dwendt44,
"Thanks" for the filter numbers.
Bill
"Thanks" for the filter numbers.
Bill
Super Tech now $2.67?
- Thread starter OldBlue90
- Start date
- Status
I'm back and I have the info you guys wanted. I didn't list all Champ ecore styles because, 1)a number of filters had very similar micron ratings, and 2)there are filter numbers that are ecore that aren't very well-known or highly used. Also, when I put these numbers, some of you will notice that a lot of the specs are at 25 micron. Tests have been done to show that Champ filters actually filter down smaller particles than that, but the tests results and information don't list all the micron sizes that tests were done at. I know I might receive some negative feedback and comments, but I won't disappoint those who requested info that I am more than capable of getting. So, here we go...
PH2835-98% removal effiency at 6 micron
PH8A-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH1218-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH44-95% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH47-95% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH51A-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH59-95% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH253-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH2815-98% removal effiency at 36 micron, 50% at 27 micron
PH561-98% removal effiency at 36 micron, 50% at 27 micron
PH820-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
If you noticed that these numbers might not look familiar, these are Champ brand numbers. Specs for other brands made by Champion Labs are similar to that of Champ filters, but private label filters are made to the specifications of the private label brands(STP, Super Tech, etc.) Also, if there are any numbers not listed that you have the dying need of knowing, let me know and I will see what I can pull up for you.
PH2835-98% removal effiency at 6 micron
PH8A-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH1218-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH44-95% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH47-95% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH51A-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH59-95% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH253-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
PH2815-98% removal effiency at 36 micron, 50% at 27 micron
PH561-98% removal effiency at 36 micron, 50% at 27 micron
PH820-97% removal effiency at 25 micron
If you noticed that these numbers might not look familiar, these are Champ brand numbers. Specs for other brands made by Champion Labs are similar to that of Champ filters, but private label filters are made to the specifications of the private label brands(STP, Super Tech, etc.) Also, if there are any numbers not listed that you have the dying need of knowing, let me know and I will see what I can pull up for you.
Could you find the efficiency numbers of the 3593A?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
That would work out to a beta 50 @ 6um. Extremely fine for a common 3/4-16 filter. It would be extremely fine for a hydraulic filter. It almost challenges some very expensive SYNTEQ industrial hydraulic filter.
Is this a mispost??
That we will also have soon.Quote:
It's probably to pay for all that free health insurance you guys get up there.
I don't think Walmart or Champ Labs pays for our health care.
I buy most of my filters in the US, most places here only stock Frams. Some Parts stores have Wix and others but the prices are pretty high and their hours aren't that great.
I buy most of my filters in the US, most places here only stock Frams. Some Parts stores have Wix and others but the prices are pretty high and their hours aren't that great.
Chineese filters. HMMMM Don't let your kids chew on them, you know, the lead paint and all.
Youre right Gary, I made a typo. It is supposed to be 98% at 36 micron, just like the PH561. So i've put my info on my filters, wheres everyone elses information? If this was court, I'd automatically win my case for lack of attendance by my competitors.
Thanks.
I still use the Supertech 3593A because it hasn't gone to the ECORE yet. For my other car I bought an ECORE once not knowing they changed and when I saw it, I grew skeptical. I cut it open and wasn't impressed. So for the Yucon, I stick to the Delcos which look really good.
I figured I'd give the Ecores some time to see if it is just cutting costs, or really a better design. Like I said, looked bad when opening it up; worse than a Fram.
I figured I'd give the Ecores some time to see if it is just cutting costs, or really a better design. Like I said, looked bad when opening it up; worse than a Fram.
Patman
Staff member
Why does everyone hate the Ecore design so much?
Its new.
They work fine. The dozens I've cut open and the used oil analysis I've done all prove that the filter is doing its job.
I use them in the cars that have them avail (uncles PT Cruiser for one) and will not worry a bit about having a Ecore.
Pat, for some around here, if your not running a Mobil 1 filter and Mobil 1 your just stupid in their "mindset".
It helps to have an open mind and also saves a few $$ that over the long run add up to alot of $$$.
Good to see you still posting.
Take care, Bill
"Why does everyone hate the Ecore design so much? "
It not everyone, and it's probably that plastic center tube some think is inferior to the older style metal tube.
It not everyone, and it's probably that plastic center tube some think is inferior to the older style metal tube.
Patman
Staff member
Quote:
Its new.
They work fine. The dozens I've cut open and the used oil analysis I've done all prove that the filter is doing its job.
I use them in the cars that have them avail (uncles PT Cruiser for one) and will not worry a bit about having a Ecore.
Pat, for some around here, if your not running a Mobil 1 filter and Mobil 1 your just stupid in their "mindset".
It helps to have an open mind and also saves a few $$ that over the long run add up to alot of $$$.
Good to see you still posting.
I'm always around watching, just haven't been posting as often lately.
Thanks for your input Bill, I can always count on you to be the voice of reason!
www.servicechamp.com/prod_res_docs/Ecore%20FAQ's%20Sheet.pdf
Thanks Champ. This looks about as to be expected from the above .pdf based on Multi-pass testing when using 9668 media. I assume your data is multi-pass, right ?
My 'opinion' is this is 'above average' filtration which is very good for >>less than average ST price.
Each filter could be compared to it's specific competitors (such as comparable WIX or various Fram).
Thanks Champ. This looks about as to be expected from the above .pdf based on Multi-pass testing when using 9668 media. I assume your data is multi-pass, right ?
My 'opinion' is this is 'above average' filtration which is very good for >>less than average ST price.
Each filter could be compared to it's specific competitors (such as comparable WIX or various Fram).
Last edited:
Thats an interesting site you brought up glenncof. Thanks, and yes my specs are from multi pass testing. Most people do expect lower filtration from a filter with a price like Super Tech's, but in this case, it's just the opposite. For a low price, it is possible to get a very good quality filter.
I work for a local Carquest Auto Parts store. I spoke with our filter rep about the the wix filters, and he said the economy filters (Carquest Red & Napa Silver) are starting to be made in China. It may take a little while to see them until jobber warehouses clean out their current inventory, but they are coming. Already some of the filters we have received, mainly in our masterpack offerings, are clearly stamped "made in china". The premium filters (Carquest Blue & Napa Gold) are still being produced in the USA.
Do you know if that would that also cover the Nascar Select or just the Proselect? If so, I might have to run out and get one now for the Auto-RX rinse phase on my '92 set to start in about a month.
- Status
