Great web page comparing Subaru OEM, Purolator PureOne and Fram:
http://www.mindspring.com/~latvia/Other/SubaruOilFilters/Comparison.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~latvia/Other/SubaruOilFilters/Comparison.html
Subaru filter study
- Thread starter vvk
- Start date
- Status
well, Fram comes in last again. However, the real issue is which filter, if any really contributes to a longer engine life. Bob most recently has implied that the Fram may be better due to better flow and less restriction. IMO none of them seem to filter out much of anything and I have cut open Frams, Pure Ones, Toyota, K&N and Amsoil. So, same engine, same conditions, same change intervals, which filter will produce more engine life? No one knows! We do know that there are a zillion cases of high mileage cars +150,000 miles that have used the cheapest dino oil they could find with Fram fitlers. Would they have gone longer with Pure Ones?
But there are a lot more that are in the junk yard from using cheap oil and filters.
I always go for quality, cheap never works for me.
I always go for quality, cheap never works for me.
Agreed. Using cheap dino oil and cheap filters won't save you much money over the life of the vehicle. If I can't afford the better oil and filters I should have bought a cheaper car/truck...
One thing that annoys me is when people compare a $3 filter to a $6 filter or even a $10 filter. I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for".
Why not compare those filters with the Fram "TG" (or XG) filter line instead of the cheaper entry level "PH" filter line?
Or, use the $3 Purolator in the comparison instead of the Pureone.
Another thing that bothers me is the "cardboard is no good attitude".
Saying it is cardboard is like saying houses made from OSB are made from cardboard. Some of the best oil filters are the cheap rolls of TP used in bypass/scrubber-type filters. Maybe Fram's media performs better than it looks.
Why not compare those filters with the Fram "TG" (or XG) filter line instead of the cheaper entry level "PH" filter line?
Or, use the $3 Purolator in the comparison instead of the Pureone.
Another thing that bothers me is the "cardboard is no good attitude".
Saying it is cardboard is like saying houses made from OSB are made from cardboard. Some of the best oil filters are the cheap rolls of TP used in bypass/scrubber-type filters. Maybe Fram's media performs better than it looks.
I think the value of this oil study is that it shows that the OEM filter does not have the usual Purolator string around the filtering media. I have always been apprehensive about the string. Ever since Subaru switched from their Japanese OEM supplier to Purolator, I have been afraid that the OEM filter has the stupid string. Now I can rest assured that there is no string in the OEM filter and continue using it. Subaru OEM filters are cheap and easy to get. Now I know they are also of highest quality!
What's wrong with the string? I've never understood the elevated concern over it. Knize's original review mentioned it causing dimples in the media but I think he dwelled on this excessively. I've never seen nor heard of any problems from it, and I've cut open my share of AM filters. My own feeling is that it's insignificant. Reading concern into the review is understandable since we don't have data beyond visuals, but I suggest it's grasping at straws.
Even with top-line filters there's a risk of assembly error. I've now opened up new M1, PureOne, and Baldwin filters that had assembly problems; all had obviously off-center anti-drainback valves that could not seal properly. Good materials, bad construction, even with filters generally considered excellent. Who knows what other variations are in these things that aren't as obvious? A thorough oil filter study would not be easy or inexpensive.
David
Even with top-line filters there's a risk of assembly error. I've now opened up new M1, PureOne, and Baldwin filters that had assembly problems; all had obviously off-center anti-drainback valves that could not seal properly. Good materials, bad construction, even with filters generally considered excellent. Who knows what other variations are in these things that aren't as obvious? A thorough oil filter study would not be easy or inexpensive.
David
I have said it other posts, my '87 Grand National that I bought new in '87 has 115K miles now and has been driven HARD including several drag strip runs every summer. Since day one it has Castrol GTX 10w30 with a Fram oil filter every 3K without a single issue. The compression test done every spring when brought out of storage is still perfect. When I dropped the oil pan to replace the gasket, the inside looked like the Mobil 1 commercial - nice and clean, just wipped it out. I read several article knocking Fram but not one that proves it being inferior. Just because so called "experts"?? say they are does this mean they function poorly...it all just theory. If Fram made such a bad filter as people are saying, they would be out of business and not be one of the larget filter in the world. Has anyone read any victorious lawsuits against Fram proving their filter malfunctioned and damaged a vehicle? Not me either. I always say...take the internet with a grain of salt.
[ February 12, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: dagmando ]
[ February 12, 2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: dagmando ]
And, your source is? Personally I ~suspect~ most cars resting in peace at junk yards are there for a myriad of reasons other than oil related engine failure (i.e. the nut behind the wheel, not the oil in the sump...).
- Status
Similar threads
