Oil Filter Value Analysis

[Bellavita]

Hello BITOG Community,

Below is an Oil Filter Value Analysis that brings together quality and price to achieve a ranking of value for people who change their oil based on their owners manual specification and those that do extended mile oil changes. All the information on the products are from the manufacturers website with one exception for Wix. Their efficiency and micron ratings came from the NAPA and O'Reilly's websites.

The over arching principle is the manufactures website information is what they are building to and is what we get when we purchase their product. If I've missed something or misstated any specs, please provide feedback. Also ask questions because I realize there is a lot going on with this spreadsheet!

If you're preference is Quality without regard to price, the Quality section is for you. If you follow your owners manual for your OCI, see the OCI Value Ranking in the center. If you do extended oil changes, the area at the right is for you.

The analysis is a way to objectively shop for a filter to meet our specific needs. I've used Wix, Fram and Purolators over the years on my Subarus without really knowing which was the best value for my 6,000 mile OCI that I follow. This analysis helped me and I hope it can be of service to the BITOG community.

 

[SC Maintenance]

Great post.

You ranked the purolator boss and Fram ultra quality 1 and 2 respectively - but the specs look the same. Was there additional factors?

 

[kschachn]

ADBV would be “silicone”, not silicon. Silicon would seal very poorly.

 

[tasch72]

I would take the listed efficiency for Wix XP and Purlolator Boss with a grain of salt.

 

[Bellavita]

Great post.

You ranked the purolator boss and Fram ultra quality 1 and 2 respectively - but the specs look the same. Was there additional factors?

I gave the Purolator a one because the micron rating is stated "at 20 microns" and Fram states their's as "greater than 20 microns". In the table I use the = and > signs to denote this.

I interpreted "at 20" is tougher to achieve and better than "greater than 20". I know its a fine detail but my perception is its significant.

 

[Bellavita]

ADBV would be “silicone”, not silicon. Silicon would seal very poorly.

A typo . . . I'll get that corrected pronto. Nice catch, thank you!

 

[kschachn]

I gave the Purolator a one because the micron rating is stated "at 20 microns" and Fram states their's as "greater than 20 microns". In the table I use the = and > signs to denote this.

I interpreted "at 20" is tougher to achieve and better than "greater than 20". I know its a fine detail but my perception is its significant.

Those statements would be functionally equivalent since it is a cutoff. Actually the Fram wording is most correct.

 

[Bellavita]

Thank you. I'll make the change and repost the table.

 

[fantastic]

Which one has more priority in your "Extended Quality & Cost" tab?

Extended Quality & Cost:
Fram EG rated #3 @95.0%
Purolator Premium rated #4 @96.5%

IMO Under the "Extended Drain" tab the Purolator Premium should be a #3 & Fram EG #4. I know you're including cost as a factor but we're talking about an extra $0.82 for the Purolator Premium which comes with 1.5% better efficiency.

Also are we really to believe that the Boss you rated at #1 is really 99%@20? All the info I've seen is that the boss line is not that efficient.

That's my 2c

Thanks for throwing this up for us to scrutinize.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I interpreted "at 20" is tougher to achieve and better than "greater than 20". I know its a fine detail but my perception is its significant.

Splitting hairs ... @20u is close enough since 20.000000001 is basically 20. Either way, it basically means the same thing to filter nerds, but "greater than" 20u is actually the way ISO 4548-12 describes it and probably more "accurate".

 

[ZeeOSix]

The first section in the table named "Quality" is really the "Performance" factors. Quality is more focused on the physical build of the product, which can be seen differently by different people.

 

[atikovi]

Maybe I missed it but why not include a Subaru filter?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Maybe I missed it but why not include a Subaru filter?

Would be some blank boxes in that row since lots of that table info about performance isn't even available for OEM filters.

 

[Bellavita]

Awesome opinion. I checked all the math to see if everything was correct and it was. I went to 6 decimal places on the Cost / 1,000 miles and found a difference and made the change but it did not impact the ranking of the them.
The reason: The Tough Guard at $.478 / 1,000 miles is a strong #3.

Your feedback highlights the power of the data in that a person can value something greater than the data classifies it at and make a decision. You viewed that 1.5% highly and a great deal for only $0.82 more.

I believe to make the data represent your view which is an excellent one, applying a weighting or more precise ranking to the efficiency values may do it. I'll experiment with it. Great feedback, thank you!

 

[Bellavita]

Maybe I missed it but why not include a Subaru filter?

Great idea. I've not been able to find its specifications. If someone can provide me a link to get its specifications I'd be glad to add them!

 

[haggler]

While this is a thorough analysis, the long term difference between any of those filters will not be measurable. At 5-7k oci, it makes no difference as long as it does not tear. I'd add Supertech in the mix, the filters only cost around $3 and do 95% at 30 microns.

 

[fantastic]

Your feedback highlights the power of the data in that a person can value something greater than the data classifies it at and make a decision. You viewed that 1.5% highly and a great deal for only $0.82 more.

You have it labeled as "Quality & Cost" so I'm saying it can go either way. I'm saying that 0.82 with 1.5% more efficiency COULD be deemed superior over cost since you are weighting both options.

So it may read better if it shows "Cost & Quality" rather than "Quality & Cost". Splitting hairs yes but when I look at a graph, and since you're putting cost first, then the words represent more of the cost coming first than the second based on your statements.
Thanks!

 

[Bellavita]

I've received excellent feedback that has driven updates to the table. They are:

1. Corrected spelling of the Anti drain back material from Silicon to Silicone
2. The > 20 microns and = 20 Microns was determined the same quality level and given the same ranking in the Quality area
3. The decimal places were extended to 6 in the Cost Per 1,000 miles in the "Extended Oil Change Value" area.

Here are the new rankings. Thank you!

 

[ZeeOSix]

2. The > 20 microns and = 20 Microns was determined the same quality level

It's really a "performance" level of information. That whole "Quality" section is really showing the filters' performance specs.

 

[dnewton3]

The following needs to be expressly understood ...

This thread in no way reflects an official BITOG statement on quality or anything else presented therein.

The quantification and qualification rankings are a matter of the OPs opinion, and nothing else.