"High end" oil filters

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Personally, I think the test the guy on GM Truck Central did a few years ago is about as good as anyone without a lot of resources could do. In fact, he devoted a lot more to it than 90% of us would. RP, Amsoil, and Fram XG (predecessor of the Ultra which actually did have 2 separate medial layers) came out at the top- no surprise really.

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilterstudy.html



Interesting study, but not really something I'd buy into 100%. It's more useful than nothing, but not be a whole lot.

He tested to identical filters, Wix 51060 and NG 1060, but they got some disparity in the ratings.

Why? two possibilities:
1) variability in testing
2) variability in product

The first thing he should do is a gage R&R; understand his variance in testing.
Next, test many identical filters and understand the product variance.
Then he can rank them.
Until he does that, it's not really as telling as one would hope.


And after that, then he can devise a test protocol to show how much (or little) minor shifts in filtration efficiency affects wear in normal OCIs ...
Which is a lot different topic, and not well understood.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Interesting study, but not really something I'd buy into 100%. It's more useful than nothing, but not be a whole lot.

He tested to identical filters, Wix 51060 and NG 1060, but they got some disparity in the ratings.

Why? two possibilities:
1) variability in testing
2) variability in product


Are you talking about the white swatch images? If so, IMO it's pretty hard to see any difference between the 1060 and 51060 swatch image.

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/comparison.html

 

[dnewton3]

No, I was talking about the "grades" they gave the filters. It's interesting that they gave identical filter different grades in many categories.
http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/gradesheet.htm
While the overall point score was only .01 differnt, there were three categories that did not have the same grades; some were a whole grade equivilant off. For identical Wix/NG filters!
And the Napa Proselect outscored the Gold essentially because of price? Come on, now ...


It is either variance in testing, or product, or a combination of the two. But it makes the whole ranking system suspect, does it not?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
No, I was talking about the "grades" they gave the filters. It's interesting that they gave identical filter different grades in many categories.
http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/gradesheet.htm
While the overall point score was only .01 differnt, there were three categories that did not have the same grades; some were a whole grade equivilant off. For identical Wix/NG filters!
And the Napa Proselect outscored the Gold essentially because of price? Come on, now ...

It is either variance in testing, or product, or a combination of the two. But it makes the whole ranking system suspect, does it not?


Ah, yes I see what you mean.

 

[UG_Passat]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Paul_Bell
The Fram Xtra Guard has cardboard end caps. For this one reason alone is why most Fram filters should be avoided. ...


And that's when you lost me ... Anecdotal analysis may be interesting, but really proves nothing other than we know what they look like on the inside. It is interesting that people will poo-poo the use of a "leaf" spring, except that Amsoil uses one, and suddenly it became acceptable. When it comes to endcaps, some brands also use "cardboard" (more accurately described as fiber), and some use none at all, preferring only resin. So why the bias for metal? If one understood WHY certain choices are made, then this bias would not be so profound or important, if at all.

Also, none of this speaks efficiency or capacity in terms of any kind of ranking, although I believe any of these would offer FAR MORE capability than the typical BITOGer is ever going to consume anyway. Most of these "high end" filters are going into the receptical long before they are even close to being fully utilized. Even "normal" filters are typically not used in any manner close to their end of lifecycle.

For those who like to choose based upon superficial decisions and bias, this is very helpful.
For those who like to choose based upon functional criteria, actual performance, and competent engineering, it's generally moot.


The Fram paper end cap hatred, to my knowledge started with the Minimopar oil filter comparison from at least a decade ago. ANd everyone joined the bandwagon.

 

[UG_Passat]

Originally Posted By: tig1
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Paul_Bell

The Fram Xtra Guard has cardboard end caps. For this one reason alone is why most Fram filters should be avoided.


Why is the "cardboard" OK for the filter media but not the endcaps?

The end caps are actually not cardboard. They are a fiber material.


what do you think cardboard is? It is a type of (cellulose) fiber material.

 

[Clevy]

Having dissected many frams with their fibreboard end caps and I can say without a doubt there is no way to get it off in 1 piece. It comes off in chunks which represents a bond that will remain positive while in use.
In fact the fibreboard adhesion when compared to steel isn't even comparable. The fibreboard example allows for a superior bond and therefore less probability of failure or defect.
I use Canadian tire branded oil filters which are rebadged tough guards for 20000 miles on known clean engines and when I dissect them there is minor agglomeration in the corners of the pleats however the media itself is relatively clean.
And as the media accumulates particulate the efficiency gets better which equates to trapping smaller particles which keeps insols lower than using a new filter.
I laugh at throwing away top tier filters at short intervals. Wasted potential and wasted money. And the tough guard has a better efficiency rating than the ultra.
In my lifetime I've only lost one engine. An 83 305 in a cutlass. My first car.
And I've had performance vehicles that I beat without conscience and trucks that got abused daily onsite and never had an oil related issue.
There is a point of diminishing returns.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
.....But it makes the whole ranking system suspect, does it not?....

I consider the GMCtruckcentral ranking system grade sheet to be the author's highly subjective opinion more than anything else. He's got the Fram 'Defense' value tier line finishing higher than all other fiilters except the XG and and just .02 below the racing filter. Come on....

And as the patch results (what he calls the 30um filtering) http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/comparison.html ranking are the basis for the whole test, filters with the same media as mentioned the Wix and Napa Gold, also Extra Guard and High Mileage show a discrepancy in results. And as also noted in prior discussions, some results also are in conflict with published ISO test results, eg., Classic scoring higher than P1.

Based on those factors I don't see the study results as meeting the standard of test validity or reliability. And while there's little doubt that the synthetic media filters are efficient and solid filters, 'imo' their overall results would indicate some 'halo effect' to be present. The pics are excellent though.

 

[dnewton3]

I fully agree. And that was my point.

I'll agree that the author does state his defenses up front, in that this isn't true science. It's his interpretation and he admits it.

But the problem is that other people who read it will latch onto it like the superficial garbage that it is. It certainly does have flaws in the grading system, and therefore the rankings. Many folks are going to look at the swatches and the pretty equipment pix and decide that this revelation = good science.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

My position on filters is (not surprisingly) the same as my outlook on lubes. "Normal" use will never bring out any disparity of choices as long as they are accredited by the maker to the proper application specs. I have seen NO DATA that supports any other conclusion.

I agree that there are many top tier products that have more potential to excel past lesser ones, but ONLY in circumstances that are WAY PAST the term "normal". I have shown my O/FCIs can be stretched, safely, to 2x and 3x the OEM durations. There is huge capacity in most products that goes unused.

(disclaimer: equipment in good shape not known to sludge or be neglected, etc, etc. Blind obedience to O/FCI extensions is just as silly as well. One must use facts and data to make smart decisions.)

To use a premium filter in normal applications is a total waste.
And comparing/contrasting filters with anecdotal analysis is just as silly.

 

[seekingbuddha]

As part of my research into oil filters, i came across the following observations:

• The quoted GM central study is useful, when you look at the images of filteration abilities that he published in the link here. The images are ordered in the filtration ability, and it totally makes sense to see the "synthetic" technology as the top 3. As the technology inside the filter degrades to "blends" (like #4 rated mobil) we see darker images.
  
• Even though this study is unscientific, i have to say this is one of the best studies on net. It also correlates with what i expected as the filteration lineup, based on the technologies used inside the filters.
  
• I came across studies that showed that engine damage occurs (in long term) due to sub 20 micron particles (like city smog particles). And this study is focused on 30 micron particles.
  
• It is strange that he tested only top 2 filters in 5 micron, while rated the Fram Xtended guard as "A" even though 5 micron test was not performed on it. There were only three A for filtration ability
  
• No comments were made about how "build quality" was judged or "filter volume" was measured. These are tough things to measure scientifically.
  
• The take away from this study should be the common sense - Synthetic filter material protects better. As long as one changes the filter according to directions (or UOA), volume and surface area play minimal role, in my opinion.
  
• I also found that not every manufacturer makes high quality / synthetic filter for my cars. So, brand choices may be limited for a simple consumer like me.

Regarding my previous post about efficiency of Mobil Extended Vs Royal purple:
i realized the morning after my post that Mobil is testing with ISO standard dust particle, whereas Royal purple is testing with dust particles @ 25 microns. ISO dust particles are a mix of various microns, and hence the marketing hype by Mobil. In reality, Royal purple has better efficiency for sub 30 micron particles, as witnessed in the GM central test.

 

[steve20]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Having dissected many frams with their fibreboard end caps and I can say without a doubt there is no way to get it off in 1 piece. It comes off in chunks which represents a bond that will remain positive while in use.
In fact the fibreboard adhesion when compared to steel isn't even comparable. The fibreboard example allows for a superior bond and therefore less probability of failure or defect.
I use Canadian tire branded oil filters which are rebadged tough guards for 20000 miles on known clean engines and when I dissect them there is minor agglomeration in the corners of the pleats however the media itself is relatively clean.
And as the media accumulates particulate the efficiency gets better which equates to trapping smaller particles which keeps insols lower than using a new filter.
I laugh at throwing away top tier filters at short intervals. Wasted potential and wasted money. And the tough guard has a better efficiency rating than the ultra.
In my lifetime I've only lost one engine. An 83 305 in a cutlass. My first car.
And I've had performance vehicles that I beat without conscience and trucks that got abused daily onsite and never had an oil related issue.
There is a point of diminishing returns.


In the US, the 83 Cutlass (built in St Catharenes) used the 307 Olds engine. If it was in fact a 305, that would have been the boat anchor Chevy 305 then--you put it out of it's misery

 

[Merkava_4]

As expected, the WIX XP is the best looking filter.

 

[dlundblad]

^ Check to see if your local Napa store is having their sale soon. Might be a good time to stock up.

 

[901Memphis]

The Ultra is higher efficiency than the tough guard, it's 99.5% efficient quoted for some models while all tough guards are 99% efficient at 20 microns. In other places they just quote the Ultra as 99%+ while the TG is always 99%.

Keep in mind that the Wix XP is only 50% efficient at these same micron sizes. Why anyone would use one knowing this is beyond me.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Ultra is higher efficiency than the tough guard, it's 99.5% efficient quoted for some models while all tough guards are 99% efficient at 20 microns. In other places they just quote the Ultra as 99%+ while the TG is always 99%.

Keep in mind that the Wix XP is only 50% efficient at these same micron sizes. Why anyone would use one knowing this is beyond me.



I don't see where the FU is "99.5%" on their site, but I do see them quote "99+". Conversely the TG is "99%".

Guys - when we're arguing about such a very small differential, it means nothing overall. It's moot. Why? Because the normal variance from filter to filter and engine to engine is greater than a few tenths in terms of efficiency.

Syn media does not assure a greater efficiency any more than syn lubes assure less wear. Premium products in this regard are about LONGER lifecycles. The syn media has more holding capacity.

Not that most any BITOGer here would ever come close to finding the limit of a TG or FU anyway ... because they cannot keep their hands off the wrenches long enough to ever get their money's worth.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
......I don't see where the FU is "99.5%" on their site, but I do see them quote "99+". Conversely the TG is "99%".

I never seen that published either. But, I have observed in the past when posting about some brands, what I'll call efficiency rating inflation compared to the published spec. Also noticed here and other places the opposite, efficiency and micron rating deflation if the brand happens to be a competitor.

Similarly I've also noticed, some specific construction details of competitors that are not in line with known information, it would make them appear to be inferior to the actual/accurate information.

Since the specs were mentioned, just some other similar anomalies I've noticed. But I just file that information as unproven hearsay or misinformation.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis


Keep in mind that the Wix XP is only 50% efficient at these same micron sizes. Why anyone would use one knowing this is beyond me.


I believe it is because in a clean engine, an oil filter doesn't work very hard at all.

In a dirty engine, a 50% efficient filter might assure flow for a longer period before the filter goes into bypass.

So it's a trade off by the automotive engineer.

In vehicles like 18 wheelers, higher filtration efficiency is sought because they are focused on extremely long OCI's and extending the longevity of their oil.

They are interested in this primarily due to the cost of replacement of the gallons of lubricants they require.

We, on the other hand, change out the 5 quarts of oil in our cars at much shorter OCI's.

It's becaue we can easily afford to dump the contaminated oil and replace it with new oil.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: steve20
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Having dissected many frams with their fibreboard end caps and I can say without a doubt there is no way to get it off in 1 piece. It comes off in chunks which represents a bond that will remain positive while in use.
In fact the fibreboard adhesion when compared to steel isn't even comparable. The fibreboard example allows for a superior bond and therefore less probability of failure or defect.
I use Canadian tire branded oil filters which are rebadged tough guards for 20000 miles on known clean engines and when I dissect them there is minor agglomeration in the corners of the pleats however the media itself is relatively clean.
And as the media accumulates particulate the efficiency gets better which equates to trapping smaller particles which keeps insols lower than using a new filter.
I laugh at throwing away top tier filters at short intervals. Wasted potential and wasted money. And the tough guard has a better efficiency rating than the ultra.
In my lifetime I've only lost one engine. An 83 305 in a cutlass. My first car.
And I've had performance vehicles that I beat without conscience and trucks that got abused daily onsite and never had an oil related issue.
There is a point of diminishing returns.


In the US, the 83 Cutlass (built in St Catharenes) used the 307 Olds engine. If it was in fact a 305, that would have been the boat anchor Chevy 305 then--you put it out of it's misery


It was a 305. No question. Not sure where it was built however it was purchased in saskatoon and I bought it from the original purchaser in collingwood ontario.
The catalyst info on the badge underhood said 5.0 litres displacement and in parentheses 305 c.i.
I bought it and it was burning a bit of oil. After about 6 months I tried a can of engine restore. 2 days later it locked up solid. The filter was hopelessly plugged and under some hard driving over those 2 days the filters by-pass valve also became restricted with chunks.
I found a freshly built 350 targetmaster. That engine was awesome. It turned the th-350 into crunchy pudding so in went a turbo 400,4.11 gears. My first car and it went from slow to whoooooooooo.
Mashing the pedal at 20mph made you're head bounce off the headrest with some force.
Soft cams coupled with oil starvation killed that ole 305, and what came next spawned my love for hp and speed.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Ha ha, a sweet story of a hot rodder's birth!

Clevy you shoulda wrote short stories, I love that other line "And I've had performance vehicles that I beat without conscience and trucks that got abused daily onsite and never had an oil related issue."

Sounds like me all over again. Beat them like [censored] stepchildren and drive them forever...

 

[901Memphis]

You can see this Google hit I found shows the older link to where Fram published it as 99.5% before in product details and advance auto still has the information posted. For some reason the link acts weird on my phone when I click on it maybe someone can find it on a desktop search, but I'm guessing they used to say 99.5% on the website and they reduced it to 99%+ since some filters must have been between the rating of 99.0-99.5 and I they wanted to be more accurate?