Toyota oil filter light leak

[ZeeOSix]

The metal to metal leaf spring bypass is prone to leak. Regardless how “smooth” surface may appear…Yes, ruffles exacerbate the issue. Believe it or not, but they may have actually been intentional to prevent movement…acting like a “crush point “ between 2 metal surfaces. Just a possibility.

Ruffled leaf springs were not invented to "prevent movement". Prevent movement of what? The leaf spring sits down in the center tube hole, so how is it going to move when it's locked into the top of the center tube. This is getting wild with the theories and justification of messed up leaf springs. Seem the basic understanding of the oil filter design and configuration is not fully understood.

Could design be improved? Yes…with a gasket.

OG Ultra ... why do you think that leaf spring gasket was used in that design? Whoever engineered the OG Ultra knew how to ensure high efficiency by ensuring there were no internal leaks going on.

 

[Glenda W.]

The metal to metal leaf spring bypass is prone to leak. Regardless how “smooth” surface may appear…Yes, ruffles exacerbate the issue. Believe it or not, but they may have actually been intentional to prevent movement…acting like a “crush point “ between 2 metal surfaces. Just a possibility.
Could design be improved? Yes…with a gasket.

110% not intentional. Poor manufacturing and QC. Good vs bad.

 

[ZeeOSix]

110% not intentional. Poor manufacturing and QC.

The new version with "ice cleats" so it doesn't move around.

 

[Fair enough]

That was without any constant debris or soot generation going on. Plus, the rate of flow in that "demonstration" could have been higher than what it would get in real use. So of course it will eventually clean up a fixed volume of oil if it's recirculated many times through just a super high efficiency filter. Context matters.

It's not a normal filtering setup to only use a bypass filter. Fact is, if there is only a bypass filter being used an it's only flowing 10% of the oil volume going to the engine, then the other 90% with newly generated debris is going through the engine unfiltered. It's not an ideal setup, and that's also why a full-flow filter is also used with a bypass filter. No company these days will say to only use a bypass filter without also a full flow filter.

No, I see the soot the full flow is not able to clean being cleaned by the bypass. Better filtration = less wear. The full flow on running engines is not getting all the soot, black oil. Put a bypass sub micron on and the oil turns clear.
It is a totally normal set up to not use a full flow when using a toilet paper bypass, and is done all the time. If one wants to leave the full flow on to lighten the bypass work that’s fine, not required. Another reason is if the owner is late changing the bypass element the full flow can do something until they change the bypass.
I’ve had a Toyota cartridge oil filter, changing at 5000. The element always looked clean. At 162k the engine sounded and felt new. Of course they must have good valves and valve seats to do that regardless of oil filter. A car with good valves runs cleaner.

 

[ZeeOSix]

No, I see the soot the full flow is not able to clean being cleaned by the bypass. Better filtration = less wear. The full flow on running engines is not getting all the soot, black oil. Put a bypass sub micron on and the oil turns clear.
It is a totally normal set up to not use a full flow when using a toilet paper bypass, and is done all the time. If one wants to leave the full flow on to lighten the bypass work that’s fine, not required. Another reason is if the owner is late changing the bypass element the full flow can do something until they change the bypass.

No legitimate company making bypass filtration systems is going to recommend only using the bypass filter without also using a full-flow filter. There's more than just super small soot participate in motor oil. The old toilet paper filtering systems were invented a long time ago to be used on engines that had no oil filter to start with, so adding it was a lot better than no filter at all.

I’ve had a Toyota cartridge oil filter, changing at 5000. The element always looked clean. At 162k the engine sounded and felt new. Of course they must have good valves and valve seats to do that regardless of oil filter. A car with good valves runs cleaner.

It's actually engines with good ring sealing that run cleaner because less combustion blow-by gets into the sump and oil.

 

[Ronn]

The new version with "ice cleats" so it doesn't move around.

Whip City, who started the entire “light leak” saga stated himself that the various “nubs” seen on leaf spring/ bypass may have been placed as compression points.
Don’t think he was referring to “ ruffles” though.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Whip City, who started the entire “light leak” saga stated himself that the various “nubs” seen on leaf spring/ bypass may have been placed as compression points.
Don’t think he was referring to “ ruffles” though.

The "nubs" located on the side of the leaf spring, or on the ID of the center tube hole are there to make the leaf spring fit tight in the end cap. They have nothing to do with sealing the leaf spring to the end cap - in fact, they create a gap on that side area, so it can't seal there. The sealing area is between that thin raised ring around the center tube on the top of the end cap, and the area on the leaf spring that has the ruffles. And that's where the leak gap is also located. The "nubs" have nothing to do with the ruffles on the "sealing" area of the leaf spring. Should be clear after all the threads about this, with detailed photos and explanations.

On a side note - On the OG Ultra with the fiber leaf spring seal in the end cap, that fiber gasket also fit tight around the OD of the part of the leaf spring that sat down inside the center tube. So it essentially had a double sealing system. And there are no "nubs" on the leaf spring or the on the ID of the center tube on an OG Ultra, so that's why it can double seal as explained. It's a very good design for a tight leaf spring seal on the end cap.

 

[GI_GRIFF]

Whip City, who started the entire “light leak” saga stated himself that the various “nubs” seen on leaf spring/ bypass may have been placed as compression points.
Don’t think he was referring to “ ruffles” though.

I am sorry I got you two going, I didn't realize this was some kind of epic ongoing argument for the last 10-15 years between you two in Bitog! LOL!! Anyhow, in my opinion, the oil shouldn't be able to leak around the pressure bypass valve, compromising the legitimacy of the bypass function. I don't care who builds the filter, or it's design. Just my opinion. Nuff-said by me.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I am sorry I got you two going, I didn't realize this was some kind of epic ongoing argument for the last 10-15 years between you two in Bitog! LOL!!

LoL ... not 10-15 years. Only since it seems there is a movement to make leaky oil filters great again. Last time that happened was back in the Purolator media tearing hay days when there were some who also kept trying to justify oil bypassing the filter media.

Anyhow, in my opinion, the oil shouldn't be able to leak around the pressure bypass valve, compromising the legitimacy of the bypass function. I don't care who builds the filter, or it's design. Just my opinion. Nuff-said by me.

Yeah, if you asked most people if they would want a filter to constantly leak internally vs not regardless of what's causing it, most people are not going to keep trying to justify using the leaky filter. Fanboyism can be a strong and sometimes illogical force.

 

[Ronn]

Anyhow, in my opinion, the oil shouldn't be able to leak around the pressure bypass valve, compromising the legitimacy of the bypass function. I don't care who builds the filter, or it's design. Just my opinion. Nuff-said by me.

No arguments there!! None!!
Can it be improved? Absolutely!!!
My point again….as far as Fram Endurance to which this defect applies….IT DOESN’T RISE to the level of significantly impacting its overall filtering capabilities, so I will continue to use it and not “throw it out” just because it has a “defect” resulting in an inconsequential leak. So, this leak isn’t a deal breaker for me.
Others here want to bash it on “principal” ….it’s shoddy workmanship… it’s a leak that can’t be tolerated…you don’t “reward defects“ by purchasing a defective product…
Fine and dandy.

 

[ZeeOSix]

In some bad cases seen posted here of the leak gap, the amount of leakage past the media isn't what I'd consider to be trivial. Why do you use the Endurance in the first place? Would you buy and use a filter that was advertised as 84% @ 20u efficient instead of 99% @ 20u? If the answer is yes, then you don't really seem to care about efficiency, and maybe that's why the thinking and accept that leaking filters are still "great" filters. If you think so, then that's great, but the fact is with a good sized leak gap the efficiency is decreased no matter how it's tried to be justified. Sure, not all seen have real bad gaps, but like anything with possible manufacturing defects, it's a crap-shoot not knowing what you might get until after you use it and cut it open to see what's going on inside.

 

[Ronn]

Would you buy and use a filter that was advertised as 84% @ 20u efficient instead of 99% @ 20u?

Yes… your mantra “EFFICIENCY “….but it’s a RED HERRING.
You’ve calculated this so called “efficiency” based on a single pass through a filter Correct? Not accounting for a highly effective working filter that continuously recirculates the fraction that’s leaked?? Correct?
Btw even that calculation is just that >>>A CALCULATION <<<< correct?
Not verified empirical data>>correct??
This is known as >>>DRUM ROLL>>>
SPECULATION <<<<
Yes, given the strict definition of “Efficiency”, The filter is “less efficient” in the VACUUM of a lab test that doesn’t account for constant recirculating filtration.
But wait… you’ve compounded or should I say CONFOUNDED this by layering on your impeccable “calculations” to arrive at (Drum Roll) >>>84%<<<< It’s beyond reproach!!
Bravo!
Ok… let’s take that 16% not filtered … why not?
We’ll take that fraction and continuously filter it back moments later through a 99% 20 micron filter.
BINGO!
Oh…
I forgot …the leak diminishes efficiency
My bad
I need more lol

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes… your mantra “EFFICIENCY “….but it’s a RED HERRING.
You’ve calculated this so called “efficiency” based on a single pass through a filter Correct? Not accounting for a highly effective working filter that continuously recirculates the fraction that’s leaked?? Correct?
Btw even that calculation is just that >>>A CALCULATION <<<< correct?
Not verified empirical data>>correct??
This is known as >>>DRUM ROLL>>>
SPECULATION <<<<
Yes, given the strict definition of “Efficiency”, The filter is “less efficient” in the VACUUM of a lab test that doesn’t account for constant recirculating filtration.
But wait… you’ve compounded or should I say CONFOUNDED this by layering on your impeccable “calculations” to arrive at (Drum Roll) >>>84%<<<< It’s beyond reproach!!
Bravo!
Ok… let’s take that 16% not filtered … why not?
We’ll take that fraction and continuously filter it back moments later through a 99% 20 micron filter.
BINGO!
Oh…
I forgot …the leak diminishes efficiency
My bad
I need more lol

Engines are always producing debris ... that's the part you fail to grasp or recognize. If they didn't produce debris you'd never see any crud in cut open filters like we see almost daily here. And a lot of the debris filters catch is down inside the media and much too small to see with the naked eyes. And if engines never created debris there wouldn't even be a need for an oil filter. Why do you think oil filters were ever invented in the first place? It wasn't because engines run clean all the time, and even newer engines aren't running perfectly clean (better than older engines of course). And it's not "speculation" that if a filter is leaking 15% past the media that the efficiency drops accordingly. A simple model and calculation shows that, regardless if you believe it or not. A controlled ISO 4548-12 test would also show how a leak like that would decrease the filter efficiency. Anyone who understands filtration would know that. Show us your model and calculations that a 15% leak doesn't reduce the efficiency accordingly. I don't make any excuses for an internal leak defect by saying it might be caught another time around. Those that don't care about an internal leak probably don't really care about efficiency in the first place, as what other logical reason would they have to accept leaky filters that bypass oil constantly around the media? But if that's what makes some feel OK about a leaking filter, then that's all good too, it's their engine.

 

[Ronn]

Those that don't care about an internal leak probably don't really care about efficiency in the first place

Whoops .. there you go again. One can recognize that there is a leak and at the same time place a premium on performance.
You’re using “Efficiency” in the strictest sense as defined by a formal protocol. Efficiency defined in this manner doesn’t necessarily reflect on the performance dynamics….recirculated bypass.
I do care about how the filter actually PERFORMS in real life. Ergo>>> I do care about PERFORMANCE efficiency.
The leak is another matter . To what extent does this leak impact performance? “Efficiency “as you use it is a very narrow parameter.
Show me an inferior particle count on this filter that fails to meet Fram’s claim.
That’s the crux of this discussion.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Whoops .. there you go again. One can recognize that there is a leak and at the same time place a premium on performance.
You’re using “Efficiency” in the strictest sense as defined by a formal protocol. Efficiency defined in this manner doesn’t necessarily reflect on the performance dynamics….recirculated bypass.
I do care about how the filter actually PERFORMS in real life. Ergo>>> I do care about PERFORMANCE efficiency.
The leak is another matter . To what extent does this leak impact performance? “Efficiency “as you use it is a very narrow parameter.
Show me an inferior particle count on this filter that fails to meet Fram’s claim.
That’s the crux of this discussion.

Show me a particle count of a filter with a bad internal leak that's better than one from the same brand & model filter with no leakage, ran on the same engine under same conditions for the same length OCI. Oil filters with lower ISO efficiency show worse particle counts, so a constant leaking oil filter should show some difference too - engines produce debris any time they are running. One thing a particle count won't really show is how many times some of the debris could have made more than one trip through the oiling system, when it shouldn't have even made it past the media to start with. That's what appropriate filtration is suppose to prevent. The first step in caring about real use performance efficiency is to use a high efficiency filter without any internal leakage going on.

 

[Ronn]

The first step in caring about real use performance efficiency is to use a high efficiency filter without any internal leakage going on.

“Internal leakage”…..sounds foreboding
“High Efficiency “….
Sounds “Great “
Sounds “Ideal “
Sounds “Profound”
But then you get down to the>>>>
>>>>>>BRASS TACTICS <<<<<
Making a decision to stay with or drop a top rated filter because it has what YOU HAVE DETERMINED to be an inconsequential “defect”.
Beware of buzz words :
“Internal Defect” (yes it has one)
“Efficiency”
interpret with caution (and a grain of salt)

 

[ZeeOSix]

Is a filter with a big internal leak still really a "top rated filter"? "Inconsequential defect"? (or a "planned design feature", lol) ... "Brass Tactics"? ... seems there might be some big leaks going on with some long necks, lol.

 

[Ronn]

So far score is 3 vs Zero

Endurance Actual results …really
1) Brand Ranks tests superior
2) Used oil particle analysis superior
3) Fram ISO superior

ZeeOsix:
Found a leak
Arm chair results … lots of calculations
Says results above not reliable …so believe that! They don’t matter.
He has ZERO tests debunking the results above .
But….above all
IT LEAKS!!!

 

[ZeeOSix]

So far score is 3 vs Zero

Endurance Actual results …really
1) Brand Ranks tests superior
2) Used oil particle analysis superior
3) Fram ISO superior

BR test questionable and unverified. Champ Lab made filters with a leaf spring rank along with the known inefficient Boss per official ISO 4548-12 test results - sign of leakage in all of the leaf spring filters in the BR tests.
Show me the UOAs showing that an Endurance with a big leak has a "superior" UAO particle count, as compared to a non-leaker.
Fram's ISO efficiency claim has to be with a non-leaking filter .... it's impossible to achieve 99% @ 20u with a leak of any significance, it would have to be a 1% or smaller leak to make their claim, so non-leakers were tested.
So none of this is proven ... it's just your "hope" that it's true even on a leaky filter.

ZeeOsix:
Found a leak
Arm chair results … lots of calculations
Says results above not reliable …so believe that! They don’t matter.
He has ZERO tests debunking the results above .
But….above all
IT LEAKS!!!

Show me the analysis how a 15% leak doesn't decrease the filter's efficiency. You can't.
Correct, your claimed results above aren't reliable ... see previous comments why.
You make claims that it still performs the same with an internal leak, yet have no test data proving it. The calculation shows it will lose efficiency with leakage, the more leakage the more efficiency loss, and testing would show it.
Yes, a big air gap between the leaf spring and end cap certainly does leak oil past the media ... glad we agree on that.

 

[Glenda W.]

First Brands QC…