I forgot to mention...the Kinez guy..stated theirs 'nothing specail' about the mopar filters. If anything, their for looks* Theirs other filters out thie aftermarket, cpapble of filter way way better.
Mopar vs SuperTech vs ACDelco at WM
- Thread starter rastoma
- Start date
- Status
At least with most AC filters, you have the bypass in the block and don't have to worry about cheap dome end bypasses.
The "090" is the OEM filter. Part number 5281090. The skinny'er filter is #4105409. I worked in a Chrys. parts dept. about 10 yrs ago, and you never knew what filter was on the car until you opened the hood. We always used the 090 when space permitted.
Off Topic: Amazing how I remember part #'s from 10 yrs ago, and can't remember where I put my car keys 10 min ago!
Off Topic: Amazing how I remember part #'s from 10 yrs ago, and can't remember where I put my car keys 10 min ago!
Originally Posted By: labman
At least with most AC filters, you have the bypass in the block and don't have to worry about cheap dome end bypasses.
That's OK if your driving a GM, If your using an AC on a non-GM you kinda need it to be in the filter, right?
At least with most AC filters, you have the bypass in the block and don't have to worry about cheap dome end bypasses.
That's OK if your driving a GM, If your using an AC on a non-GM you kinda need it to be in the filter, right?
Originally Posted By: gmctodd
Originally Posted By: labman
At least with most AC filters, you have the bypass in the block and don't have to worry about cheap dome end bypasses.
That's OK if your driving a GM, If your using an AC on a non-GM you kinda need it to be in the filter, right?
Yep ... if you're using any filter on a vehicle that doesn't have the bypass built into the engine, then the filter better have a bypass valve in it!
Originally Posted By: labman
At least with most AC filters, you have the bypass in the block and don't have to worry about cheap dome end bypasses.
That's OK if your driving a GM, If your using an AC on a non-GM you kinda need it to be in the filter, right?
Yep ... if you're using any filter on a vehicle that doesn't have the bypass built into the engine, then the filter better have a bypass valve in it!
I don't get why so many people are down on the ACDelco e-core. At first I didn't like them either, but supposedly the filter is slightly improved over the older design with higher efficiency and flow. I used some ACDelco e-cores and they worked great. These were on GM application that have the bypass on the engine though. But if your application calls for a filter with a bypass then the correct part number will have the base plate bypass. Seems to me if you need the filter to have a bypass you would want to have a base plate bypass. Someone said the ACDelcos cause lifter tick did the filter have a bypass or was it an engine mounted bypass?
Originally Posted By: labman
At least with most AC filters, you have the bypass in the block and don't have to worry about cheap dome end bypasses.
I am sorry I put that that way.
Most GM products have a bypass in the engine. Consequently, common numbers such as PF 47, PF 52, etc. lack bypasses. Therefore where the bypass is in other applications makes no difference.
I have yet to see a rational reason for not using an Ecore. Maybe if I belonged to the USW....
At least with most AC filters, you have the bypass in the block and don't have to worry about cheap dome end bypasses.
I am sorry I put that that way.
Most GM products have a bypass in the engine. Consequently, common numbers such as PF 47, PF 52, etc. lack bypasses. Therefore where the bypass is in other applications makes no difference.
I have yet to see a rational reason for not using an Ecore. Maybe if I belonged to the USW....
Originally Posted By: labman
Oh yes, as long as it has a steel end cap, nothing else counts.
I prefer a filter that is of "traditional" construction. Last time I checked, that was still allowed.
If you don't agree, that's fine. Just don't be disagreeable about it.
Oh yes, as long as it has a steel end cap, nothing else counts.
I prefer a filter that is of "traditional" construction. Last time I checked, that was still allowed.
If you don't agree, that's fine. Just don't be disagreeable about it.
And the data to back that up? I don't have any experience with Mopar, but I have found Champ made filters about the same as Purolator except for the AC's having half again more media. Frams had half as much media as ST and Purolator.
River rats testing has shown the P1 and Classic to be top notch products.
Personally looked at a Mopar in Walmart today. Like postjeepers pics and 300M filter study posted on page 1 of this thread, the Mopar beats the ST and AC in construction, hands down.
Mopar does not have a cheesy cheap nitrile combo bypass valve like ST/AC. Mopar like Motorcraft has quality metal thread end bypass and metal endcaps, made to Mopar specs, just as the Motorcraft is made to MC/Ford specs by Purolator.
As far as construction the Mopar choice is a no brainer here.
Personally looked at a Mopar in Walmart today. Like postjeepers pics and 300M filter study posted on page 1 of this thread, the Mopar beats the ST and AC in construction, hands down.
Mopar does not have a cheesy cheap nitrile combo bypass valve like ST/AC. Mopar like Motorcraft has quality metal thread end bypass and metal endcaps, made to Mopar specs, just as the Motorcraft is made to MC/Ford specs by Purolator.
As far as construction the Mopar choice is a no brainer here.
''Mopar does not have a cheesy cheap nitrile combo bypass valve like ST/AC.'' In your subjective opinion. The Purolator and Mopar have outmoded metal end caps that add nothing to the filtration.
In one of the few head to head tests of Purolator and Champ, the results were almost identical. To me, top notch means significantly better, not about equal. I see no basis for the continual bashing of Champ and worship of Purolator.
In one of the few head to head tests of Purolator and Champ, the results were almost identical. To me, top notch means significantly better, not about equal. I see no basis for the continual bashing of Champ and worship of Purolator.
Well, you would the authority on "subjective opinions".
The majority of high line oil filters have metal endcaps and there no disputing that fact. I won't waste my time listing all of them, though it would dwarf any non metal fabricated list.
Looking at rr's conclusion the Puro scored consistently higher in every category than ecores shown here. Not sure what one vague test you are referring. Could be the now discontinued /non ecore AC filter?
In any case looking at the list it's very easy to so see the top scorers are solid with metal endcaps and not cheesy nitrile combo valves. And, I've use ecores, there just not in the class construction of the top filters as the evidence clearly shows. No bash, just fact.
The Mopar wins this comparo.
The majority of high line oil filters have metal endcaps and there no disputing that fact. I won't waste my time listing all of them, though it would dwarf any non metal fabricated list.
Looking at rr's conclusion the Puro scored consistently higher in every category than ecores shown here. Not sure what one vague test you are referring. Could be the now discontinued /non ecore AC filter?
In any case looking at the list it's very easy to so see the top scorers are solid with metal endcaps and not cheesy nitrile combo valves. And, I've use ecores, there just not in the class construction of the top filters as the evidence clearly shows. No bash, just fact.
The Mopar wins this comparo.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Well, you would the authority on "subjective opinions".
The majority of high line oil filters have metal endcaps and there no disputing that fact. I won't waste my time listing all of them, though it would dwarf any non metal fabricated list.
Looking at rr's conclusion the Puro scored consistently higher in every category than ecores shown here. Not sure what one vague test you are referring. Could be the now discontinued /non ecore AC filter?
In any case looking at the list it's very easy to so see the top scorers are solid with metal endcaps and not cheesy nitrile combo valves. And, I've use ecores, there just not in the class construction of the top filters as the evidence clearly shows. No bash, just fact.
The Mopar wins this comparo.
I agree Mopar wins this comparo with no bashing of Champ
Well, you would the authority on "subjective opinions".
The majority of high line oil filters have metal endcaps and there no disputing that fact. I won't waste my time listing all of them, though it would dwarf any non metal fabricated list.
Looking at rr's conclusion the Puro scored consistently higher in every category than ecores shown here. Not sure what one vague test you are referring. Could be the now discontinued /non ecore AC filter?
In any case looking at the list it's very easy to so see the top scorers are solid with metal endcaps and not cheesy nitrile combo valves. And, I've use ecores, there just not in the class construction of the top filters as the evidence clearly shows. No bash, just fact.
The Mopar wins this comparo.
I agree Mopar wins this comparo with no bashing of Champ
I just took time to skim through River Rats testing thread, https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/some-filtration-comparisons-from-the-bench.116272/
I only found a single test of an Ecore. It wasn't head to head to a Purolator, but to 3 higher priced filters. Looks to me like it came in second.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Here is the Ecore test I promised, along with some notes on the Wix observations.
The picture below is representative of several comparison tests that kept coming of the same way.
Left to right: Ecore PF-53 IIRC, Mobil 1 Extended Performance Mobil 1-102, WIX 51348, and Denso (Toyota OEM 90915-YZZD1).
They are all for the same application.
The Ecore always does pretty well in the comparisons with it's published efficiency of 96% single pass at 15-20 microns and 94% mutipass at 20 microns.
The Mobil 1 always tests for me as one of the better filters for filtration, and is about the same as the K&Ns I've tested. This (the Mobil 1) is advertised at 99.2% mutipass efficiency but without a micron size given. Champion Labs however told me by phone that it was about a 10 micron nominal filter (50% at 10 microns), which is pretty respectable and the results show it. It does not test as good as the PureOne, but it isn't all that far behind it either.
The WIX efficiency for this particular filter is not spectacular, showing a 21 microm nominal rating, but in practice, always filters about as well as the Mobil 1.
Does this meant the Mobil 1 filters worse than expected, or the Wix filters better than expected in the real world?
Since the Mobil 1 consistently meets or beats any number of filters with good published efficiencies, and it not far behind the PureOne, I have to go with the weight of evidence that the Wix filters better than expected and that the Wix published ratings are conservative.
The are in fact a lot of variables in how the SAE tests are done, and so published ratings vary.
The Wix, may lose some of this efficiency after it has been in use for a while and may appear closer to the conservative published ratings--but the media is obviously stopping fine debris as well as higher rated filters. This is also evident in that the flow rate in the oil in the test with similar media surface area is about the same as the Mobil 1. This indicates to me that something--either median pore size, or depth of media is probably fairly similar, because they both use a blended media. The other possibility is that the Wix ratings that they published have not been updated in some time as media technology keeps improving.
The Denso flows very fast, and filters decently from past experience--maybe average. It's a good filter, I say, but probably not the best at capturing the smaller particles in the fewest passes.
Pictures of my messy shop. I've done a lot of tests!
The only real Purolator to Champ was the conventional construction STP that I submitted. Seeing as I bought 2 of them fairly recently, I fail to see how it can be dismissed as history. Only last night the AZ site listed the SO3950 as one choice for my truck. So, I am still waiting for the data showing the Purolator Classic filters better than anything except the universally scorned Fram.
As far as construction goes, if you define steel end caps as good construction, then the Purolator is going to beat the Ecore every time. Now if you define it as adding to the filtration, then the Ecore wins. If you say a thread end bypass is important, the Ecore wins. I think you can make a better case for thread end bypass being important than steel end caps.
Purolators being much better than every thing else? Well maybe Fram and Denso and some of the other high dollar things did poorly in River Rats tests. Better than the Ecores and conventional Champ products, no sale.
I only found a single test of an Ecore. It wasn't head to head to a Purolator, but to 3 higher priced filters. Looks to me like it came in second.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Here is the Ecore test I promised, along with some notes on the Wix observations.
The picture below is representative of several comparison tests that kept coming of the same way.
Left to right: Ecore PF-53 IIRC, Mobil 1 Extended Performance Mobil 1-102, WIX 51348, and Denso (Toyota OEM 90915-YZZD1).
They are all for the same application.
The Ecore always does pretty well in the comparisons with it's published efficiency of 96% single pass at 15-20 microns and 94% mutipass at 20 microns.
The Mobil 1 always tests for me as one of the better filters for filtration, and is about the same as the K&Ns I've tested. This (the Mobil 1) is advertised at 99.2% mutipass efficiency but without a micron size given. Champion Labs however told me by phone that it was about a 10 micron nominal filter (50% at 10 microns), which is pretty respectable and the results show it. It does not test as good as the PureOne, but it isn't all that far behind it either.
The WIX efficiency for this particular filter is not spectacular, showing a 21 microm nominal rating, but in practice, always filters about as well as the Mobil 1.
Does this meant the Mobil 1 filters worse than expected, or the Wix filters better than expected in the real world?
Since the Mobil 1 consistently meets or beats any number of filters with good published efficiencies, and it not far behind the PureOne, I have to go with the weight of evidence that the Wix filters better than expected and that the Wix published ratings are conservative.
The are in fact a lot of variables in how the SAE tests are done, and so published ratings vary.
The Wix, may lose some of this efficiency after it has been in use for a while and may appear closer to the conservative published ratings--but the media is obviously stopping fine debris as well as higher rated filters. This is also evident in that the flow rate in the oil in the test with similar media surface area is about the same as the Mobil 1. This indicates to me that something--either median pore size, or depth of media is probably fairly similar, because they both use a blended media. The other possibility is that the Wix ratings that they published have not been updated in some time as media technology keeps improving.
The Denso flows very fast, and filters decently from past experience--maybe average. It's a good filter, I say, but probably not the best at capturing the smaller particles in the fewest passes.
Pictures of my messy shop. I've done a lot of tests!
The only real Purolator to Champ was the conventional construction STP that I submitted. Seeing as I bought 2 of them fairly recently, I fail to see how it can be dismissed as history. Only last night the AZ site listed the SO3950 as one choice for my truck. So, I am still waiting for the data showing the Purolator Classic filters better than anything except the universally scorned Fram.
As far as construction goes, if you define steel end caps as good construction, then the Purolator is going to beat the Ecore every time. Now if you define it as adding to the filtration, then the Ecore wins. If you say a thread end bypass is important, the Ecore wins. I think you can make a better case for thread end bypass being important than steel end caps.
Purolators being much better than every thing else? Well maybe Fram and Denso and some of the other high dollar things did poorly in River Rats tests. Better than the Ecores and conventional Champ products, no sale.
Originally Posted By: labman
The only real Purolator to Champ was the conventional construction STP that I submitted. Seeing as I bought 2 of them fairly recently, I fail to see how it can be dismissed as history. Only last night the AZ site listed the SO3950 as one choice for my truck.
What's strange is that I can't find any reference to the STP 3950 on the internet showing that you can still buy them. What's the scoop? ... I still think it's a discontinued filter.
The only real Purolator to Champ was the conventional construction STP that I submitted. Seeing as I bought 2 of them fairly recently, I fail to see how it can be dismissed as history. Only last night the AZ site listed the SO3950 as one choice for my truck.
What's strange is that I can't find any reference to the STP 3950 on the internet showing that you can still buy them. What's the scoop? ... I still think it's a discontinued filter.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Well, you would the authority on "subjective opinions".
Sorry, labman, but I'm going to have to agree with sayjac here. To me it seems all your filter opinions are formed to shape your political/economic views. And then you say filters probably don't even matter, but you are on the filter forum everyday trying to convince everybody that Purolator sucks.
You're a good guy and all, but what gives?
You complain about the dome end bypass, but you know full well it doesn't make a big difference...you have to know by now. Right? You done been told and had it explained to you a hundred times.
We should all probably figure out by now the ecore is OK, but it is still a little bit of a step down from Purolator Classic.
Well, you would the authority on "subjective opinions".
Sorry, labman, but I'm going to have to agree with sayjac here. To me it seems all your filter opinions are formed to shape your political/economic views. And then you say filters probably don't even matter, but you are on the filter forum everyday trying to convince everybody that Purolator sucks.
You're a good guy and all, but what gives?
You complain about the dome end bypass, but you know full well it doesn't make a big difference...you have to know by now. Right? You done been told and had it explained to you a hundred times.
We should all probably figure out by now the ecore is OK, but it is still a little bit of a step down from Purolator Classic.
In the real world, the STP SO 3950 was right there on the shelf at AZ last time I looked. Anybody else is free to look. If it is discontinued, why would AZ list it for my truck?
Oh, how many times have I explained steel end caps only matter to those with their own unstated agenda?
Oh, how many times have I explained steel end caps only matter to those with their own unstated agenda?
- Status
Similar threads
