Non Kia-Hyundai oil filters--still a problem???

Standard Wix (NAPA Gold) work fine on my Tucson.
Just put on an oversize 51344.
Plan to leave it for two 4-5000 mile OCIs.
 
My Hyundais and Kias have used pretty much every major brand filter and have never had any problems. Cut all of them open too and never had any damaged filters. Also used non-Hyundai PN's, racing filters, oversized filters, .... no issues!


 
^^^ Yes, the car manufacturer can't legally remove the entire factory warranty if aftermarket parts are used - that's the main crux of the Magnuson Moss Warranty. But if it can be proven by them that an aftermarket part caused damage to another part of the vehicle then they could deny warranty repairs on the damage that the aftermarket part caused. This is one point many miss.
 
Last edited:
FRAM did admit on the forum to having to redesign their filters to allow for the very high oil pressures found with some Hyundai engines.
If FRAM admitted to that, what were low end filters manufacturers doing to accommodate this spec?
Maybe there was something to Hyundai's concerns?
 
My only issue with the Hyundai branded "OEM" filters is that we do not have published filtering efficiency and
dirt holding capacity specs available. The OEM filter appears to use Cellulose filter media, otherwise seems
well-constructed. Some anecdotal evidence reported by users seems to indicate mediocre filtration efficiency.

Hyundai , or whoever actually makes the OEM filters has an opportunity to come clean and give us the specs,
pretty sure they are available in house. Until and unless they do that instead of employing FUD to peddle
these, I have no basis to trust their product.

OTOH we do have all the specs for many aftermarket filters. The Fram UG filters use synthetic filter media, and
the specs are excellent, and cut-open examination shows these are also well-constructed.

It is generally believed that Cellulose based filter media is inferior to Synthetic media.
(In terms of all the relevant specs, such as filtration efficiency, flow rate , dirt holding capacity).

I go by published specs, and those are just not there for the OEM filter
 
I think the person doing the service is more important than the filter used.

I have a problem with my Hyundai dealer putting the proper amount of oil in the car. Last two times its been low half a quart.

Most people don't check oil or top off, so they get into trouble quick.

Our 2.0L NU GDI engine uses about half a quart in between OCI's of 3750 miles.

That is with 5w30 Formula Shell, thats what the dealer says they use.
 
2008 Kia Sorento 3.8L...cartridge filter...been using FRAM filters and cheapest synthetic I can find (usually, both from Walmart) for the last 80k miles or so...change every 5k miles...no issues.
 
If you look at available literature, you will find that filtering efficiency has a surprisingly
large impact on engine wear.

The "best" you can get is 99% efficiency at 10 microns, and some filters can actually meet that.
Afaik, only synthetic media, which is a finer mesh than cellulose. Some hybrid media
(cellulose+synthetic mix) filters can come close, e.g some of the M-1 filters.
Coincidentally, using synthetic filter media also tends to increase the dirt holding capacity,
which is important to know if you are thinking about long OCI-s. These also tend to have
better flow rate. So synthetic media filters have many advantages, and no drawbacks I can see.
Ah. the media tends to be less rigid, so these usually have wire mesh backing of the pleats.

Manufacturers who can brag about their specs tend to publish them. IMO when a manufacturer
refuses disclose their efficiency, (which is measured by a standardized test, and is surely known to them)
I expect it is because their specs are nothing special. Many filters are only rated at some percentage
of 40 microns. This is when the narrative about a bunch of irrelevant intangibles and marketing speak
comes into play. E.g.: "This filter was made by people who know your engine best".
Seriously? Nice to know, but show me the money, please.

My point is, that efficiency is an easy and important criteria to use for filter selection,
and there is no excuse for withholding this information from the users.
(Other than the obvious one, that is, the numbers suck).
 
OEM filters with mediocre efficiency (more flow, less cost?) seems to be an Asian philosophy.
Toyota and Honda filters for example.
 
OEM filters with mediocre efficiency (more flow, less cost?) seems to be an Asian philosophy.
Toyota and Honda filters for example.
How do we know they "flow better"? Nobody here has ever seen a flow test - ie, a delta-p vs flow rate curve.

We've seen flow data from @Ascent Filtration Testing of some synthetic media filters. I doubt that low efficiency filters flow any better. They could actually flow worse (meaning more delta-p vs flow), and their efficiency could suffer becsuse the media can't hold what it has already captured. It's discussed in the big testing thread.
 
How do we know they "flow better"? Nobody here has ever seen a flow test - ie, a delta-p vs flow rate curve.

We've seen flow data from @Ascent Filtration Testing of some synthetic media filters. I doubt that low efficiency filters flow any better. They could actually flow worse (meaning more delta-p vs flow), and their efficiency could suffer becsuse the media can't hold what it has already captured. It's discussed in the big testing thread.
Just to be clear, I do not believe that low efficiency filters necessarily flow better.
But I do believe that synthetic media filters both filter better and flow better then cellulose media filters.

You posted this acDelco graph in another thread, so I presume you agree with this point :)

1624047353605.jpg
 
^^^ Yes, I would say full synthetic media flows better than cellulose or blend. Also keep in mind that the delta-p across the filter also depends in the total surface area of the media. That's why the PureOne (not full synthetic media) flowed well, it typically had lots of media for the size of the filter.
 
When I was at Walmart last weekend, they had a Hyundai OEM filter on the shelf! Surprised the heck out of me.

Anyway, I found the Fram Ultras ran very quietly on my Sonata when I had it. Prior to that I had always used OEM on the Sonata, my Kia Spectra and my Kia Rondo. Same filter for all three.
 
Surprises the heck out of me that someone can _hear_ the difference between 2 filters. Helluva ears! Maybe the Sonata just coincidentally runs quieter for some other reason when you have this filter on. I could not
come up with a theory how the filter could make an audible difference, no matter how good. To be clear I am a fan of the Fram UG-s.
 
When I was at Walmart last weekend, they had a Hyundai OEM filter on the shelf! Surprised the heck out of me.

Anyway, I found the Fram Ultras ran very quietly on my Sonata when I had it. Prior to that I had always used OEM on the Sonata, my Kia Spectra and my Kia Rondo. Same filter for all three.
The Walmart near me has the OEM Hyundai/Kia oil filter (part no. 26300-35505) on the shelf most of the time.

 
I have used the OEM, NAPA Wix, Supertech (Wix at the time I used them), Bosch (Purolator), Champion, some Asian generic from Rock Auto, etc. No issues in the Santa Fe or the Rio. Ironically, never used a FRAM (nothing against them, there is usually just something cheaper that works just fine.)
 
Surprises the heck out of me that someone can _hear_ the difference between 2 filters. Helluva ears! Maybe the Sonata just coincidentally runs quieter for some other reason when you have this filter on. I could not
come up with a theory how the filter could make an audible difference, no matter how good. To be clear I am a fan of the Fram UG-s.

On startup. Non-Hyundai filters rattled more at startup, but, apparently I just wasn't using the right non-OEM filters to avoid the problem.
 
Oh. Oil starved engine startup rattle, because of something like
a not so good ADB valve? That makes sense. But once the engine starts up and the oil starts flowing, you cant hear any difference, right?
 
Back
Top