Toyota 1NZ-FE oil filter oversize application

[Mewbs]

To continue on. I just recalled from memory the PH/XG3600 being an 8PSI filter from the hayday. That Fram 3600 filter commonly used on Ford applications, I meant no emotion whatsoever and I was going on based on fact I wasn't updated. You can possibly use the Motorcraft FL400S if you chose to get crazy. I can recall Baldwin/Hastings B243 being rated as an 8PSI filter as well. That's how I remember it being, I was unaware about the recent enhancements made to these filters so I apologize if I came off brash.

So if I stand correct, you might want to look at the temperament of your post before throwing the gavel my way. Tsk tsk

My apologies as well if my reply did came out blunt and offensive, after all we're all here to share information and experience. I appreciate your input regardless to adding to the discussion.

During my research I only narrowed the oversize filter selection to retail store available products. I did not look into industrial-fleet market filters since getting them would be through some sort of dealership or online store having to factor shipping cost as well.

It would be cool to look into what the offerings are there as I heard good things about FleetGuard, Donaldson and Baldwin in the trucking industry.

Good work! It appears this Boss is made in March 2021 & would be old stock that claimed the 15,000 mile rating rather than the latest 20,000 mile rating. I remember an instance here that mentioned about the ADBV tearing but don't know if it was a batch issue or how widespread it may be. The base plate is pressed against the ADBV to create a good seal but if the sharp edges of the spin on center could tear them. If you carefully stick your finger in the hole to feel around & it feels like it's not cut through or anything then it should be fine. If you can swap out for the 20k version i'd go that direction just double check if you see anything out of the ordinary at the ADBV.

Think I'll run it than returning it, the base plate biting into the ADBV doesn't seem very deep from what I inspected.
I did watch a few videos of the Purolator Boss at WhipcityWrencher and they all appear to have some sort of slits or impression against the silicone valve against the baseplate on his inspection videos.

All the other Purolator Boss filters I saw at the local Advance Autoparts were all rated at 15,000 miles on the package printed. So it seems they may not be moving product really well, at least in my area. Most of the Fram Titaniums I see on the shelf there are mostly non-wire backed unless you got lucky and find some old stock in the rear stock on the shelf. Meaning Fram might be moving product more than the Purolator, specially looking at the price difference of the two.

I got the efficiencies for you on the Purolator Boss oil filter. Keep in mind that Purolator is being honest while the other companies aren't divulging this information.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/purolator-pbl20195-specification-sheet.375618/

View attachment 187071

You didn't have to go above and beyond to get official spec sheets, I do appreciate the extra effort you went to get that information.
Not sure how I feel about the filtering rating. Its honest which I do respect but doesn't make it any different to any high flowing OEM filter you'd get from Toyota and Honda which again their particulate filtering ratings are not known officially and have been said to favor flow over efficiency which is a respectable design choice given their track record of engine reliability.

Usually aftermarket filters at the premium market segment are rated for high filtering efficiency at extended mileages. This sorta goes against that idea and mindset. I now see the Purolator Boss filter have at hand more of a high flow extended mileage filter given this information shared. Thank you.

Would I run it? Probably throw it on a family Toyota to see how it holds up. Is it worth a few dollars more than the equivilant sized Fram FS3600? probably not after learning this. Both filter designs have their tradeoffs, one favoring build quality for extended life while the other combines flow and filtration efficiency. The Fram Titanium can could be thicker if I was to complain about it.

The build quality of the Boss filter is heavy duty and well finished which I liked about it. The official filtering rating kinda contradicts the target market this filter is aiming for in which I personally favor good efficiency & design that could last multiple oil change intervals as a cost saving or break even feature in relation to cost per filter and filtration life.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It isn't if you're running 20,000 miles & want to make sure your oil stays filtered throughout the interval.

If you're not able to compare to other companies oil filters then how is it abysmal for filtering oil for 20,000 miles? It's hard to find what is "Good Filtering Efficiencies" if you don't know what the others are.

Like I said in the other thread, if you're going to run an oil filter for 15K-20K miles, it better be pretty high efficiency, like 95%+ @ 20u ... not 50% @ 22u. Which oil filter will allow more dirty oil to circulate over and over through the oiling system for an OCI?

 

[ZeeOSix]

That Toyota filter was a 20,000 mile rated filter in that study? You're comparing efficiencies of an OEM ODI oil filter to a 20,000 Extended mile oil filter?

I haven't figured out where your disconnect is quite yet. You seem to think that the longer the filter is rated for that efficiency doesn't really matter, maybe you think the longer the filter is rated for that the efficiency becomes better. Can you clarify?

You will not be able to show us the individual "Spec Sheet" for the Fram Ultra equivalent of this filter that shows its efficiencies until then I'm being reasonable. I'm far from anti-Fram so save yourself. Also, Toyota's are known to last a long time so how is that "Abysmal" Amsoil Toyota filter test working again?

Did you see the Ascent filter testing thread? ... link below. You should read the whole thread if you want to understand ISO 4548 testing. That is proof that Fram's ISO 4548-12 efficiency claims are legitimate. And on their website, the efficiency is typically based on 3 different sized filters to average out the filter size (media area) on the efficiency performance.

Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?

I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[ZeeOSix]

I did watch a few videos of the Purolator Boss at WhipcityWrencher and they all appear to have some sort of slits or impression against the silicone valve against the baseplate on his inspection videos.

If you look closely on the models with "shark bites" in the ADBV, about half of every base inlet hole is covered up by the ADBV ... that's why the sharp edges of the inlet holes cut into the ADBV, because it's pinche up tight against the the inner half of the inlet holes.

 

[kschachn]

I haven't figured out where your disconnect is quite yet. You seem to think that the longer the filter is rated for that efficiency doesn't really matter, maybe you think the longer the filter is rated for that the efficiency becomes better. Can you clarify?

It's. bordering on nonsensical. Why would anyone spend the money for the Boss just to get terrible efficiency? And as you note, the fact that it's a "20,000 mile" filter makes it even worse. Now you have 20K of poor filtering.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You didn't have to go above and beyond to get official spec sheets, I do appreciate the extra effort you went to get that information.
Not sure how I feel about the filtering rating. Its honest which I do respect but doesn't make it any different to any high flowing OEM filter you'd get from Toyota and Honda which again their particulate filtering ratings are not known officially and have been said to favor flow over efficiency which is a respectable design choice given their track record of engine reliability.

How does anyone really know if OEM filters are "high flowing" without an actual dP vs flow test. In an engine with a positive oil pump, "flows better" just means a bit less dP across the oil filter vs flow. Only time an oil filter could actually cut back oil flow is if the oil pump is in pressure relief, which almost never happens unless someone is revving the engine really high with cold thick oil, or the engine has some insanely high volume output oil pump. An engine's oiling system isn't like the water system in a house. An oiling system used a positive displacement oil pump, a is just supplied by a constant water pressure, so if the system becomes more restrictive, the the flow decreases. That scenario only happens in an oiling system when the PD pump goes into pressure relief.

 

[kschachn]

How does anyone really know if OEM filters are "high flowing" ... which in an engine with a positive oil pump just means a bit less dP vs flow. Only time an oil filter could actually cut back oil flow is if the oil pump is in pressure relief, which almost never happens unless someone is revving the engine really high with cold thick oil, or the engine has some insanely high volume output oil pump. An engine's oiling system isn't like the water system in a house. An oiling system used a positive displacement oil pump, a is just supplied by a constant water pressure, so if the system becomes more restrictive, the the flow decreases. That scenario only happens in an oiling system when the PD pump goes into pressure relief.

You don't. No one does. It's one of those many misconceptions and unknowns that keeps being repeated over and over again until it becomes some sort of "fact".

Just more obsession with flow, which actually is often a diversion to avoid talking about what a filter is really supposed to do. Filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

You don't. No one does. It's one of those many misconceptions and unknowns that keeps being repeated over and over again until it becomes some sort of "fact".

Just more obsession with flow, which actually is often a diversion to avoid talking about what a filter is really supposed to do. Filter.

Most people seem to equate the water system in their house with an engine's oiling system. If there was a water filter located between the water meter and house water system, the flow going into the house would decrease if the filter was more restrictive, so they think an oil filter on an engine works the same way. But it doesn't because of the PD oil pump. Seems that the PD oil pump is the most misunderstood component of an engine's oiling system.

 

[Mewbs]

How does anyone really know if OEM filters are "high flowing" without an actual dP vs flow test. In an engine with a positive oil pump, "flows better" just means a bit less dP vs flow. Only time an oil filter could actually cut back oil flow is if the oil pump is in pressure relief, which almost never happens unless someone is revving the engine really high with cold thick oil, or the engine has some insanely high volume output oil pump. An engine's oiling system isn't like the water system in a house. An oiling system used a positive displacement oil pump, a is just supplied by a constant water pressure, so if the system becomes more restrictive, the the flow decreases. That scenario only happens in an oiling system when the PD pump goes into pressure relief.

Honestly I have no data to back up the flow over efficiency claim other being whats been read around the internet forums. So yeah Its really information gathered based on optics. Even Whipcity teardown of Toyota filter show lots of light spots on their media. Its one visual data point but not convincing without any kind of real scientific measurement taken. If any of us had the money to burn on a third party filtration testing lab to verify would be the only way to get some real presentable data through known standardized testing.

So yeah I admit I'm wrong as well second guessing what OEM filtration figures are out my arse without real data lol. Also products tend to change over time so its really unknown if known performance figures from many years ago are the same as they are today.

 

[fantastic]

Think I'll run it than returning it, the base plate biting into the ADBV doesn't seem very deep from what I inspected.
I did watch a few videos of the Purolator Boss at WhipcityWrencher and they all appear to have some sort of slits or impression against the silicone valve against the baseplate on his inspection videos.

All the other Purolator Boss filters I saw at the local Advance Autoparts were all rated at 15,000 miles on the package printed. So it seems they may not be moving product really well, at least in my area. Most of the Fram Titaniums I see on the shelf there are mostly non-wire backed unless you got lucky and find some old stock in the rear stock on the shelf. Meaning Fram might be moving product more than the Purolator, specially looking at the price difference of the two.

You didn't have to go above and beyond to get official spec sheets, I do appreciate the extra effort you went to get that information.
Not sure how I feel about the filtering rating. Its honest which I do respect but doesn't make it any different to any high flowing OEM filter you'd get from Toyota and Honda which again their particulate filtering ratings are not known officially and have been said to favor flow over efficiency which is a respectable design choice given their track record of engine reliability.

Usually aftermarket filters at the premium market segment are rated for high filtering efficiency at extended mileages. This sorta goes against that idea and mindset. I now see the Purolator Boss filter have at hand more of a high flow extended mileage filter given this information shared. Thank you.

Would I run it? Probably throw it on a family Toyota to see how it holds up. Is it worth a few dollars more than the equivilant sized Fram FS3600? probably not after learning this. Both filter designs have their tradeoffs, one favoring build quality for extended life while the other combines flow and filtration efficiency. The Fram Titanium can could be thicker if I was to complain about it.

The build quality of the Boss filter is heavy duty and well finished which I liked about it. The official filtering rating kinda contradicts the target market this filter is aiming for in which I personally favor good efficiency & design that could last multiple oil change intervals as a cost saving or break even feature in relation to cost per filter and filtration life.

I think your right, I've seen the low turnover with Purolator as well at local retailers. The latest ones are 20k rated & I understand not worrying about returning it. It was no problem to get the sheet & it's valuable information to know what you're using on your vehicle. I did post the One version too just look at the link I posted earlier. It's rated 99% @ 30 microns & 15,000 miles. As for the Premium oil filters rated higher efficiency that is what we'd all like isn't it? LOL It's just that each one of us draws the line of what evidence passes our dollar test. Purolator is absolutely favoring filtering & preventing bypassing the oil for these longer runs. Is it marketing fluff or is it real data you can see about the individual filter you want to buy. Fram will not send you a spec sheet to show how an individual filter tested. At the end of the day we get to vote with our dollar & hope the marketing is right. Mann-Hummel is one of the largest filter companies & "Inventor of the oil filter" so they know their market very well.

Like I said in the other thread, if you're going to run an oil filter for 15K-20K miles, it better be pretty high efficiency, like 95%+ @ 20u ... not 50% @ 22u. Which oil filter will allow more dirty oil to circulate over and over through the oiling system for an OCI?

I haven't figured out where your disconnect is quite yet. You seem to think that the longer the filter is rated for that efficiency doesn't really matter, maybe you think the longer the filter is rated for that the efficiency becomes better. Can you clarify?

There may be some efficiency differences when comparing an OEM Toyota filter to a 20,000 mile filter. Efficiency doesn't matter? come on...

Did you see the Ascent filter testing thread? ... link below. You should read the whole thread if you want to understand ISO 4548 testing. That is proof that Fram's ISO 4548-12 efficiency claims are legitimate. And on their website, the efficiency is typically based on 3 different sized filters to average out the filter size (media area) on the efficiency performance.

Would you all like to see ISO 4548-12 Oil Filter Lab Testing Comparison, Efficiency & Capacity, Pressure vs Flow, Bubble Point, and Burst?

I have this as a “watched” thread, so if you do happen to start a new one, could you put a note or link in this one to direct followers to the new thread? Thanks!! Yes, no problem I can do that.

bobistheoilguy.com

I'm showing a Purolator Spec sheet to help the OP here. In the process there were Some here claim it's awful but I disagreed & asked if there was proof of the equivalent filter from Fram since that was referenced by the other poster that said Fram has "Excellent filter efficiencies".

That old Ascent filter testing thread has been seen by many here obviously. It's great data for that specific old filter! Does Fram still make that old OG wire backed Ultra? Also, Did you happen to pay him to show us the equivalent of the Purolator I posted in this thread by chance? Of course not! I don't remember where I seen it last but Fram themselves admitted to not testing all of their filters. If you're easily convinced with this one filter test & Fram's "equivalent" claim then so be it. Some of us are not so easily convinced. There are many on here that say "Show evidence" & that's what I'm doing, asking for evidence, but you are showing me an old test of one filter as though that's a fact on all their filters. It might be true but I don't have enough data yet to know 100%.

That is exactly how your telling me... "look at this one filter test" "That's proof that their whole ultra filter line efficiency is legit". Never mind that's no longer their bread & butter filter line anymore so it's a bit outdated anyways. Yes there are some wire backed ultra's but not that many left over.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Purolator is absolutely favoring filtering & preventing bypassing the oil for these longer runs.

You mean favoring the lack of efficiency?

Mann-Hummel is one of the largest filter companies & "Inventor of the oil filter" so they know their market very well.

M+H didn't invent the oil filter ... it was Purolator. You do realize that Purolator existed way before M+H, and that M+H bought Purolator not really that long ago.

There may be some efficiency differences when comparing an OEM Toyota filter to a 20,000 mile filter. Efficiency doesn't matter? come on...

I'm showing a Purolator Spec sheet to help the OP here. In the process there were Some here claim it's awful but I disagreed & asked if there was proof of the equivalent filter from Fram since that was referenced by the other poster that said Fram has "Excellent filter efficiencies".

You think Fram is lying about their efficiency claims? If they were, the Ascent ISO testing would have shown that, but instead his testing lined up with Fram's efficiency claims.

That old Ascent filter testing thread has been seen by many here obviously. It's great data for that specific old filter! Does Fram still make that old OG wire backed Ultra? Also, Did you happen to pay him to show us the equivalent of the Purolator I posted in this thread by chance? Of course not!

Ascent tested a Purolator Boss in that group of filters, which all of those filters were specified for the same vehicle. So it was a good apples-to-apples filter comparison test of equivalently specified filters.

I don't remember where I seen it last but Fram themselves admitted to not testing all of their filters. If you're easily convinced with this one filter test & Fram's "equivalent" claim then so be it. Some of us are not so easily convinced. There are many on here that say "Show evidence" & that's what I'm doing, asking for evidence, but you are showing me an old test of one filter as though that's a fact on all their filters. It might be true but I don't have enough data yet to know 100%.

How do you actually know that every oil filter that Purolator/M+H makes is actually physically tested - nobody but they know for sure. Might be a question to ask your contact guy at M+H. Many companies use filter performance models based on actual testing of some of their filter to then predict how other models using the same media will perform. That saves them a ton of testing time and cost. Once you know how a few models perform, that data can be used to make an accurate performance model to determine how all models will perform.

That is exactly how your telling me... "look at this one filter test" "That's proof that their whole ultra filter line efficiency is legit". Never mind that's no longer their bread & butter filter line anymore so it's a bit outdated anyways. Yes there are some wire backed ultra's but not that many left over.

The non-wire backed media Ultra is still rated at 99+% @ 20u and rated for up to 20K miles of use - just like the wire backed Ultra was. You think they are lying about that?

 

[kschachn]

You mean favoring the lack of efficiency?


M+H didn't invent the oil filter ... it was Purolator. You do realize that Purolator existed way before M+H, and that M+H bought Purolator not really that long ago.

View attachment 187180





You think Fram is lying about their efficiency claims? If they were, the Ascent ISO testing would have shown that, but instead his testing lined up with Fram's efficiency claims.


Ascent tested a Purolator Boss in that group of filters, which all of those filters were specified for the same vehicle. So it was a good apples-to-apples filter comparison test of equivalently specified filters.


How do you actually know that every oil filter that Purolator/M+H makes is actually physically tested - nobody but they know for sure. Might be a question to ask your contact guy at M+H. Many companies use filter performance models based on actual testing of some of their filter to then predict how other models using the same media will perform. That saves them a ton of testing time and cost. Once you know how a few models perform, that data can be used to make an accurate performance model to determine how all models will perform.


The non-wire backed media Ultra is still rated at 99+% @ 20u and rated for up to 20K miles of use - just like the wire backed Ultra was. You think they are lying about that?

Exactly. This whole discussion is in the Twilight Zone now, going on about completely nonsensical arguments. It’s bizarre.

 

[Nesterenko]

The larger filter may not hang below the oil pan, but it'll still be more susceptible to being punctured by road debris than the smaller filter.

Yeah, I would put some protection around the larger filters. Winter time also with ice and hard snow is a danger.

 

[fantastic]

You mean favoring the lack of efficiency?


M+H didn't invent the oil filter ... it was Purolator. You do realize that Purolator existed way before M+H, and that M+H bought Purolator not really that long ago.

View attachment 187180





You think Fram is lying about their efficiency claims? If they were, the Ascent ISO testing would have shown that, but instead his testing lined up with Fram's efficiency claims.


Ascent tested a Purolator Boss in that group of filters, which all of those filters were specified for the same vehicle. So it was a good apples-to-apples filter comparison test of equivalently specified filters.


How do you actually know that every oil filter that Purolator/M+H makes is actually physically tested - nobody but they know for sure. Might be a question to ask your contact guy at M+H. Many companies use filter performance models based on actual testing of some of their filter to then predict how other models using the same media will perform. That saves them a ton of testing time and cost. Once you know how a few models perform, that data can be used to make an accurate performance model to determine how all models will perform.


The non-wire backed media Ultra is still rated at 99+% @ 20u and rated for up to 20K miles of use - just like the wire backed Ultra was. You think they are lying about that?

The favoring filtering is that of a high efficient filter could spend more time in bypass mode for those long mileage durations vs a lower efficiency filter such as a Boss that would not have much chance to clog or go into bypass.
M&H owning Purolator I figured someone such as your experience could decipher exactly what I meant. Purolator was Obviously.
Fram is not lying just not coming out & providing individual comparisons to Purolator. I never claimed fram is "Lying" as you say so not sure why you're claiming that. I said the other companies were not "Divulging" that information. Where did I say they were lying?

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Just wanted to post this to document possibilities fitting an oversize filter on Toyota's vehicles that take the smaller YZZN1 filter. This application is on the 1NZ-FE engine, one of the more reliable yet unimpressive of Toyota's design should its power be underwhelming but makes up very well in fuel economy and endurance. An excellent daily driver and commute car engine!

If the engine block filter face mount has extra diameter/radius, you can fit the large Toyota 90915-YZZD3 or the larger Fram 3600 size filters, the Fram is about 5 inches long while the YZZD3 is about 4 inches tall. They don't over hang below the engine oil pan.

Figure.1 - For reference, the YZZN1 has a 68mm outer diameter (can crimp seam), The Fram 3600 and YZZD3 have a gasket OD of around 2.75" or 70mm. You can see there's a bit of extra mounting face radius of around 2mm around the OD of the YZZN1 filter.

Figure.2 - The Fram XG3600 , very long, doesn't bottom out beyond the oil pan but close!

Figure.3 - The Fram XG3600 gasket fits very flush against the engine flange face and radius.

Figure.4 - Toyota 90915-YZZD3 fitment application, gasket OD sits perfectly flush and filter height doesn't extend beyond the oil pan.

View attachment 182963

Figure.5 - A ghost mark of the Larger filters gasket left behind during test fitting on the mounting flange / union.

A lesson learned: I forgot to pre-fill the YZZD3 with oil knowing its 70-80% larger by volume compared to the YZZN1. The oil pressure light took almost twice as long to turn off compared to the YZZN1 on engine start after filling with new oil. Moments before oil pressure light turning off I heard a slight grinding noise for about 1/4 of a second. So don't forget to pre-fill any larger oil filter prior to installation to avoid a dry start. Hoping I don't get any sparklies on the filter autopsy when the oil change is due.

Its worth noting that the Fram XG3600 has the same bypass setting as the smaller XG4967 of 12 psi which is the aftermarket cross reference for the YZZN1

I let the car idle for a few minutes checking for leaks before giving her a short highway run of about 10 miles at 70mph and returned to the garage and inspect again for oil leaks and so far none!

A bit excessive, wasteful and OCD-ish though you can probably get away of extending your filter change interval going oversize knowing you have more filtering media surface area. A fun project none the less.

I too was looking for a larger aftermarket filter for the engine on my 2006 Yaris when I was experiencing severe valvetrain racket after using a Toyota (Thai Denso) replacement filter after my #1 OCI. Put the factory foam-media filter back on (after a clean oil rinse) and the racket went away. Put the Thai filter on and the racket came right back. This was a severe racket as if the VVti and VT were getting NO lubrication whatsoever.
To get to my point today, use caution when trying aftermarket filters on this engine. It has an extremely short threaded spud, and many filters with recessed baseplate will only engage 2 -3 threads which is wholly
inadequate for leakage (recirculation) back to the inlet side and retention on to the base.

I did find a Champion filter that worked well enough. (p/n ?) Just pay attention to how many turns before the gasket kissed the mounting face. Engineering "rule of thumb" is a 3 thread engagement, but I would want at least 5 here. I did also trial Purolator, Wix and Fram.

I ended up buying Lexus Japan filters online after messing around. Lexus did NOT spec the Thailand made glassfibre filters - they left that to the Toyota 'plebians'.

- Ken

Lexus Denso Japan Filter -

 

[ZeeOSix]

The favoring filtering is that of a high efficient filter could spend more time in bypass mode for those long mileage durations vs a lower efficiency filter such as a Boss that would not have much chance to clog or go into bypass.

Why would Fram rate the Ultra and Titanium at 20K miles and the Endurance at 25K miles if they were going to be in bypass all the time? You do realize that part of the ISO 4548 testing is to determine the holding capacity and the dP vs loading of the filter. That data can then be used to give the filter a mileage rating like some manufactures do. They aren't going to say the filter can go up to 20K miles knowing that it could possibly be in bypass for 10K miles. Why would any company do that?

M&H owning Purolator I figured someone such as your experience could decipher exactly what I meant. Purolator was Obviously.

Then say Purolator invented the oil filter, not M+H, lol. M+H wasn't even a company when Purolator invented the oil filter. It may not be "obvious" to everyone. Just because M+H bought Purolator a while back doesn't mean M+H invented the oil filter.

Fram is not lying just not coming out & providing individual comparisons to Purolator. I never claimed fram is "Lying" as you say so not sure why you're claiming that. I said the other companies were not "Divulging" that information. Where did I say they were lying?

You seem to come across like you don't believe Fram's efficiency claims - even though we have some confirmation from Ascent's independent testing that they don't seem to be. So it seems you think Fram is being dishonest about their claims. Do you believe Fram's efficiency claims or not? It's either you do or you don't. If not, why not? If you don't, then you must think they are being dishonest or shady. It's simple as that.

 

[Mewbs]

Yeah, I would put some protection around the larger filters. Winter time also with ice and hard snow is a danger.

I did my tire rotation last week and doing a quick point inspection under the vehicle, the larger Fram XG3600 has no signs of damage, paint chips or bumps yet. I live in the west coast which is fairly dry all season and I usually avoid rough roads when choosing my highway route when inter-city driving. Its a smart idea to make a sheet metal guard extension that would fit nicely along the existing factory installed splash guard. The only thing I'd probably worry about is driving over a stray plastic bumper that are randomly spotted on the freeway left behind from car accidents.

I too was looking for a larger aftermarket filter for the engine on my 2006 Yaris when I was experiencing severe valvetrain racket after using a Toyota (Thai Denso) replacement filter after my #1 OCI. Put the factory foam-media filter back on (after a clean oil rinse) and the racket went away. Put the Thai filter on and the racket came right back. This was a severe racket as if the VVti and VT were getting NO lubrication whatsoever.
To get to my point today, use caution when trying aftermarket filters on this engine. It has an extremely short threaded spud, and many filters with recessed baseplate will only engage 2 -3 threads which is wholly
inadequate for leakage (recirculation) back to the inlet side and retention on to the base.

I did find a Champion filter that worked well enough. (p/n ?) Just pay attention to how many turns before the gasket kissed the mounting face. Engineering "rule of thumb" is a 3 thread engagement, but I would want at least 5 here. I did also trial Purolator, Wix and Fram.

I ended up buying Lexus Japan filters online after messing around. Lexus did NOT spec the Thailand made glassfibre filters - they left that to the Toyota 'plebians'.

- Ken

Lexus Denso Japan Filter -
View attachment 187264

Haven't experience anything like that on Thai Denso filters during the car's dealer serviced life, I don't really have similar experiences to share on what happend to your vehicle on the related filters.

The union that mates with the filter to the engine on my 1NZ-FE is fairly long threaded that is about roughly 0.75 - 1 inches in length, the car has seen many aftermarket filters outside the warranty service age without mating and oil pressure issues. I always torque to 9 foot-pounds with an oil filter cap wrench as stated in the TIS service manual.

 

[malibuguy79]

I used to run the corolla sized filter on my 1.5 toyotas both 5efe and 1nz. But the last few years I just stuck with normal sizing stuff.

 

[toyotacarnage]

My apologies as well if my reply did came out blunt and offensive, after all we're all here to share information and experience. I appreciate your input regardless to adding to the discussion.

During my research I only narrowed the oversize filter selection to retail store available products. I did not look into industrial-fleet market filters since getting them would be through some sort of dealership or online store having to factor shipping cost as well.

It would be cool to look into what the offerings are there as I heard good things about FleetGuard, Donaldson and Baldwin in the trucking industry.



Think I'll run it than returning it, the base plate biting into the ADBV doesn't seem very deep from what I inspected.
I did watch a few videos of the Purolator Boss at WhipcityWrencher and they all appear to have some sort of slits or impression against the silicone valve against the baseplate on his inspection videos.

All the other Purolator Boss filters I saw at the local Advance Autoparts were all rated at 15,000 miles on the package printed. So it seems they may not be moving product really well, at least in my area. Most of the Fram Titaniums I see on the shelf there are mostly non-wire backed unless you got lucky and find some old stock in the rear stock on the shelf. Meaning Fram might be moving product more than the Purolator, specially looking at the price difference of the two.



You didn't have to go above and beyond to get official spec sheets, I do appreciate the extra effort you went to get that information.
Not sure how I feel about the filtering rating. Its honest which I do respect but doesn't make it any different to any high flowing OEM filter you'd get from Toyota and Honda which again their particulate filtering ratings are not known officially and have been said to favor flow over efficiency which is a respectable design choice given their track record of engine reliability.

Usually aftermarket filters at the premium market segment are rated for high filtering efficiency at extended mileages. This sorta goes against that idea and mindset. I now see the Purolator Boss filter have at hand more of a high flow extended mileage filter given this information shared. Thank you.

Would I run it? Probably throw it on a family Toyota to see how it holds up. Is it worth a few dollars more than the equivilant sized Fram FS3600? probably not after learning this. Both filter designs have their tradeoffs, one favoring build quality for extended life while the other combines flow and filtration efficiency. The Fram Titanium can could be thicker if I was to complain about it.

The build quality of the Boss filter is heavy duty and well finished which I liked about it. The official filtering rating kinda contradicts the target market this filter is aiming for in which I personally favor good efficiency & design that could last multiple oil change intervals as a cost saving or break even feature in relation to cost per filter and filtration life.

I do like using the Purolators, if I can get them on sale. Same with Fram, Royal purple or Amsoil. Donaldson is a good filter as you've probably recalled from other like-minded posts. If I can get a bigger filter on the vehicle without jeopardizing the canister, that means I'll get better performance and longevity. Having to use a good synthetic oil of like likes of Amsoil, Castro or Pennzoil ultra platinum.. I typically like to run 5k but as seeing as some of the work I've performed in changing oil, I may not see the vehicle for awhile when customers push their oil change a little longer. 7k and 10k miles push the envelope. However if I can research out there, I'd like to see intervals go a little longer to really justify the cost of using those high end oils.

 

[bullwinkle]

One has to realize-the Fram XG filters USED to be rated at only 7000 miles (when they were the Xtended Guard), and gradually ratcheted the mileage rating up to 20K, until they ditched the full synthetic 2 layer pink wire backed media for the "sprayed-on" synthetic over blend non-wire backed they use today. The Royal Purple & new WM Endurance filters are 2-layer wire backed, but the media appears thinner (whether it is an issue or not, I've never ran one long enough to know). OEM Toyota filters are rock catchers, similar to a Puro Boss, not efficient at all-I would run a Champ or Fram EG/PH filter for a shorter run before I would spend big $ on a Boss.