Hastings oil filters question

[labman]

I am not impressed with Hastings. I have cut up a bunch of different brands of filters. The Hastings was nothing special, much like the ST and most of the $3 filters despite costing almost twice as much. Fram was inferior, and the AC had half again more filter area than any of the others. If Baldwins aren't any better than Hastings, they are a waste of money. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that if you can find the OEM reasonable, use it, otherwise hope there is an ST for your application.

 

[Richin Chicago]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
I am not impressed with Hastings. I have cut up a bunch of different brands of filters. The Hastings was nothing special, much like the ST and most of the $3 filters despite costing almost twice as much. Fram was inferior, and the AC had half again more filter area than any of the others. If Baldwins aren't any better than Hastings, they are a waste of money. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that if you can find the OEM reasonable, use it, otherwise hope there is an ST for your application.

---

Did you look at the Mercruiser study? The Baldwin appears to have more filter area than the AC and showed a bettter flow rate with about the same filtering.

http://home.earthlink.net/~memphis3/mercfilters/merc.htm

 

[labman]

Your link didn't work, but what I remember of the Mercruiser study was that Fram did about as well as the more expensive filters.

 

[Richin Chicago]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
Your link didn't work, but what I remember of the Mercruiser study was that Fram did about as well as the more expensive filters.

---

They moved it about an hour ago and the new site isn't up yet. I just did some checking on the Baldwin and Hastings website and the B31 Baldwin and Hastings LF 232 (same application for the LS1 Chevy)don't even have the same number of inlet holes. It is my understanding is the Hastings is a filter built to a price point for the retail trade and the Baldwin is built to a higher industrial standard. I've E_mailed Baldwin to see what they say.

 

[Richin Chicago]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richin Chicago:

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
Your link didn't work, but what I remember of the Mercruiser study was that Fram did about as well as the more expensive filters.

---

They moved it about an hour ago and the new site isn't up yet. I just did some checking on the Baldwin and Hastings website and the B31 Baldwin and Hastings LF 232 (same application for the LS1 Chevy)don't even have the same number of inlet holes. It is my understanding is the Hastings is a filter built to a price point for the retail trade and the Baldwin is built to a higher industrial standard. I've E_mailed Baldwin to see what they say.

---

Here is a reply I just received. So, I guess, the answer is it depends. Reading between the lines I would guess volume filters would have differences like the ones in the Mercruiser study, and the part numbers I looked at, and some of the smaller volume filters use one production line to achieve economies of scale.

Reply follows:

"Baldwin Filters and Hastings Filters are two different compmanies owned by Clarcor and operated out of the headquarters in Kearney Nebraska. Hastings Filters was orignally part of Hastings Manufacturing Co. Clarcor purchased Hastings Filters from Hastings Manufacturing in 1995. All Hastings Filters and Baldwin Fitlers are manufactured under the same quality management. There are some differences in the designs of some part numbers, while other part numbesr may use the same design between the two brands. If you have further quesitons, please feel free to contact me."


Thanks,
TRAVIS R. WINBERG
Service Engineering Supervisor

 

[Richin Chicago]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:
Your link didn't work, but what I remember of the Mercruiser study was that Fram did about as well as the more expensive filters.

---

The study has been moved and does show quite a distinction between the Hasting and Baldwin:

http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/

 

[Ross]

I really like that filter study, but when the acdelco UPF (ultragold) filter was tested it had very poor flow rates. Everything I have heard about these UPF filters indicates that they have very good flow properties, if not the best?

 

[Richin Chicago]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross:
I really like that filter study, but when the acdelco UPF (ultragold) filter was tested it had very poor flow rates. Everything I have heard about these UPF filters indicates that they have very good flow properties, if not the best?

---

At Patman's urging I switched from the Delco UPF to the K&N.
In my LS1 Chevy engine the UPF44 Delco filter showed aprox. 8 lbs less pressure than the K&N I am using now. I ordered 6 Baldwin filters. I'll see how they do next.

[ May 26, 2004, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Richin Chicago ]

 

[Ross]

I just bought a case of upf-44. I had tested one in my 2003 6.0 silverado last winter, and rather liked it on start up in below 0 temps.

Interesting info. Thanks