Oil Filter Test

[MPosey]

So I searched in here and via google, and I didn't find any threads in regards to this test.

Evolutionm oil filter test

After reading the testing procedure, it seems to be fairly scientific for a "guy in his garage."

Looks like the Purolator really did well.

Wondered what everyone thought about this test. Do you think this was a good way to test? What do you think of the results?

 

[Michael_P]

Awesome research. Way more thought went into this than 99% of the YouTube "experts". He devoted countless hours into this. Ive read it twice. For starters, he uses proper terminology and doesn't mis name materials.

 

[OVERKILL]

Very similar to the testing river_rat did on the board. You should look-up his old thread.

 

[Brybo86]

very interesting,
I guess one aspect to consider is that the oil in the test was passively allowed to flow through the media and not forced through as it would be in a running engine.
Not sure how that might effect results.
Impressive showing for the relatively inexpensive PureOne

 

[UNC017]

Pretty similar results to the GM Truck Central test from a couple of years ago, despite drastically different test methods.

That test was pretty highly criticized, but then its easier to sit back and nitpick than it is to actually run a test.

Interesting that his opinion narrative is so opposite of my impressions- he thought the Champion filters were "poorly constructed" even when they filtered well, and I've always felt that they are better put together than some of the other brands- Purolator included. Oh well.

 

[richport29]

Too bad Fram Ultra wasn't included in the testing. Would have liked to see how it stacked up against the other top filters.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: richport29
Too bad Fram Ultra wasn't included in the testing. Would have liked to see how it stacked up against the other top filters.


Well, it WAS included in the GMC Truck Central test (although it was called XtendedGuard back then), and it ranked third behind Royal Purple and Amsoil just as you'd expect based on inspecting the filter media.

Funny how often just looking at filter internals actually can be informative. People dismiss visual inspection much the way they say "correlation doesn't equal causation." Well, it may not imply causation but it sure does say, "Psst. Hey you. Take a look over here, something's fishy." And the same with visual inspection- yes, sometimes people can get over-absorbed in details that don't always matter (like fiber end caps versus paper), but overall its not a terrible indicator of how reliable and safe a filter will be. Take E-core. Visual inspection says "watch out for the large patches of filter media not supported by the center tube grid!" and sure enough in the (rare) cases where Ecore filters have been shown to fail, its often by the media tearing through those big core openings.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
Pretty similar results to the GM Truck Central test from a couple of years ago, despite drastically different test methods.

That test was pretty highly criticized, but then its easier to sit back and nitpick than it is to actually run a test.

The GMC test was/is "highly criticized" because upon further inspection many of the GMC patch test results are directly refuted by known ISO (4548-12) test results done under controlled conditions and accepted as the filter industry standard for efficiency testing. Without linking to the GMC test again, filters with the same exact media but sold under different filter names (eg. Fram Extra Guard/High Mileage, Wix/Napa Gold) showed very different results. Also filters rated more efficient in ISO testing showed worse patch test results than less efficient rated ISO tested results (eg. Pure One worse than Classic). If pointing out the difference in the patch test as compared to scientific ISO testing is nit picking then so be it. Because one happens to agree with the GMC results doesn't make the patch test reliable.

As mentioned, the linked test procedure is the same procedure used by river_rat in his filtration comparison test that has been posted here many times. Unlike the patch test results though, river_rat's results actually aligned with and are confirmed by known ISO test results. And in the case of no endcap type spin on filters it was literally predictive of previously unknown filter efficiency. River_rat's testing showed the no endcap type filters to be relatively inefficient oil filters. A fact later confirmed in Amsoil's 2011 ISO testing of the Toyota/Denso OEM no endcap spin on filter. Also using the linked test of the Mitsubishi/Denso no endcap spin on, river rat's result was confirmed yet again. I would say river_rat's conlusions and summary are more comprehensive and objective imo than the link, and the evo author confused many of the adbv material id's. But the results align with r_r's and the known ISO test results. A decent effort imo, with some good information and pics.

 

[Jim Allen]

Bad data is worse than no data because it often leads you down the wrong road. When you see a lack of correlation to known, verified data it just throws the whole effort into a tailspin as far as I'm concerned. Which is a shame.