, I don't understand how they can sanely state an XG is "better" when they would never even blind off an EG ... Extra capacity that goes grossly underutilized is not "cheap insurance"; it's waste. How many of you actually take your filter and weigh your particulate loading after an FCI? Can you say, with absolute certainty, that an EG or TG is inferior for your application because you can PROVE that your FCI induces "X" grams of loading? Probably not. You're probably the typical BITOGer who subscribes to the "more is always better" mentality, regardless of any evidence you may or may not be able to produce.
So go ahead you all, use your bias and misunderstanding to pick your products. I've come to expect that from many of you.
Last edited:
