Oil filter test on Finnish car magazine

[Sayjac]

I'm not sure how much correlation there is between the filters tested here, and the American (if any) version(s)?

I agree with ZO6 in pointing out the recent Amsoil test showing the Toyota OEM not to be very efficient. And the Amsoil test agrees with the data previously posted here by river_rat showing the no endcap type filters including the Toyota OEM not to be very efficient.

Also, is the Mann the Euro version or the one now being made in the States by Puro? I suspect the former.

Last, I need an explanation of what the two different numbers (comma in between) next to each filter mean.

 

[OpelFever]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
I'm not sure how much correlation there is between the filters tested here, and the American (if any) version(s)?

I agree with ZO6 in pointing out the recent Amsoil test showing the Toyota OEM not to be very efficient. And the Amsoil test agrees with the data previously posted here by river_rat showing the no endcap type filters including the Toyota OEM not to be very efficient.

Also, is the Mann the Euro version or the one now being made in the States by Puro? I suspect the former.

Last, I need an explanation of what the two different numbers (comma in between) next to each filter mean.


The numbers with the commas are the grades (4-10) given as I explained in the OP.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: sayjac

Last, I need an explanation of what the two different numbers (comma in between) next to each filter mean.


Europeans use a comma instead of a decimal point. So "9,1" means a score of 9.1 out of 10 (I would presume).

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: sayjac

Last, I need an explanation of what the two different numbers (comma in between) next to each filter mean.


Europeans use a comma instead of a decimal point. So "9,1" means a score of 9.1 out of 10 (I would presume).
OHHH, now I understand. I did not know that. Thanks ZO.

To me a comma and decimal point mean something entirely different.

 

[kozanoglu]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim

I mean, is there something untrue about what was shown by the graph? Which one in particular is being questioned? I thought they usually list the ISO test for reference on those things.


It was a graph posted in a thread a week or so ago ... and I think it did have reference to the IOS test standard used. It's probably on their website someplace too.


Here's the Amsoil test that shows the Toyota OEM (Denso) filter wasn't very good. They used industry standard ISO 4548-12 for "Absolute Efficiency" measurement.

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eao.aspx

Yet, in the OP's posted test data, the Toyota filter was 2nd highest rated filter?

Who paid for the test?Who actually tested these filters, what is their relationship with Amsoil apart from being paid by them,where were they tested,how were they tested,was the test process recorded for verification?

If Amsoil is in also in the business of oil filters, you simply can not expect substance from Amsoil-paid filter tests.It is not really a speculation.Does Mobil 1 ever come 2nd in a test paid for by Mobil?Does Pennzoil come second in PZ test?Does Castrol ever come 2nd in BP paid tests?

 

[Sayjac]

Rather than focusing on who came in first, I prefer to look at the total results of the recent Amsoil filter tests. Several of the other OEM (non Amsoil) filters did quite well imo, 95.4%-93.7% @20um is very decent.

As for the bottom two, not so much. And one of those is the Toyota OEM, which as said is very similar to r_r's results for that filter.

Perhaps the Euro version is of different construction.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kozanoglu

Who paid for the test?Who actually tested these filters, what is their relationship with Amsoil apart from being paid by them,where were they tested,how were they tested,was the test process recorded for verification?

If Amsoil is in also in the business of oil filters, you simply can not expect substance from Amsoil-paid filter tests.It is not really a speculation.Does Mobil 1 ever come 2nd in a test paid for by Mobil?Does Pennzoil come second in PZ test?Does Castrol ever come 2nd in BP paid tests?


Thinking along your lines of logic, then why should anyone believe any manufacture's filter testing? Do you believe Purolator's claim of 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns per ISO 4548-12? They paid someone to do it per an ISO test standard, but apparently they must slip them some big money under the table to make the results come out good ...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: OpelFever
Here is a link to Volvo oil filter (2003) test I mentioned earlier. It's in Finnish so I'm mainly posting it for the pictures and graphs:

http://tos.pp.fi/koukku/suodattimet/olju.pdf


Did some translation.

The two graphs that sum up a lot on page "107" (page 6 of 8 in the PDF) shows the dirt holding capacity in grams (graph on left - "20,0" gram is the max on Volvo filter = 20.0 grams), and the graph on the right shows the filtering efficiency vs. particle size in microns. Bosch also did pretty good in both tests.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
To me a comma and decimal point mean something entirely different.

In Europe it's just reversed. A comma is used as a decimal point. A period is used to separate thousands.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: sayjac
To me a comma and decimal point mean something entirely different.

In Europe it's just reversed. A comma is used as a decimal point. A period is used to separate thousands.


This ran across my mind too.

I think others have covered it well. If the one poster kozanoglu doesn't want to have to worry about test scores, he could just use filters and guess which are best. The tests were done to ISO standards and if they were defaming the other filters or falsely claiming to be better than they are, there could be a law suit from the other filter manufacturers included in the test.

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Rather than focusing on who came in first, I prefer to look at the total results of the recent Amsoil filter tests. Several of the other OEM (non Amsoil) filters did quite well imo, 95.4%-93.7% @20um is very decent.

As for the bottom two, not so much. And one of those is the Toyota OEM, which as said is very similar to r_r's results for that filter.

Perhaps the Euro version is of different construction.

Perhaps? I remember seeing some Japan vs. USA made filters for the Honda being quite different.

...and I totally agree OEM getting into the low-mid 90% range at 20 micron is solid, IMO. It makes me feel confident using an AC Delco(non-ecore version) PF48 on my parent's 4.3L Chevy's.

 

[kemo]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim


lol, Amsoil's oil filters certainly are among the best possibly to be held in your hands for a spin-on, PCMO app.

98.7% efficiency at 15 micron, they have achieved this, of course one graph can choose to compare the worst 'filtration efficient' filters of a certain few apps, but it's hard to find any filters on par with or better. They have marketed their's "honestly"(for all intents and purposes), IMO.

I mean, is there something untrue about what was shown by the graph? Which one in particular is being questioned? I thought they usually list the ISO test for reference on those things.


Amsoil provides absolutely ZERO actual test results, just their graphs that they made, anyone can make a graph. Sorry you buy into the propaganda.

Example... I took my truck down the strip and did a 1/4 mile run in 12 seconds, fully stock ranger mind you... and I provide you results made on my computer. what are you going to believe? Something I made up without any evidence from the original papers? WE all know there is no way in heck that a stock ranger could touch a 12 second run, and ain't one person who will take a word document of my "times" as proof.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kemo

Amsoil provides absolutely ZERO actual test results, just their graphs that they made, anyone can make a graph. Sorry you buy into the propaganda.

Example... I took my truck down the strip and did a 1/4 mile run in 12 seconds, fully stock ranger mind you... and I provide you results made on my computer. what are you going to believe? Something I made up without any evidence from the original papers? WE all know there is no way in heck that a stock ranger could touch a 12 second run, and ain't one person who will take a word document of my "times" as proof.


As said already, these big companies can not show test data of competitor's filters that's not true without running the risk of a lawsuit from a competitor. If Amsoil test data shows that Toyota OEM filters are not very efficient, and Toyota see's that is not true, then Amsoil is most likely going to have a lawyer contacting them to bring a lawsuit against them.

And it's not like they are "making up" the data ... it's data that was achieved by running a standardized ISO test procedure - usually by a 3rd party test lab. It amazes me how some people think that big companies just make stuff up with no worries of a possible lawsuit.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kemo

Amsoil provides absolutely ZERO actual test results, just their graphs that they made, anyone can make a graph. Sorry you buy into the propaganda.

Example... I took my truck down the strip and did a 1/4 mile run in 12 seconds, fully stock ranger mind you... and I provide you results made on my computer. what are you going to believe? Something I made up without any evidence from the original papers? WE all know there is no way in heck that a stock ranger could touch a 12 second run, and ain't one person who will take a word document of my "times" as proof.


As said already, these big companies can not show test data of competitor's filters that's not true without running the risk of a lawsuit from a competitor. If Amsoil test data shows that Toyota OEM filters are not very efficient, and Toyota see's that is not true, then Amsoil is most likely going to have a lawyer contacting them to bring a lawsuit against them.

And it's not like they are "making up" the data ... it's data that was achieved by running a standardized ISO test procedure - usually by a 3rd party test lab. It amazes me how some people think that big companies just make stuff up with no worries of a possible lawsuit.

^This.

 

[kozanoglu]

ZeeOsix, I do not think Toyota would care.A global giant auto-maker should not be concerned with competition from a niche-market oil/filter business.It is Amsoil who needs proving itself.

I am from WI and Amsoil is a WI company.I bought 2 quarts of Amsoil Universal ATF today to try after using Redline.But I do not like the way Amsoil markets its products.Like a family business.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
ZeeOsix, I do not think Toyota would care.A global giant auto-maker should not be concerned with competition from a niche-market oil/filter business.It is Amsoil who needs proving itself.

I am from WI and Amsoil is a WI company.I bought 2 quarts of Amsoil Universal ATF today to try after using Redline.But I do not like the way Amsoil markets its products.Like a family business.


^The company's marketing and their products are two different things.

Of course, I understand where you are coming from.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kozanoglu
ZeeOsix, I do not think Toyota would care. A global giant auto-maker should not be concerned with competition from a niche-market oil/filter business.It is Amsoil who needs proving itself.


Of course Toyota would care if the date is false and it make it look like Toyota filters are junk. It's not about if Amsoil is trying to sell more filters than Toyota, it's about give the perception that the Toyota filter is junk, so anyone seeing the data may choose not to buy a Toyota filter, even if they don't buy and Amsoil filter.

Of course, if the data is accurate, then Toyota can't do anything about it. But if it's false, and Toyota doesn't want bad publicity over it, then they could sue Amsoil over the false data, and probably would.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: sayjac
To me a comma and decimal point mean something entirely different.

In Europe it's just reversed. A comma is used as a decimal point. A period is used to separate thousands.
Yep, that's why I couldn't understand the rating system until that was explained, thought it was two separate scores. Always good to learn something new.

As for the Amsoil oil filter test, until I took a closer look at the results when first posted here awhile back, I was naturally skeptical too. I think the test is accurate as shown. I don't think Amsoil would show three of the OEM's with very respectable results if they were cooking the results when compared to the EaO. And, I believe the Amsoil EaO efficiency results too, though I don't use it, great filter.

As for the graphic display of the results, I don't think that automatically makes the results suspect. The bar graph is just an easy to see representation of the numerical efficiency data which is also listed.

 

[kemo]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kemo

Amsoil provides absolutely ZERO actual test results, just their graphs that they made, anyone can make a graph. Sorry you buy into the propaganda.

Example... I took my truck down the strip and did a 1/4 mile run in 12 seconds, fully stock ranger mind you... and I provide you results made on my computer. what are you going to believe? Something I made up without any evidence from the original papers? WE all know there is no way in heck that a stock ranger could touch a 12 second run, and ain't one person who will take a word document of my "times" as proof.


As said already, these big companies can not show test data of competitor's filters that's not true without running the risk of a lawsuit from a competitor. If Amsoil test data shows that Toyota OEM filters are not very efficient, and Toyota see's that is not true, then Amsoil is most likely going to have a lawyer contacting them to bring a lawsuit against them.

And it's not like they are "making up" the data ... it's data that was achieved by running a standardized ISO test procedure - usually by a 3rd party test lab. It amazes me how some people think that big companies just make stuff up with no worries of a possible lawsuit.

Amsoil used to make up all sorts of stories... this is one that used to be on the website, now it's on all sorts of dealers websites touting false information:

Quote:
In fact, we know of several major NASCAR and Indy racing teams that use AMSOIL in their race cars yet the oil sponsors logo on the hood and quarter panels is not what is in the vehicle! They want you to believe it is..... but it isn't. Fact is, every successful major race car in the world uses synthetics, and an extremely large percentage of them use AMSOIL synthetics. We know exactly who these racing teams are but are not permitted to advertise who they are because they have such a large amount of money at stake with their sponsors wanting the public to believe they are using the brand of oil that is is advertised on the car.


as far as I'm concerned, if they aren't prepared to show the official test results printed from the machine that tested it, it never really happened. There still is zero proof that any testing was done... let alone by any "third party". All they provide is a graph that they made. ANYONE can make a graph.

IF their graph is real, then why won't they pony up a copy of the results to back it up when we request it??? It's funny, it really is... especially when you use the 2 stage foam air filter as an example.

OFFICIAL AMSOIL GRAPH

There was an independent test performed here with this filter and various others, the AMSOIL filter didn't perform as well as they show the results in this graph here.

 

[Pablo]

You are on a roll today Kemo. That was never an Amsoil official statement. It certainly is true than many racers don't use the products that sponsor the teams. Do you deny this?

But really it is about you spreading lies. You say Amsoil just makes up test results. You have not actually proved this yet, and I for one am waiting for such proof.

Just what the heck this has to do with this thread is beyond me!!!

 

[kemo]

never an official statement? yet it used to be on the website...

anyways, not once did I say they never tested. All i've said is that they will not produce any actual results printed from the machine that tested their products, in return, all we get is a graph made by amsoil, nothing from this "third party". And in several cases, graphs that have absolutely no scientific data on there to justify that it actually was tested.

If they want to brag about being the best, they better be prepared to back it up with original documentation...