Toyota oil filter light leak

[Ronn]

First Brands QC…

View attachment 292467

Please elaborate, instead of being dismissive. Also, provide what you would suggest be done short of ISO sanctioned tests
They updated their equipment and procedures in the last particle count analysis of the Frams.
It’s by far the BEST “Bench Testing” on oil filters short of rigorous ISO tests. They even used the ISO particle packages!!
They have no axe to grind and remain impartial and agnostic in all their testing.
These tests could have easily gone “the other way “…. wonder what your opinions of this testing would have been if Endurance failed miserably? No doubt we would be seeing whole hearted approval!!

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Again, you have no idea what shape the leaf springs were in and if there was any level of a internal leak gap on the filters BR tested. The big elephant in the room is the Boss ranking right up with the all the filters with the highest claimed ISO 4548-12 efficiencies. Or was it really the filters with ruffled leaf springs testing down to the Boss's ranked level? The Boss has one of the worse ISO 4548-12 efficiencies per M+H spec sheet, and it's also shown as not great in Ascent's ISO test data. So this is a red flag on the BR test data. If BR's efficiency rankings correlated better with the filter makers ISO rating, then I' d have more confidence that it's a good ranking result. I do have more confidence in their dP vs slow data results however.

Also, if they let the filters continue to clean up the dust treated fluid longer with one filter vs another then that can also skew the particle count results.

 

[Glenda W.]

Please elaborate, instead of being dismissive. Also, provide what you would suggest be done short of ISO sanctioned tests
They updated their equipment and procedures in the last particle count analysis of the Frams.
It’s by far the BEST “Bench Testing” on oil filters short of rigorous ISO tests. They even used the ISO particle packages!!
They have no axe to grind and remain impartial and agnostic in all their testing.
These tests could have easily gone “the other way “…. wonder what your opinions of this testing would have been if Endurance failed miserably? No doubt we would be seeing whole hearted approval!!



View attachment 292552

View attachment 292551

Leaf springs should not be leaving the production line with ruffles. The stamping machine is worn and QC doesn’t care.

I have told you many times what BR should have done. Repeat his tests to make sure his results were repeatable. Simple.

 

[Ronn]

^^^ Again, you have no idea what shape the leaf springs were in and if there was any level of an internal leak gap on the filters BR tested. The big elephant in the room is the Boss ranking right up with the all the filters with the highest claimed ISO 4548-12 efficiencies. Or was it really the filters with ruffled leaf springs testing down to the Boss's ranked level? The Boss has one of the worse ISO 4548-12 efficiencies per M+H spec sheet, and it's also shown as not great in Ascent's ISO test data. So this is a red flag on the BR test data.

The test was for filtration at 50% not 99%
So Boss shows up relatively well in that chart.
I also included Boss Data sheet with poor rating at 99% but not 50%
Lastly there is actual PARTICLE counts for various Frams ONLY and Endurance superiority there.

 

[Ronn]

I have told you many times what BR should have done. Repeat his tests to make sure his results were repeatable. Simple.

Yes.The “DEFAULT” argument…
Simple just repeat an already rigorous test.

 

[Glenda W.]

I love it. Apparently the Tough Guard filters the best between 38-70 microns! The Endurance will get it on the next pass or two or three or four….

 

[Ronn]

I love it. Apparently the Tough Guard filters the best between 38-70 microns! The Endurance will get it on the next pass or two or three or four….

View attachment 292577

So ..
You don’t believe what you see there?
Ahhh…if course ..probably one of the non existent ones without the GAP !!

 

[Glenda W.]

So ..
You don’t believe what you see there?
Ahhh…if course ..probably one of the non existent ones without the GAP !!

2 .020”x 3/4” gaps.

 

[Ronn]

2 .020”x 3/4” gaps.
View attachment 292583

Im referring tothe particle count on Endurance in the chart. Are you questioning that?

 

[ZeeOSix]

The test was for filtration at 50% not 99%
So Boss shows up relatively well in that chart.
I also included Boss Data sheet with poor rating at 99% but not 50%
Lastly there is actual PARTICLE counts for various Frams ONLY and Endurance superiority there.

View attachment 292567
View attachment 292568
View attachment 292569

You don't seem to understand Purolator's Spec Sheet or how filter efficient works. It's showing both the 50% and 99% efficiency points. It's 50% efficient for particles 22u and greater, and it's 99% efficient for particles >46u. If a filter came in at 99% @ 20u then it's going to be around 50% @ 8 to 10u. Every filter has an efficiency vs particle size curve, like seen in the Ascent ISO test graphs. As the particle size gets smaller, every filter has less efficiency at capturing those particles, as shown in this graph. Have you ever read that thread?

Here's some other reasons why BR efficiency ranking testing is questionable. The Fram Ultra and Endurance have the same ISO 4548-12 efficiency, yet they don't rank that close to each other in the BR test. Same with the Fram TG that's also rated at 99% @ 20u per ISO 4548-12, so why did it rate much lower than the other 99% @ 20u filters? The Royal Purple and Amsoil are the same guts in different cans, yet the Amsoil has a much better PC vs the RP in BR's ranking ... why? In fact, the Amoil rated the best in the BR PC of them all. Is it due to some internal leakage on one of them, or what? Is the difference due to internal leakage, or inconsistency in the test methodology, repeatability and accuracy ... or a combination of all those possible factors?

On a sidenote - the BR testing of the Boss (done about 2 years ago now), it shows the efficiency rating and Purolator claimed it was 99% @ 20u but only upto 10K miles, meaning until it gets loaded up pretty good and starts shedding debis from increased dP. But why doesn't Purolator show that now? Was the Boss back then using different media then now and that's why the Boss spec sheet shows it to be only 99% >45u. I've never seen such convoluted efficiency info from any other company than Purolator.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Im referring tothe particle count on Endurance in the chart. Are you questioning that?

We don't know what if any leak gap was on that Endurance BR tested, or for any of the filters with leaf springs. The Ultra they tested wasn't an OG version with the filber leaf spring seal in the end cap. If their PC is accurate for the Endureace, then it wasn't really a leaker. If BR tested the one @Glenda W. showed in the post above (think that's the one that calculation showed a 15% leak), it's going to have a much worse PC due to a large leak gap ... it's going to impact the efficiency and the resulting PC.

The fact that we've seen so many filters with leaf springs that have leak gaps all over the map, it just seems prudent to not use filters with that type of construction and possible QA issues on the leaf springs, regardless of how efficiency the fitler is claimed to be without any internal leakage. If these manufactures coould make a flat and smooth leaf spring like they use to, then there wouldn't be the focus it's been getting. Quality has been suffering (leaf springs, louvers, etc), and people notice it.

 

[Ronn]

You don't seem to understand Purolator's Spec Sheet or how filter efficient works. It's showing both the 50% and 99% efficiency points. It's 50% efficient for particles 22u and greater, and it's 99% efficient for particles >46u

I understand that.
My point was the apparent “Erroneous “ Brand Rank results on Boss you keep referring to because the results “contradict” the poor ISO 99% >46…wasn’t for 99% but 50% . So its ranking was relatively better compared to the others on this chart below because threshold wasn’t “discriminating” enough to separate it from those at a much higher Efficiency at 99%. What am I missing?
Maybe the particle size range tested wasn’t small enough to discriminate ?

 

[ZeeOSix]

I understand that.
My point was the apparent “Erroneous “ Brand Rank results on Boss you keep referring to because the results “contradict” the poor ISO 99% >46…wasn’t for 99% but 50% . So its ranking was relatively better compared to the others on this chart below because threshold wasn’t “discriminating” enough to separate it from those at a much higher Efficiency at 99%. What am I missing?
Maybe the particle size range tested wasn’t small enough to discriminate ?
View attachment 292587

Your's missing on what the (50%) means in BR's ranking table. It means they have assigned the efficiency ranking at 50% of the total weighted ranking system they are using. It has nothing to do with "50% efficiency" like you think. Notice that the percentages in the parenthesis add up to 100% (table columns from left to right: 50%+20%+20%+10%). It's BR's weighted assignment of the four tests that they did.

 

[Ronn]

Your's missing on what the (50%) means in BR's ranking table. It means they have assigned the efficiency ranking at 50% of the total weighted ranking system they are using. It has nothing to do with "50% efficiency" like you think. Notice that the percentages in the parenthesis add up to 100% (table columns from left to right: 50%+20%+20%+10%). It's BR's weighted assignment of the four tests that they did.

Ah
Got it.
Still wonder if particle size wasn’t small enough to separate Boss from Endurance.
The particle count on Fram Filter comparisons was telling.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ah
Got it.
Still wonder if particle size wasn’t small enough to separate Boss from Endurance.
The particle count on Fram Filter comparisons was telling.

You pointed it out earlier in post 101 that BR used the same ISO test dust that's used in official IOS 4548-12 testing. So all the filters were tested with the same test dust.

 

[Ronn]

You pointed it out earlier in post 101 that BR used the same ISO test dust that's used in official IOS 4548-12 testing. So all the filters were tested with the same

You pointed it out earlier in post 101 that BR used the same ISO test dust that's used in official IOS 4548-12 testing. So all the filters were tested with the same test dust.

Here it is seems appropriate

 

[ZeeOSix]

More info.
https://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-history/iso-standard-12103-1/

Notice that BRs PC table info only shows particles 21u and larger (even though the ISO 4406 will show it down to 4u), so of all the test dust in the oil the PC is only showing in the efficiency testing is the top 30% of the total dust in the test oil. That's one thing I've mentioned before, and think they should show the entire PC range like the ISO 4406 is meant to do. But I think they don't because of the way they "clean-up" the system between filter runs with the 10u "clean-up" filter. I'm not sure what the clean-up filter's efficiency is at 10u, I'm assuming absolute (98.78%). If they don't change the clean-up filter appropriately/often, it could be less efficiency as it loads up from multiple system cleanings. That could skew the efficiency ranking data too.

The green line and arrow shows the volume of the ISO test dust that is 21u and larger for the A3 dust, which is only 30% (70% to 100%) of the total volume.

 

[KevinMalone]

One reason Toyota oil filters irritate me. I will post this flashlight test, several filter companies use this style of bypass valve built into the leaf spring, It makes no sense to me that oil filter companies keep using this design, knowing unfiltered oil will go through, even with a brand new unclogged oil filter.

This and the recent bad batch of Toyota-Denso filters is very disappointing. Scary to see quality control issues on a OE part.

Post in thread '2 Toyota 90915-YZZN1 Cut Open - 4.5k mi / 30 minutes of BG EPR'

May 12, 2025

Older thread, but here's what I found with the latest batch of 90915-YZZN1 filters I purchased from East Madison Toyota. Thankfully I haven't used any from the case yet so I'll be getting an aftermarket filter before the next oil change.

• funflyer

• 
• 
• 

I hope the aftermarket Denso FTF filters are still okay. They have metal end caps with an integrated bypass valve:

 

[Glenda W.]

Im referring tothe particle count on Endurance in the chart. Are you questioning that?

View attachment 292585

Do you question this data?

 

[OilUzer]

Just curious if this oil filter leak or seep is significant or it's like many other things in a car which are not "perfect"?

For example we discuss and/or analyze engine oil to death ... And the quality of the oil (i.e. approvals, etc.) being up or down some doesn't seem to impact much in general if you follow manufacturer recommended oil/OCIs. Basically it falls under overanalyzing category which I am guilty of as well but also aware of it.

So does this oil filter issue (assuming that is valid) fall under that category and/or maybe manufacturers (in this case Toyota) are well aware it but it's not significant or a don't care!