Originally Posted By: Cooper
Odd reply......just sayin'. Kinda going overboard don't you think? Why not just discuss simple construction and efficiency rather than go into this much detail on something that doesn't have anything to do with the original question? The rant is not cool, and it is much more like going off into the deep end....
Perhaps "odd" to you, but no more odd or useless than you original question, which was essientially about what filter is "best" but with no known useage or cost constraints.
Your first post was this:
Originally Posted By: Cooper
What do you feel the is the best constructed filter and why? Every aspect of the filter can be used in your judgement. The only aspect I would like left out is cost. Not looking for the best value.....looking for the best.
Let's look closer at what you typed:
1) Every aspect of the filter can be used in your judgement
I spoke to about every aspect of filter construction I can think of
2) Do not consider cost
I find this foolish, as cost is always a factor, but since you ruled it out, I opened up my wish-list and mentally "constructed" the ultimate filter, with cost as no object
3) we can "feel" our way through this
Apparently emotion is free to wander into this topic
Leave an unbounded question lying about, and you'll get an unbounded answer. Sure, I was going overboard, to make a point. I've already stated it several times. This type thread is plain silly, because it's not real-world applicable. So if your question is not based in real world criteria, why should my asnwer be?
But, now that I've used sarcastic examples of extremes, you suddenly want to constrain the topic moreso than your original post. Seems you now want to constrain it to off-the-shelf typical market filters. If that was your true intent, then I must say once again you CANNOT have a SENSIBLE AND CREDIBLE conversation about a filter without including COST and USEAGE parameters. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
I judge my products based upon outputs, not inputs; I look at results and only pay passing attention to predictors.
Your question about what is the "best" filter is only looking at the product as it sits in the box on the shelf.
I take a much more pragmatic approach and ask which filter does it's job "best".
I judge a filter to be the "best" when it does these things, in this order:
1) provide filter efficiency sufficient to the OEM design intent, and able to not negatively effect wear rates
2) provide the highest ROI relative to the useage parameters (FCI, genearl engine condition, contaminant intrusion, etc ...)
3) be easily attained from a reputable source
Look - I understand what you were after, but it's not useful debate. If you want specific answers, you have to ask specific questions.
Want to know which brand has the thickest can? Buy a bunch and cut them open and measure them with a micrometer.
Want to know which brand resists rupture with the highest rating? Put a bunch of them through some hydraulic burst testing, or trust their stated ratings.
Want to know which brand has the most pliable ADBV? Cut them out and measure them with a durometer.
Want to know which brand has the most efficient media? Either accept the OEM statements from their marketing web-pages, or pay for your own studies at an independent lab.
Want to know which brand has the least amount of failures? You'll have to commision a third-party study to develop statistical analysis results.
I cannot help it that you started (yet another) open-ended filter debate that has no practical application in the real world; like there aren't enough of those here already? You did a poor job of defining what "best" means, and left the topic wide open. Don't get sanctimonious after the fact. My "overboard" answers were meant to bring to light the haphazard approach in your question and the inapplicability of anyone's answer.
Let me ask you this ... What's the best hunting cartridge?
I'm going to leave out cost as a criterion, but anythying else is open to "feeling".
Would it not be helpful to know what I was hunting? Deer in the woods? Rabbit in the grasslands? Water buffalo on the African plains?
Would it not be helpful to know what distances I was shooting at? 50 yards? 500 yards?
Would it not be helpful to know what firearm I was using? Hand-gun, or rifle or shotgun?
Would it not be helpful to know what legal restrictions are in place? What firearms cannot be used? What components (lead) may be banned?
Do you see you stupid the question is, and how worthless the answers are, if I don't put some reasonable constraints on the topic?
I mean no personal offense to you in this regard. I tire of seeing this kind of useless debate, and it happens often here. You're not the first, and sadly you'll not be the last.
What's wrong with trying to elevate the conversations here from hype and mythology and rhetoric, to actual discussion and presentation of facts that have REAL application?
