How does an OEM spec an oil filter ?
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
I was always under the impression it had to do with the spring setting for the bypass valve, but Im sure it also ought to have something to do with the quality of seals/gaskets, and maybe some minimum filter surface area.
JMH
JMH
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I imagine most of it, at this point, is reduced to a thread and gasket size for the vast majority. In 99% I think that the bypass setting is not a manufacturer spec since you can get a PureOne allegedly spec'd for an engine with a higher bypass then a Wix spec'd for the same engine. There are exceptions ..for example some (and so far in my research, exclusively) Euro designs (like MB, VW, etc.) that have substantially higher bypass settings. For most of our domestic iron/alloy I would think this would be true. Some manufactures, namely the aforementioned Euro types, exceed our, almost generic, OEM filtration demands.
Since you can get two top quality filters with different bypass spec's, it would reason that those ratings are unique to the filter more than unique to the engine and/or are arrived at via the "reverse engineering" of the individual elements (performance specs) that the spec's actually require ..and some exceed those spec's. So the spec's may be cast in stone ..but how one meets them is probably up to the filter manufacturer. Obviously, some OEM's present a few more hoops that the filter people must jump through.
Since you can get two top quality filters with different bypass spec's, it would reason that those ratings are unique to the filter more than unique to the engine and/or are arrived at via the "reverse engineering" of the individual elements (performance specs) that the spec's actually require ..and some exceed those spec's. So the spec's may be cast in stone ..but how one meets them is probably up to the filter manufacturer. Obviously, some OEM's present a few more hoops that the filter people must jump through.
Some of the things OEMS can spec are:
Minimum burst PSI( when the seam of the can unravels or the gasket pulls away from the mounting area)
Minimum Collapse PSID
Mean flow pore size of the media ( equates to micron rating)
Minimum Dirt holding capacity ( equates to filter life)
By-pass valve minimum opening pressure
and performance minimums to various SAE tests where the OEM benchmarks the way they want each test to be run.
Minimum burst PSI( when the seam of the can unravels or the gasket pulls away from the mounting area)
Minimum Collapse PSID
Mean flow pore size of the media ( equates to micron rating)
Minimum Dirt holding capacity ( equates to filter life)
By-pass valve minimum opening pressure
and performance minimums to various SAE tests where the OEM benchmarks the way they want each test to be run.
JHZR2
Staff member
Gary,
I agree for the most part. In reality in aftermarket filter design, probably "exceeds OEM specifications" means very little, or means that they got a good media performance test or something.
However some places it is still stated that bypass pressures are matched exactly to engine design. I forget where I saw it, I think it was a car dealer (maybe it was the little sales pitch for Honda filters shown at the Acura parts desk?), but it was very explicit that the bypass pressure was set to be optimal for the engines the filters were going on.
I always had to wonder how aftermarket companies could spec the same filter for so many different apps. Maybe most modern oil systems canbe characterized exactly the same as far as flow, pressure, etc go at any typical range of temperatures, but I bet this is not so, and such design points do make some difference.
For this reason, i try to shy away from aftermarket filters, except for the denso filters, which I find to be of exceedingly high quality.
JMH
I agree for the most part. In reality in aftermarket filter design, probably "exceeds OEM specifications" means very little, or means that they got a good media performance test or something.
However some places it is still stated that bypass pressures are matched exactly to engine design. I forget where I saw it, I think it was a car dealer (maybe it was the little sales pitch for Honda filters shown at the Acura parts desk?), but it was very explicit that the bypass pressure was set to be optimal for the engines the filters were going on.
I always had to wonder how aftermarket companies could spec the same filter for so many different apps. Maybe most modern oil systems canbe characterized exactly the same as far as flow, pressure, etc go at any typical range of temperatures, but I bet this is not so, and such design points do make some difference.
For this reason, i try to shy away from aftermarket filters, except for the denso filters, which I find to be of exceedingly high quality.
JMH
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Mel, my esteemed fellow mod
For example, take a VW filter that, in both OEM and Wix, have 30 psi byapass settings. I imagine that if the confines of the length of the filter were not a limiting spec, that the exact same holding capacity and filtering longevity at "new" spec could be achieved with a much lower setting and could use a media that wasn't as capable to withstand 30 psid and give EXACTLY the same filtering performance. I suggest that vehicles that have such high bypass valve setting indeed have this element "factored in" but it is more a function of desired results from the filter and NOT so much an intergral function of the pressure flow aspects of the lubrication system of those engines.
That is, if I want to assure maximum filtration for extended periods, this may include loading the performance media that I have spec'd to a 30 PSID level. I've compensated for this "need" by spec'ing my typical terminal pump pressure at 'at least' 30 psi below my internal pump relief setting as to not rob the engine of oil flow under XX% of of situations that it will encounter.
Do you see what I suggest here??
Let me offer this for us to discuss. What would the result be, in any and all terms (lets explore all of them), of using a like filter of the same gasket and can size, with the only other feature being that it has a lower bypass setting?? I mean assuming that givens that flow is flow and oil is oil and that one engine uses oil and produces particles in a plus or minus 'norm' (one 1.8l engine over another).
It's my opinion that up until the lower bypass setting is reached (assume same level of filtration) ..that the total "view" would be transparent to our observations and the functions of flow and pressures. The only possible (extemely probable) function of a higher bypass valve setting is to mandate "full filtration" for an extend period of time. That 30 psi filter will start off @ the 3-4 PSID just like the lower rated filters. (I'm open to alternative points of view that have more plausible merit - read: we should avoid reaching too far that the possible reason is something like "well, if your sister gets the car and revs the engine to the redline @ -25°F with 50 weight and then adjusts her blouse and accidentally oscillates the throttle repeatedly between idle and WOT type obscurity
)
Yes, they may submit any and all performance specs ..but not all of them include a required modality for achieving them. Some probably require like remedies to achieve that spec.
For example, take a VW filter that, in both OEM and Wix, have 30 psi byapass settings. I imagine that if the confines of the length of the filter were not a limiting spec, that the exact same holding capacity and filtering longevity at "new" spec could be achieved with a much lower setting and could use a media that wasn't as capable to withstand 30 psid and give EXACTLY the same filtering performance. I suggest that vehicles that have such high bypass valve setting indeed have this element "factored in" but it is more a function of desired results from the filter and NOT so much an intergral function of the pressure flow aspects of the lubrication system of those engines.
That is, if I want to assure maximum filtration for extended periods, this may include loading the performance media that I have spec'd to a 30 PSID level. I've compensated for this "need" by spec'ing my typical terminal pump pressure at 'at least' 30 psi below my internal pump relief setting as to not rob the engine of oil flow under XX% of of situations that it will encounter.
Do you see what I suggest here??
Let me offer this for us to discuss. What would the result be, in any and all terms (lets explore all of them), of using a like filter of the same gasket and can size, with the only other feature being that it has a lower bypass setting?? I mean assuming that givens that flow is flow and oil is oil and that one engine uses oil and produces particles in a plus or minus 'norm' (one 1.8l engine over another).
It's my opinion that up until the lower bypass setting is reached (assume same level of filtration) ..that the total "view" would be transparent to our observations and the functions of flow and pressures. The only possible (extemely probable) function of a higher bypass valve setting is to mandate "full filtration" for an extend period of time. That 30 psi filter will start off @ the 3-4 PSID just like the lower rated filters. (I'm open to alternative points of view that have more plausible merit - read: we should avoid reaching too far that the possible reason is something like "well, if your sister gets the car and revs the engine to the redline @ -25°F with 50 weight and then adjusts her blouse and accidentally oscillates the throttle repeatedly between idle and WOT type obscurity
FG, Do mfg's always spec all the criteria you mention? One thing I have found is that I do not think the OEM filter always provides the best fit for a vehicle.
Mitsubishi has recently consolidated the different types of oil filters. They have two types now. And one of those is used on all of their V6 engines. However, most aftermarket companies specify different oil filters for the older V6 engines (Wix, Fram, Champion, Not Purolator). The main difference between the aftermarket spec'd filters is that the bypass setting for the older engine is lower than the bypass setting for the newer engine.
Filter guy. I have question for you. You don't need to name names, but what items are spec'd in the "easiest" OEM filter spec? My bet is this;
1. Gasket and thread size.
2. Burst pressure.
3. Informational data as to the range of flow rates @ 500-redline rpm's
4. Recommended bypass setting. (I bet that is not even a hard requirement)
Mitsubishi has recently consolidated the different types of oil filters. They have two types now. And one of those is used on all of their V6 engines. However, most aftermarket companies specify different oil filters for the older V6 engines (Wix, Fram, Champion, Not Purolator). The main difference between the aftermarket spec'd filters is that the bypass setting for the older engine is lower than the bypass setting for the newer engine.
Filter guy. I have question for you. You don't need to name names, but what items are spec'd in the "easiest" OEM filter spec? My bet is this;
1. Gasket and thread size.
2. Burst pressure.
3. Informational data as to the range of flow rates @ 500-redline rpm's
4. Recommended bypass setting. (I bet that is not even a hard requirement)
So Filter guy, why DON'T filter manufacturers' make this sort of technical data available to the general public? I mean really!
If I search, I can find technical specifications on just about every consumer product available today...tires, tv's, food, medicine, carpet pad density, even pencils for crying out loud..."use only a #2 lead pencil"!!
So what IS the deal with with the oil filter manufacturing industry???
What are they afraid of?
Oh! let me rant on that. MARKETING. Companies do not want you comparing specs. They can make more money by creating the impression that their product is the best (through marketing) and make a cheaper product.
If the consumer was allowed to compare specs it would create a technology war between the companies which would be expensive and risky. If we new the results of the single and multipass ASTM test for filter media it would really help us pick a filter. They will never tell us. It is not a conspiracy, just business.
The other day on this board I asked the Wix engineers that read this board if their tests show whether or not the filter media gets loaded enough to affect the pressure drop. They got defensive and told me to ask www.wixfilters.com. I did not expect them to answer, but it was worth a try. Imagine if they answered "a filter will not get loaded enough to even see an increase of 1 psi within 15,000 miles" Well, so much for Purolators being better because they have more media. With just one piece of relevant technical data we could eliminate consideration of purchasing a brand because its percieved benefit is eliminated.
It is all a marketing game.
Some of what people basically want to know, or have heard they aught to know, the filter companies will tell you. Such as micron ratings.
Other basics are in the catalog. Such as anti-drain and some print their by-pass opening settings others don't but will tell you if you call.
Marketing is part of the equation.
However, as much as Winston thinks it's a shell game ..it isn't. There's always been, my media is better than yours.
There's always been choices for consumers from good, better, best.
However, OEM specs are the property of the OEM and not the filter company. It is not up to the filter company to publish them.
There has always been reverse engineering where filter company A doesn't know the VW spec for instance because they do not supply them as an OEM. So they utilize "standard" tests to test the OEM filter. Put it through the various testing equipment and come up with their equivalent that outperforms the OEM filter. That way they know they exceed the VW spec.
There are also, believe it or not, filter companies who are just aftermarket orientated ( some in Asia, middle east, south of the USA..) that would love nothing better than know for certain what the OEM spec is. OEM's know who the quality suppliers are.
Unfortunately, some want the absolute best performance filter to become the standard filter for OEM's. Those type of people whigne about the good filters that meet or exceed spec because they have determined for their use they want is the best and everyone should follow their choice.
What would you do if the OEM's clamped down on the better filters and started to claim they would void warranty because they are out of spec.
For now they aren't worried because the premium top of the line filter is less than 5% of the total market. If the OEM's wanted to get nasty, they could. But it is a low priority on their things to do. Designing new engines and the filters that go on them is more important.
It's not the OEM's that created the ..my filter is better marketing ploy..that was the filter companies to sell against the OEM spec filter. OEM's could tighten the specs so that all filters are the same..then what would you do..
So enjoy your ability to choose.
Other basics are in the catalog. Such as anti-drain and some print their by-pass opening settings others don't but will tell you if you call.
Marketing is part of the equation.
However, as much as Winston thinks it's a shell game ..it isn't. There's always been, my media is better than yours.
There's always been choices for consumers from good, better, best.
However, OEM specs are the property of the OEM and not the filter company. It is not up to the filter company to publish them.
There has always been reverse engineering where filter company A doesn't know the VW spec for instance because they do not supply them as an OEM. So they utilize "standard" tests to test the OEM filter. Put it through the various testing equipment and come up with their equivalent that outperforms the OEM filter. That way they know they exceed the VW spec.
There are also, believe it or not, filter companies who are just aftermarket orientated ( some in Asia, middle east, south of the USA..) that would love nothing better than know for certain what the OEM spec is. OEM's know who the quality suppliers are.
Unfortunately, some want the absolute best performance filter to become the standard filter for OEM's. Those type of people whigne about the good filters that meet or exceed spec because they have determined for their use they want is the best and everyone should follow their choice.
What would you do if the OEM's clamped down on the better filters and started to claim they would void warranty because they are out of spec.
For now they aren't worried because the premium top of the line filter is less than 5% of the total market. If the OEM's wanted to get nasty, they could. But it is a low priority on their things to do. Designing new engines and the filters that go on them is more important.
It's not the OEM's that created the ..my filter is better marketing ploy..that was the filter companies to sell against the OEM spec filter. OEM's could tighten the specs so that all filters are the same..then what would you do..
So enjoy your ability to choose.
I hear you, but....
Ford (as an example) doesn't hesitate to tell me to use gasoline that is at least 87 octane, or oil that is 5W20 meeting their 153-H specification, or transmission fluid that is Mercon, or a battery that has a minimum CCA of 650, or "green" coolant (AND specifically warning me not to use "yellow" coolant), and so on. Now when it comes to their oil filters, they just say to "use the appropriate Motorcraft oil filter (or another brand meeting Ford specifications) for your engine." Of course you can't ever find the Motorcraft oil filter specification (like you can their oil specs), nor are there any other generally accepted industry benchmarks commonly available to judge a filter, like there is for gasoline, or batteries, or antifreeze, etc., etc., etc. Which is too bad because my Ford owners manual also contains some of the most dire language I've ever read in an owners manual for using the wrong oil filter.
If I buy skim milk (as opposed to 2% or whole milk), I know that based on FDA standards I'm getting 0% milk fat regardless of the brand, dairy or the cow it came out of. But do I really know if the Wix 51515 is as good a filter as the Motorcraft FL-1A? Or the Fram PH8A? Or Baldwin B2? Or Purolator L3001? Absolutely not! Because neither Ford, Wix, Purolator, Baldwin or anyone else for that matter will identify common generic criteria by which to judge the performance & construction of an oil filter.
So yes, I can enjoy my ability to choose as you say. But this is one product I buy that I will never truly know if I am choosing wisely or not. I'm sorry for being so disagreeable, for it is also a subject where I do not believe the marketing obfuscation is accidental.
Ford (as an example) doesn't hesitate to tell me to use gasoline that is at least 87 octane, or oil that is 5W20 meeting their 153-H specification, or transmission fluid that is Mercon, or a battery that has a minimum CCA of 650, or "green" coolant (AND specifically warning me not to use "yellow" coolant), and so on. Now when it comes to their oil filters, they just say to "use the appropriate Motorcraft oil filter (or another brand meeting Ford specifications) for your engine." Of course you can't ever find the Motorcraft oil filter specification (like you can their oil specs), nor are there any other generally accepted industry benchmarks commonly available to judge a filter, like there is for gasoline, or batteries, or antifreeze, etc., etc., etc. Which is too bad because my Ford owners manual also contains some of the most dire language I've ever read in an owners manual for using the wrong oil filter.
If I buy skim milk (as opposed to 2% or whole milk), I know that based on FDA standards I'm getting 0% milk fat regardless of the brand, dairy or the cow it came out of. But do I really know if the Wix 51515 is as good a filter as the Motorcraft FL-1A? Or the Fram PH8A? Or Baldwin B2? Or Purolator L3001? Absolutely not! Because neither Ford, Wix, Purolator, Baldwin or anyone else for that matter will identify common generic criteria by which to judge the performance & construction of an oil filter.
So yes, I can enjoy my ability to choose as you say. But this is one product I buy that I will never truly know if I am choosing wisely or not. I'm sorry for being so disagreeable, for it is also a subject where I do not believe the marketing obfuscation is accidental.
but you can get by-pass valve settings, dirt holding capacities, various micron ratings, media area's, etc, if you ask. They will also state which ISO/SAE tests they relate to so you can compare apples to apples.
I've contacted, in no particular order, Mann-Hummel, Donaldson, Fleetguard, Baldwin, Aviton-Merritor/Purolator, Wix, GUD Ryco and all of them have been able to furnish me with most, if not all the data I requested.
The only info I can't find out is OEM.
tdi, you are right. My frustration stems from the fact that the consumer has to call and ask in the first place, and then know darn well what you are asking about. Not everyone uses the same data to describe their products. Some give you SAE J1858 data, others J806 data, Bosch says HS 806, some give "absolute" micron rating numbers, others say "nominal", then there is "Beta", some reference 20 micron without identifying the test, others simply give a range 10-20, some only give "multipass" numbers, others "singlepass".
The UTQG standard for tires is far from perfect, but at least I have a relatively objective comparison for treadwear, traction and temperature performance independent of the manufacturer's marketing claims.
I've preached enough on this subject, time to switch forums and see if Amsoil really is any better than Mobil 1.
The UTQG standard for tires is far from perfect, but at least I have a relatively objective comparison for treadwear, traction and temperature performance independent of the manufacturer's marketing claims.
I've preached enough on this subject, time to switch forums and see if Amsoil really is any better than Mobil 1.
Roger:
Don't disagree with what you say in the least.
But boy it's going to take some tough industry changing agreements to get what you ( and others) want. It will be easier for Dems and Repubs to agree on judicial nominee's..
The problem lies with the various brands available. The OEM only worries about their particular brand and that other filters meet or exceed, ect.
Now take into consideration all the private label brands out there. Do you think that STP would want people to know that they use the same media as NAPA Gold? ( they don't, they are made by two different companies which is why I chose them)
Could you imagine if consumers knew Brand A and Brand B are the same? There would be a price war between the two brands and neither would make much profit. So either they get out of the filter selling business ( in which case , less competition raises your prices) or they use filters as a loss leader. ( which may put others out of business and then they get to raise their prices down the road).
Now we have some intelligent posters who would love to have all specs all the time to make their choice. But at the end of the day..you'll gravitate towards the top of the line filter Mobil 1 , Pure One, etc....so price tells you which filter is the best. The more you pay, the better a filter is. You've figured that out already. So why do you need every last spec?
Filter companies prefer to keep their private brand customers happy with differentiation between the brands so that the private label brand has their story to tell why you should choose them.
Don't disagree with what you say in the least.
But boy it's going to take some tough industry changing agreements to get what you ( and others) want. It will be easier for Dems and Repubs to agree on judicial nominee's..
The problem lies with the various brands available. The OEM only worries about their particular brand and that other filters meet or exceed, ect.
Now take into consideration all the private label brands out there. Do you think that STP would want people to know that they use the same media as NAPA Gold? ( they don't, they are made by two different companies which is why I chose them)
Could you imagine if consumers knew Brand A and Brand B are the same? There would be a price war between the two brands and neither would make much profit. So either they get out of the filter selling business ( in which case , less competition raises your prices) or they use filters as a loss leader. ( which may put others out of business and then they get to raise their prices down the road).
Now we have some intelligent posters who would love to have all specs all the time to make their choice. But at the end of the day..you'll gravitate towards the top of the line filter Mobil 1 , Pure One, etc....so price tells you which filter is the best. The more you pay, the better a filter is. You've figured that out already. So why do you need every last spec?
Filter companies prefer to keep their private brand customers happy with differentiation between the brands so that the private label brand has their story to tell why you should choose them.
You are probably right. If too much were known, the product would evolve into a commodity status and then the various suppliers would have to compete on the basis of price alone. That is a long term loser for the manufacturer because it only leads to consolidation within the industry. Even mattress companies know enought to change the color of the cover to differentiate their product in the market place for each retailer.
Personally, I've come to the belief that all filters filter good enough. It's the other stuff that is more important...construction, ADBV, etc. But that's just me.
Personally, I've come to the belief that all filters filter good enough. It's the other stuff that is more important...construction, ADBV, etc. But that's just me.
OEM spec must be pretty low if Fram can meet it with half the media others use.
Nobody really knows what the OEM spec is because the engine makers usually do not publish the spec. Most often, the aftermarket filter makes reverse engineer the OEM filter just like Filter Guy said. Then, many filter makers pick a filter already in their catalog they feel is close enough to match so they can keep the number of filters in their inventory down.
Ken
Ken
FG
FG
TDI said;
I don't think it is a "shell game". It is a "marketing" game.
FG
OK. Now this I gotta dissagree with. I think we have all seen from the cut-up filters that more money does not always equal higher quality.
TDI said;
I have not been able to get info that would allow me to compare apples to apples. I think we all would like to see the data that you have collected. All I have not been able to get micron ratings that would allow me to compare apples to apples. Fram will not even give filter areas (I think we all know why).
- Status
