Toyota 90915-YZZF2 C&P
- Thread starter knnaz392
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: PimTac
We're Denso filters being made in Thailand in 2011? I was under the impression that the Thailand operation was a recent start up. (Last year or two)
About ten years ago, they were being made in the USA and the part number was 90915-YZZA2. You could see the alternating clamps on the flange in the USA design and I don't remember the gasket being greased and wrapped in plastic. When they started importing them from Thailand, the part number became 90915-YZZF2. USA filter was of lower quality I think.
I don't remember having access to the Japan filter even ten years ago.
On that note DENSO also makes spark plugs in USA and they seem to be of lower quality than the ones made in Japan, with less shiny finish and the electrodes not looking as well-aligned.
Currently Fram/Champion and Wix/Purolator/Mann+Hummel seem to be the only two major oil-filter manufacturers in the USA, making aftermarket, OEM, and third-party-branded oil filters.
We're Denso filters being made in Thailand in 2011? I was under the impression that the Thailand operation was a recent start up. (Last year or two)
About ten years ago, they were being made in the USA and the part number was 90915-YZZA2. You could see the alternating clamps on the flange in the USA design and I don't remember the gasket being greased and wrapped in plastic. When they started importing them from Thailand, the part number became 90915-YZZF2. USA filter was of lower quality I think.
I don't remember having access to the Japan filter even ten years ago.
On that note DENSO also makes spark plugs in USA and they seem to be of lower quality than the ones made in Japan, with less shiny finish and the electrodes not looking as well-aligned.
Currently Fram/Champion and Wix/Purolator/Mann+Hummel seem to be the only two major oil-filter manufacturers in the USA, making aftermarket, OEM, and third-party-branded oil filters.
rock catcher!!!
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Thanks for the pictures. I've used this filter for many years.
Typical of DENSO the manufacture quality seems excellent. The anti-drain-back valve seems good.
However, the efficiency of this filter is dismal. It's one of the worst among all oil filters. I think it's probably deliberately so to increase the oil-filter life without having to increase the oil-filter capacity by providing an expensive synthetic filter media.
PDF link
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Thanks for the pictures. I've used this filter for many years.
Typical of DENSO the manufacture quality seems excellent. The anti-drain-back valve seems good.
However, the efficiency of this filter is dismal. It's one of the worst among all oil filters. I think it's probably deliberately so to increase the oil-filter life without having to increase the oil-filter capacity by providing an expensive synthetic filter media.
PDF link
Originally Posted By: slybunda
rock catcher!!!
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Thanks for the pictures. I've used this filter for many years.
Typical of DENSO the manufacture quality seems excellent. The anti-drain-back valve seems good.
However, the efficiency of this filter is dismal. It's one of the worst among all oil filters. I think it's probably deliberately so to increase the oil-filter life without having to increase the oil-filter capacity by providing an expensive synthetic filter media.
PDF link
The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. You think someone actually testing an AC Delco filter would have seen it's name enough times not to call it a Chevrolet. The one data point from 2011 does not make the numbers true. Need a few more.
rock catcher!!!
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Thanks for the pictures. I've used this filter for many years.
Typical of DENSO the manufacture quality seems excellent. The anti-drain-back valve seems good.
However, the efficiency of this filter is dismal. It's one of the worst among all oil filters. I think it's probably deliberately so to increase the oil-filter life without having to increase the oil-filter capacity by providing an expensive synthetic filter media.
PDF link
The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. You think someone actually testing an AC Delco filter would have seen it's name enough times not to call it a Chevrolet. The one data point from 2011 does not make the numbers true. Need a few more.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. ...
Right. Considering that inaccuracy, as well as their obvious conflict of interest, why should I believe Amsoil's numbers?
... The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. ...
Right. Considering that inaccuracy, as well as their obvious conflict of interest, why should I believe Amsoil's numbers?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Finland's Tekniikan Maailma magazine tested oil filters for a Toyota engine in their November 20, 2011, issue.
The ratings combine efficiency, capacity, and ease of use. Toyota/DEMSO OEM filter was rated the most efficient or nearly most efficient filter. It only lost the top spot because the Mann Filter had a slightly higher capacity.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2423218/Oil_filter_test_on_Finnish_car
However, it's not clear whether it was a Thailand-made 90915-YZZ*# filter or a Japan-made 90915-##### filter.
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
Originally Posted By: OpelFever
The last time I bought a Toyota OEM filter was about 6 months ago and it was made in china, can't remember the part number though.
The filtration test graph shows the following filtration efficiency in the smallest, 20 micron range:
Teho filter: 50%
Filtron, AMC and M-filter: 43-45%
Mann filter: 40%
Biltema: 37%
Toyota OEM: 35% (Surpassing Biltema in 22 micron size and bigger)
Hengst, Fram and purflux: 28-30%
Knecht: 22%
Finland's Tekniikan Maailma magazine tested oil filters for a Toyota engine in their November 20, 2011, issue.
The ratings combine efficiency, capacity, and ease of use. Toyota/DEMSO OEM filter was rated the most efficient or nearly most efficient filter. It only lost the top spot because the Mann Filter had a slightly higher capacity.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/2423218/Oil_filter_test_on_Finnish_car
However, it's not clear whether it was a Thailand-made 90915-YZZ*# filter or a Japan-made 90915-##### filter.
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
Originally Posted By: OpelFever
The last time I bought a Toyota OEM filter was about 6 months ago and it was made in china, can't remember the part number though.
The filtration test graph shows the following filtration efficiency in the smallest, 20 micron range:
Teho filter: 50%
Filtron, AMC and M-filter: 43-45%
Mann filter: 40%
Biltema: 37%
Toyota OEM: 35% (Surpassing Biltema in 22 micron size and bigger)
Hengst, Fram and purflux: 28-30%
Knecht: 22%
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
OpelFever said:
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. ...
Right. Considering that inaccuracy, as well as their obvious conflict of interest, why should I believe Amsoil's numbers?
I don't think that's an error. They are referring to the car manufacturer, not the oil-filter brand.
American-made oil filters seem to have done better than the Japanese-OEM oil filters.
Of course, there is always a possibility that the test results are not valid.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. ...
Right. Considering that inaccuracy, as well as their obvious conflict of interest, why should I believe Amsoil's numbers?
I don't think that's an error. They are referring to the car manufacturer, not the oil-filter brand.
American-made oil filters seem to have done better than the Japanese-OEM oil filters.
Of course, there is always a possibility that the test results are not valid.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
OpelFever said:
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Notice what the OP in that thread said on page 2 ... Toyota OEM was 35% efficient at 20 microns. That's worse than what the Amsoil graph showed.
OpelFever said:The last time I bought a Toyota OEM filter was about 6 months ago and it was made in china, can't remember the part number though.
The filtration test graph shows the following filtration efficiency in the smallest, 20 micron range:
Teho filter: 50%
Filtron, AMC and M-filter: 43-45%
Mann filter: 40%
Biltema: 37%
Toyota OEM: 35% (Surpassing Biltema in 22 micron size and bigger)
Hengst, Fram and purflux: 28-30%
Knecht: 22%
The Toyota is better than the Hengst, Fram, Purflux. and Knecht. And better than Biltema at 22 microns. Nice try.
If all those filters were tested per ISO 4548-12, there's something wrong with the data, or all the filters they used were junk. The "best" filter comes in at 50% @ 20 microns ...
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
If all those filters were tested per ISO 4548-12, there's something wrong with the data, or all the filters they used were junk. The "best" filter comes in at 50% @ 20 microns ...
I can't read Finnish but it seems to be ISO 4548-12.
PDF link for their test for the Volvo oil filters:
http://tos.pp.fi/koukku/suodattimet/olju.pdf
If all those filters were tested per ISO 4548-12, there's something wrong with the data, or all the filters they used were junk. The "best" filter comes in at 50% @ 20 microns ...
I can't read Finnish but it seems to be ISO 4548-12.
PDF link for their test for the Volvo oil filters:
http://tos.pp.fi/koukku/suodattimet/olju.pdf
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. ...
Right. Considering that inaccuracy, as well as their obvious conflict of interest, why should I believe Amsoil's numbers?
I don't think that's an error. They are referring to the car manufacturer, not the oil-filter brand.
American-made oil filters seem to have done better than the Japanese-OEM oil filters.
Of course, there is always a possibility that the test results are not valid.
The tests are done on a machine. The filter says AC Delco on it not Chevrolet. It could be none of the Finland tested filters were made in USA. The Amsoil test is a small picture of a graph someone could have drawn up while eating a sandwich. Both tests are already too old to mean much.
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
... The Chevrolet PF48 filter in second place doesn't exist. ...
Right. Considering that inaccuracy, as well as their obvious conflict of interest, why should I believe Amsoil's numbers?
I don't think that's an error. They are referring to the car manufacturer, not the oil-filter brand.
American-made oil filters seem to have done better than the Japanese-OEM oil filters.
Of course, there is always a possibility that the test results are not valid.
The tests are done on a machine. The filter says AC Delco on it not Chevrolet. It could be none of the Finland tested filters were made in USA. The Amsoil test is a small picture of a graph someone could have drawn up while eating a sandwich. Both tests are already too old to mean much.
This is very old but interesting. The Japan-made Toyota 90915-10001 (which is now replaced in the USA by the Thailand-made 90915-YZZF2) came second from the last practically with a score of F:
http://www.mr2.com/TEXT/oil_filter_test.html
Code:
NOTE: When reading this article, please keep in mind the date it was written and that the oil filters in question will have been upgraded and revised.
Also note that this test was done by an independent European car magazine and the test results may or may not be accurate.
From: Kalalahti Matti ([email protected])
Subject: Oil filter test results!
To: [email protected] (Toyota mailing list),
[email protected] (Toyota-Mods mailing list),
[email protected] (supras),
[email protected] (mr2)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 00:57:49 +0300 (EET DST)
Sender: [email protected]
The Finnish car magazine "Tuulilasi" compared oil filters in its latest
issue. The filters tested were all for Toyota Corolla with A-series engine.
Results in short:
Champion C138 Very good
Clean DO 851 Very good (with size reservations)
Biltema 502077 Good (with size reservations)
Purolator Micronic Good
Teho OK 174 Good (with reservations)
Fram PH 4967 Satisfactory
Motorcraft EFL391 Satisfactory
Mann W68/80 Passable
M-Filter MH 3347 Passable
Toyota 90915-10001 Inferior
Vic C-110 Inferior
"Clean" filter was was wider than others, and "Biltema" longer.
What did they test?
1) Filtration
Filters were tested with a test equipment conforming to standard ISO 4572.
The test oil was recirculated through the filter, and dirt was continuously
added to it. The test dirt consisted of particles smaller than 200 micrometers.
I've picked the figures below from the graphs on the magazine. 15 mg of
dirt was added to each liter of oil passed through the system. Oil flow
rate was 25 liters per minute.
After 5 minutes, % of each particle size [micrometers] filtered:
40 30 20 10
Champion 98 91 64 19
Clean 99 91 66 16
Biltema 99 91 62 16
Purolator 97 86 60 11
Teho 96 89 61 17
Fram 98 87 55 9
Motorcraft 99 90 61 12
Mann 98 88 56 10
M-Filter 96 85 50 10
Toyota 88 77 31 0
Vic 87 71 39 4
After 10 minutes, % of each particle size [micrometers] filtered:
40 30 20 10
Champion 97 90 63 18
Clean 97 91 62 13
Biltema 95 88 56 11
Purolator 97 82 52 9
Teho 98 86 56 15
Fram 97 85 51 5
Motorcraft 97 92 62 16
Mann 96 83 50 7
M-Filter 94 80 47 9
Toyota 81 60 25 1
Vic 81 68 39 4
time until blocked (bypass valve opens):
Champion 16-18 min
Clean 21-23 min
Biltema 29-33 min
Purolator 22-26 min
Teho 16-18 min
Fram 22-26 min
Motorcraft 13-15 min
Mann 25-27 min
M-Filter 19-27 min
Toyota 16-23 min
Vic 20-20 min
2) Anti-drainback valve operation
All except Vic held the oil.
You can test this yourself, if you want. Find a bolt that fits on the
thread in the filter, fill the filter with oil, and with the bolt
screwed in, turn the filter to its side, like it is on the engine
block. Does it leak?
3) Bypass valve operation
Some filters leaked slightly through the bypass valve early before
the filter elements were blocked, but at worst only 22ml/min.
Compare that to the 25000ml/min total flow in the test, and you
see that it is totally insignificant.
Make your own conclusions. Before this I thought Toyota filters
would be the best one could get (even though I've used Teho myself
because it's 5 times cheaper).
--
Matti Kalalahti | Toyota Carina Coupe GT-T TwinCam Turbo '82
[email protected] | RWD * IRS * 3T-GTEU * 195+-15hp@4200-6700rpm
A Huge Evergrowing WWW Home Page * http://www.students.tut.fi/~k124476/
http://www.mr2.com/TEXT/oil_filter_test.html
Code:
NOTE: When reading this article, please keep in mind the date it was written and that the oil filters in question will have been upgraded and revised.
Also note that this test was done by an independent European car magazine and the test results may or may not be accurate.
From: Kalalahti Matti ([email protected])
Subject: Oil filter test results!
To: [email protected] (Toyota mailing list),
[email protected] (Toyota-Mods mailing list),
[email protected] (supras),
[email protected] (mr2)
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 00:57:49 +0300 (EET DST)
Sender: [email protected]
The Finnish car magazine "Tuulilasi" compared oil filters in its latest
issue. The filters tested were all for Toyota Corolla with A-series engine.
Results in short:
Champion C138 Very good
Clean DO 851 Very good (with size reservations)
Biltema 502077 Good (with size reservations)
Purolator Micronic Good
Teho OK 174 Good (with reservations)
Fram PH 4967 Satisfactory
Motorcraft EFL391 Satisfactory
Mann W68/80 Passable
M-Filter MH 3347 Passable
Toyota 90915-10001 Inferior
Vic C-110 Inferior
"Clean" filter was was wider than others, and "Biltema" longer.
What did they test?
1) Filtration
Filters were tested with a test equipment conforming to standard ISO 4572.
The test oil was recirculated through the filter, and dirt was continuously
added to it. The test dirt consisted of particles smaller than 200 micrometers.
I've picked the figures below from the graphs on the magazine. 15 mg of
dirt was added to each liter of oil passed through the system. Oil flow
rate was 25 liters per minute.
After 5 minutes, % of each particle size [micrometers] filtered:
40 30 20 10
Champion 98 91 64 19
Clean 99 91 66 16
Biltema 99 91 62 16
Purolator 97 86 60 11
Teho 96 89 61 17
Fram 98 87 55 9
Motorcraft 99 90 61 12
Mann 98 88 56 10
M-Filter 96 85 50 10
Toyota 88 77 31 0
Vic 87 71 39 4
After 10 minutes, % of each particle size [micrometers] filtered:
40 30 20 10
Champion 97 90 63 18
Clean 97 91 62 13
Biltema 95 88 56 11
Purolator 97 82 52 9
Teho 98 86 56 15
Fram 97 85 51 5
Motorcraft 97 92 62 16
Mann 96 83 50 7
M-Filter 94 80 47 9
Toyota 81 60 25 1
Vic 81 68 39 4
time until blocked (bypass valve opens):
Champion 16-18 min
Clean 21-23 min
Biltema 29-33 min
Purolator 22-26 min
Teho 16-18 min
Fram 22-26 min
Motorcraft 13-15 min
Mann 25-27 min
M-Filter 19-27 min
Toyota 16-23 min
Vic 20-20 min
2) Anti-drainback valve operation
All except Vic held the oil.
You can test this yourself, if you want. Find a bolt that fits on the
thread in the filter, fill the filter with oil, and with the bolt
screwed in, turn the filter to its side, like it is on the engine
block. Does it leak?
3) Bypass valve operation
Some filters leaked slightly through the bypass valve early before
the filter elements were blocked, but at worst only 22ml/min.
Compare that to the 25000ml/min total flow in the test, and you
see that it is totally insignificant.
Make your own conclusions. Before this I thought Toyota filters
would be the best one could get (even though I've used Teho myself
because it's 5 times cheaper).
--
Matti Kalalahti | Toyota Carina Coupe GT-T TwinCam Turbo '82
[email protected] | RWD * IRS * 3T-GTEU * 195+-15hp@4200-6700rpm
A Huge Evergrowing WWW Home Page * http://www.students.tut.fi/~k124476/
As the test interpretation shows, the Toyota filter catches less in 10 minutes than 5 except at 10 microns. The 6.6 gal/min flow rate probably surpassed the small depth type element's design flow rate for a small engine, and unfiltered oil passed through.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
As the test interpretation shows, the Toyota filter catches less in 10 minutes than 5 except at 10 microns. The 6.6 gal/min flow rate probably surpassed the small depth type element's design flow rate for a small engine, and unfiltered oil passed through.
However, it says, for the Toyota oil filter, the bypass valve opened after 16 - 23 minutes.
As the test interpretation shows, the Toyota filter catches less in 10 minutes than 5 except at 10 microns. The 6.6 gal/min flow rate probably surpassed the small depth type element's design flow rate for a small engine, and unfiltered oil passed through.
However, it says, for the Toyota oil filter, the bypass valve opened after 16 - 23 minutes.
DENSO
It's Nippondenso!
I like the original name and logo much better. There is no mystic feeling in the new name and logo.
I like the original name and logo much better. There is no mystic feeling in the new name and logo.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Thanks for the pictures. I've used this filter for many years.
Typical of DENSO the manufacture quality seems excellent. The anti-drain-back valve seems good.
However, the efficiency of this filter is dismal. It's one of the worst among all oil filters. I think it's probably deliberately so to increase the oil-filter life without having to increase the oil-filter capacity by providing an expensive synthetic filter media.
PDF link
What's the micron rating of the Toyota oil filter? If it's more than 20 microns, the Amsoil comparison doesn't seem fair.
Thanks for the pictures. I've used this filter for many years.
Typical of DENSO the manufacture quality seems excellent. The anti-drain-back valve seems good.
However, the efficiency of this filter is dismal. It's one of the worst among all oil filters. I think it's probably deliberately so to increase the oil-filter life without having to increase the oil-filter capacity by providing an expensive synthetic filter media.
PDF link
What's the micron rating of the Toyota oil filter? If it's more than 20 microns, the Amsoil comparison doesn't seem fair.
- Status
