Same company. Corporate website is PGI the Premium Guard filter site is PG.
https://premiumguard.com/
https://www.pgfilters.com/
what oil filter is currently the best ?
- Thread starter apollo18
- Start date
https://premiumguard.com/
https://www.pgfilters.com/
awesome, pentius looks a tad larger too, SOLD!!
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2023
- Messages
- 179
That's what I figured. But @Sayjac always seems to go out of his way to indicate both, making me wonder if there was some difference in those acronyms that I wasn't aware of.
Thanks!
PG 'to me" reflects a "Premium Guard" labeled filter, PG XL. PGI (PG Industries) 'I' use for filters made by PGI for other filter labels, CQ, STP, Napa. That said, as you note likely a distinction without a difference. Just my quirky use of acronyms here. And thank you for the compliment, appreciated.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2023
- Messages
- 179
No problem, and thanks for the clarification.
It's not technically a "valve leak". It's a leak between an ill-formed metal leaf spring and the metal end cap because there is not any kind of seal between them ... just metal-to-metal contact.
when you get some time, check out the inside of the filter, someone else posted this about this line of filters and i am hoping it was just a 1 in a million defect. looks like one of the core holes werent punched out. other commentators thinks oil pressure could have popped it out
Something else to look at. I always inspect the center tube on every oil filter I use, regardless if the center tube is holes, louvers or eCore.
I inspected all 12. Look good
Cost aside... how is the quality of the Amsoil branded filters these days?
Donaldson
The blue label CQP is the one you want. The HD is a Baldwin made filter and not as efficient. Here is a great thread about the differences.
I didn’t see in that post where the hd is referenced as having worse efficiencyThe blue label CQP is the one you want. The HD is a Baldwin made filter and not as efficient. Here is a great thread about the differences.
Copied from @Hatsuwr in his thread.
“Efficiency data for the HD versions is difficult to find, and I expect it to be more variable among different sizes of filters. Carquest's filter finder tool shows 28 µm for the 85516HD, but lacks any information about efficiency at that size. The Baldwin cross reference for that filter is the B243 which has a rating of 12 µm nominal / 30 µm absolute. I assume the associated percentages are 50% / 98.7%. This would make it less efficient than the Standard and Premium CQ filters. WCW's video has magnified images of each filters' media though, and visually it seems probable that the Standard is the least efficient.”
Below is the media from each.
Last edited:
I never said it was a problem to know about something being built to a lower level of quality.
I am saying it is a problem when you rely on products being manufactured to a certain level of consistency only to find the quality control has gone away.
And thankfully, we have BITOGERs who will C&P oil filters to alert us to those inconsistencies.
Has anyone ever taken identically sized samples of filtration media and poured scuzzy oil through them all...in an identical manner, of course....then checked what each caught?
Spent a little time trying to measure actual opening pressures of various bypass relief valves.
I was taken aback by the leaky design on the Champion filters, but the Mann-Hummel design seems to have its own drawbacks.
The designs with an actual spring (champion, Toyota Denso) are much easier to measure as the springs are compressed and follow Hooke’s law in a reliable linear manner. So opening is really “all or none” once the threshold force is reached and any additional force in addition to the relief pressure results in a fully open valve. However, the Mann-Hummel design valves are much more difficult to measure. There is no spring and although the spec pressure on the Purolator BOSS says 15psi for my particular filter, the valve leaks open actually at a much lower pressure. Well before the spec pressure, oil is getting through in small amounts and it’s much less an all-or-none phenomenon. There is no spring that is pre-compressed. The Mann-Hummel design has been around for decades and so it’s functionally proven but the actual spec measurement for bypass relief is not reliable. You get bypass very early in a tiny crack of a leak which gradually widens over a wide range of pressures. The design also makes me concerned about metal fatigue with a potential change in opening pressures occurring with repeated openings.
Ideally, I’d prefer a valve with actual spring but without a leak at the gap. It’s definitely the better valve as the opening pressure is more predictable.
I’ll swap filters on my car and see if there is any effect on my oil pressures seen on the Scangauge 3. I doubt there will be any meaningful differences among filters.
I believe the ultimate answer will still be in changing oil/filters frequently and not sweating the details — Something that wise folks have known for a long time.
I was taken aback by the leaky design on the Champion filters, but the Mann-Hummel design seems to have its own drawbacks.
The designs with an actual spring (champion, Toyota Denso) are much easier to measure as the springs are compressed and follow Hooke’s law in a reliable linear manner. So opening is really “all or none” once the threshold force is reached and any additional force in addition to the relief pressure results in a fully open valve. However, the Mann-Hummel design valves are much more difficult to measure. There is no spring and although the spec pressure on the Purolator BOSS says 15psi for my particular filter, the valve leaks open actually at a much lower pressure. Well before the spec pressure, oil is getting through in small amounts and it’s much less an all-or-none phenomenon. There is no spring that is pre-compressed. The Mann-Hummel design has been around for decades and so it’s functionally proven but the actual spec measurement for bypass relief is not reliable. You get bypass very early in a tiny crack of a leak which gradually widens over a wide range of pressures. The design also makes me concerned about metal fatigue with a potential change in opening pressures occurring with repeated openings.
Ideally, I’d prefer a valve with actual spring but without a leak at the gap. It’s definitely the better valve as the opening pressure is more predictable.
I’ll swap filters on my car and see if there is any effect on my oil pressures seen on the Scangauge 3. I doubt there will be any meaningful differences among filters.
I believe the ultimate answer will still be in changing oil/filters frequently and not sweating the details — Something that wise folks have known for a long time.
Last edited:
With a coil spring type bypass valve, additional pressure force above the cracking pressure isn't going to result in a "fully open valve". The coil spring has a spring constant that will make the bypass valve open progressively with added pressure force on the valve. It's not like the valve just snaps to fully open once the bypass pressure is reached and the bypass valve starts cracking open.
Yeah, the Purolator "flat spiral spring" is a different setup. There was a member here that also did some opening pressure testing on those here. Don't recall who, but I bet if I ping @Sayjac he can provide the link to that thread like he has in the past.
