Oil Filter Testing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Here's a link for air filters. I'm looking for something similar for oil filters.
Thanks.
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117009


I think the one linked below is a mixed bag, but as good as I've seen so far. The methods are pretty good, certainly better than 'cut it open and look at it.' But his scoresheet is a bit amateurish because it scores filter surface area. Synthetic media require less area since the also use their own thickness to filter.

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilterstudy.html

It also needs some newer filters now on the market... like Purolator Synthetic, and it would be nice if the Fram was new enough to be branded as an Ultra instead of an Extended Guard, too. Pretty much any test is going to be open to some level of criticism though.

What I find funny is that I've posted a link to that page in 3 different threads today.
 
I should also mention that I don't prefer his practice of removing the media from the filter and testing it as one would use laboratory filter paper. I'd rather he'd pumped oil through an actual filter, which would account for how the media is actually installed and how oil actually flows through it in real-world use.

But then I didn't man-up and do the test, he did. Its a cheap-shot on my part to criticize too much and that's not my intent.
 
So if I'm seeing this grade chart right the Amsoil,FRAM,and RP did the best at filtration?

Id like to see the NP and Puro syn tested.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
I'd rather he'd pumped oil through an actual filter, which would account for how the media is actually installed and how oil actually flows through it in real-world use.
Agree. Not really a valid test. He tested the filter material but not actual use inside the can.
 
Originally Posted By: daman
So if I'm seeing this grade chart right the Amsoil,FRAM,and RP did the best at filtration?

Id like to see the NP and Puro syn tested.


Correct- RP best, then Amsoil, then Fram XG. The RP and Amsoil were the only ones he got any meaninful results on when he tried smaller particles.
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilterstudy.html
This shows Amsoil and K&N oil filters at the top. That's hard to believe given their air filters are often rated last (or poor) in testing. The absolute #1 was Fram which is a shocker.


K&N oil filters (at least the model he tested) are not a radically different technology from "normal" filters the way their air filters are. K&N oil filters of that type are just an expensive, spec-built oil filter much like a Royal Purple or an Amsoil. No surprise that they do OK. K&N air filters on the other hand are completely different than OEM air filters. They depend on electrostatic precipitation rather than just physical pore size. And lots of stuff can screw up electrostatic action in an air filter- like a relative humidity over 50%. K&N air filters work best at blocking large amounts of relatively large dirt particles in dry conditions where a paper filter might clog prematurely and reduce performance, and performance over a short duration is more important than engine life- ie. desert racing. There are applications for fine-metal-screen oil filters where similar concerns are important: reliable flow even if with sizeable particles over the short term is more important than extreme filtration- but typically not automobiles. Things like reciprocating aircraft engines where its better to chew the bearings up slowly with middle-sized particles but keep running than it is to clog a filter (or send it into bypass where BIG chunks get by), fail the engine completely, and fall out of the sky. Even when nothing goes wrong, those engines get rebuilt FAR more often than car engines, so keeping the oil clean down to 20-microns doesn't come into consideration

The Fram only got "absolute #1" because price and filter media surface area were weighted the same as other parameters.

There's much to criticize about that test- I only suggest it as a guide and a way to familiarize yourself with how many of those filters are built. Filter surface area is a useful measure, but ONLY when comparing similar-technology filter media. Its meaningless when comparing, say, a single-layer cellulose (conventional "paper" filter media) to a thick glass-fiber synthetic medium or a multi-layer medium.
 
Last edited:
No price and filter size was weighted lower (x1) while filtering/build quality was weighted high (x5).

Okay well I need to make a decision in a hurry. Fram or Amsoil or ____? I'm already ordering Amsoil Cetane Boost so I could just throw 10 filters on top of the order. On the other hand Fram Xtended got an A in three categories (filtering, build, and size). Mobil 1 also scored very high, and I'm using Mobil 1 oil, so maybe I should just stick with the brand.

I think this is what they call "decision immobility"..... too many choices overwhelms the human into inaction. Like one of those old Asimov Robot stories. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
As sayjac mentioned in another thread about this filter testing ... there are some discrepancies that don't add up and leads one to question the test methods.

I think our own river_rat did a better test (33 page thread).

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...368#Post1616368

+1 Unlike the GMC patch test, river_rats test/study actually tends to agree with known controlled ISO test results. Also, it was river rats study that showed that filters like the Toyota OEM no endcap type to be low efficiency filters, though at the time no ISO testing had been published. Since then though, the now much posted Amsoil ISO testing of some OEM filters including the Toyota OEM, showed that filter to be only ~51% @20 um. Even before that published Amsoil result I thought river rat's results were very credible. I'd say the relatively recent Amsoil OEM test results give it even more credibility.

His 33 page thread does make for interesting reading, but for those more interested in just a summary of his work it can be found in the link below.

http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/index.html
 
Well crud. I should not have bought a Mobil 1 filter.

Filtration:
1. Delco UPF 52
2. PureOne, Bosch Premium, and Donaldson
3. Purolator Classic, Mobil 1 Ext Perf. and K&N, Mann, Fram Extended Guard
4. Wix/NAPA Gold and Wix built Delco Duraguard PF53, Mahle
5. Ecore style AC/Delco, Supetech, STP, and Fram Extraguard
6. Denso, Honda, Hamp

Construction:
1. Mobil 1 and K&N
2. Wix/NAPA Gold, Fram Extended Guard, Mann, Mahle
3. Purolator, Bosch Premium and PureOne
4. Denso, Honda, Hamp
5. Ecore style AC/Delco, Supetech, STP
6. Fram Extraguard

Easy oil flow:
1. Denso, Honda, Hamp
2. Mann, Mahle, Purolator Classic, Proline, Fram Extraguard, Fram Toughguard
3. Mobil 1, K&N, Wix/NAPA Gold,
4. PureOne, and Bosch Premium
5. Ecore style AC/Delco, Supetech, STP
6. Delco UPF52 , Fram Extended Guard
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Well crud. I should not have bought a Mobil 1 filter.
Ne'er mind. The top rated UPF52, Bosche, and so on don't exist in teeny-tiny insight size.
 
Wow, lots of great discussion here. As many of you know, I am the technical manager at FRAM. the real hard and fast thing is that nobody outside of having a full blown filter test facility can actually measure filter efficiency and filter capacity in any way that actually means anything. It is just not that easy, requiring millions of dollars of very sophisticated test equipment, calibrated dirt and scanning electron microscopes to measure filter efficiency. Hot oil tests, vibration tests..i could go on and and on but the simple fact is that no layperson can tell you how well a filter cleans oil without this type of equipment. I welcome questions about filter testing but do not frequent this forum daily. If you have a question, email it to me at [email protected] and I will put the answer in the forum for all
 
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Wow, lots of great discussion here. As many of you know, I am the technical manager at FRAM. the real hard and fast thing is that nobody outside of having a full blown filter test facility can actually measure filter efficiency and filter capacity in any way that actually means anything. It is just not that easy, requiring millions of dollars of very sophisticated test equipment, calibrated dirt and scanning electron microscopes to measure filter efficiency. Hot oil tests, vibration tests..i could go on and and on but the simple fact is that no layperson can tell you how well a filter cleans oil without this type of equipment. I welcome questions about filter testing but do not frequent this forum daily. If you have a question, email it to me at [email protected] and I will put the answer in the forum for all


36.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Motorking
As many of you know, I am the technical manager at FRAM.
Your Fram UltraGuard came-out #1 in the Post#1 study. The other filters didn't do so hot.
 
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Originally Posted By: theaveng
Well crud. I should not have bought a Mobil 1 filter.
Ne'er mind. The top rated UPF52, Bosche, and so on don't exist in teeny-tiny insight size.

Right the only bad thing about the UPF there's only a very small application list its the 52 and 44 i believe,Im the one that sent Rob(R_R) that filter for this study,i still have two cases great filter.
 
Quote:
....Fram UltraGuard came-out #1 in the Post#1 study. The other filters didn't do so hot.

Point missed. The GMC patch test is obviously flawed, showing in some cases filters that have better ISO test rating with worse patch results than filters with a lower ISO test efficiency rating, Puro P1 and Classic is a case in point. Napa Proselect and Napa Gold/Wix is another example. ISO testing trumps any patch test.

The ISO 4548-12 efficiency test (used below) is now the standard for oil filter efficiency. If you want to know how efficient a filter is check for that rating. In the case of Fram Ultra it's rated 99% for particles > 20um, an excellent rating. No one is saying the Ultra isn't a top notch filter and perhaps considering price, the best in it's upper tier category. It's just that the flawed/unreliable the GMC patch test doesn't prove it.

All that said, unfortunately not all oil filters, particularly the OEM's but many aftermarket's too, have published ISO test spec's, so their efficiency is unknown. And as ZeeOSix found out, at ~$15k a pop to test one not likely many will spring to have them tested. That's is why findings like river_rats while not showing a specific rating, but yet calling the low efficiency of no endcap type filters is pretty amazing imo. And since the Amsoil test has now been published some ISO test specs of some previously unknown filters including the no endcap type Toyota OEM, it's worth seeing the confirmation of 'one' of the findings of river rats testing.

eao_efficiency_500px.jpg
 
I don't know how I can trust Amsoil's tests of its own filters. That's like listening to the Corn lobby say High Fructose Syrup is no more unhealthy than sugar. Maybe that's true but how can I trust that.

Also I find it interesting they compared themselves to OEM filters, which I think we all knew were not that great. I'd like to see Amsoil compared their filters versus known brands like Mobil, Purolator, et cetera.
I'll just stick with Mobil 1 for now.
Can't be any worse than Amsoil's standard EA15K12 (the eaO version doesn't exist for my car).
 
Last edited:
Quote:
I don't know how I can trust Amsoil's tests of its own filters.....

I suppose the same way Frams tests it's own filter, or Purolator tests their own filters or Wix tests their own filters, etc.

And it's true that Amsoil compared themselves to OEM's, so it does make them look superior, it's called marketing. However, if the idea was to make the others look totally inadequate, didn't really happen. In fact many members who once wondered about the previously vague Motorcraft FL-820S efficiency rating, now have a very respectable spec of ~94% @ 20um to point to. A couple others are just as respectable.

And all that aside, I'd trust Amsoil's controlled ISO test results done in a lab, over some random guy's patch test done in his basement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
Aviation Oil Filters Tested ~ 40% efficiency at 20 microns?
Replies
12
Views
940
ZeeOSix
ZeeOSix
Oil Filter Draining Test
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
GI_GRIFF
Toyota oil filter light leak
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
2K
ZeeOSix
P
Toyota Oil Filters
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
panthermike
dnewton3
LSJr tests oil filter BP function ... "OIL FILTERS: What most people DON'T know"
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
3K
CKolo
Back
Top Bottom