Oil Filter tests : WIX 51348 ( U.S.A. ) , NAPA GOLD 1348 ( U.S.A.) , BALDWIN BT223 ( U.S.A. ) and STP ...
- Thread starter odie
- Start date
The test method that filter manufacturers use are much more accurate.
The main problem with the Brand Ranks method is that they don't control for the number of passes the oil makes through the filter. One extra pass through the filter could reduce the particle counts by over 99% for the larger particles, and by 75-99% for the 21-38 micron particles, which would make a massive difference in the final result.
They could make the test far more accurate by testing samples taken both before and after the filter, like the ISO tests do.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2024
- Messages
- 89
Much more accurate than what?
Putting a filter on your own car, driving it with your own driving style, using the oil you always use, and then getting an analysis done of what happened in terms of wear metals and particle counts seems pretty conclusive as to how that combination works for you.
Particle counts are somewhat helpful but the "wear metals" is not. What shows up on a spectrographic analysis is influenced by a large number of uncontrolled variables. Just as one cannot use an isolated UOA to make oil quality determinations you cannot do this to make oil filter quality determinations either.
Oil filters are tested by a proper standardized test that accounts for variables and gives statistically valid results. UOA do not. People drag out $30 spectrographic analyses as proof of all sorts of unwarranted conclusions.
I was comparing the accuracy of the ISO test to that of the Brand Ranks test.
Filter performance doesn't usually affect engine wear enough for it to be noticeable on a UOA. Abrasive wear is usually well under 10% of total engine wear, so a more efficient filter won't reduce wear noticeably.
When the oil is heavily contaminated with abrasive dust or metal, abrasive wear will be high enough that filtration efficiency can make a big difference, but these conditions should be rare. Studies that involve measuring wear vs filtration will intentionally contaminate the oil with a lot of dust in order to make differences in filtration performance more obvious.
A particle count test on a UOA is a pretty reliable measure of filter performance.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2024
- Messages
- 89
The Napa Gold and STP are both made by Premium Guard. They also have the same micron rating which does not match up with the results of the video's makeshift test. Seems to be nothing more than unreliable YouTube "entertainment."
The NAPA Gold shown in the video was made prior to the supplier switch. It seems to match the WIX and both had Purolator-style construction. Of course, the one they tested could have been different. Too many variables here to make any real conclusions, other than any of these filters will protect the engine and allow it to outlast the rest of the car.
A UOA of wear metals only measures particles of 5u and smaller, which most oil filters will only trap a small percentage of particles that small. A UOA is like trying to analyze the world while looking through a straw. Some pretty high level of wear could be happening, and you'd only see a slight bump up in wear metals because you can only see a small sliver of the particle size range (5u and smaller). Putting magnets on the filter and/or using a magnetic drain plug will catch more 5u particles that are ferrous then the oil filter will catch.
Last edited:
To add ... the particle count should still be done on the same engine with the same OCI to help reduce comparison skew. If one OCI was much longer than the other, and depending on the filter's efficiency, the PC will be skewed for a true apples-to-apples comparison of filter performance using an ISO particle count.
But not the spectrographic analysis like you said the first time?
Similar threads
