At present, who makes the MOST efficient filter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Hi,
txgp17 - It was around 1982 and IIRC it was the D1105 version.
Doug, thank you for the details in response. What model centrifuge did you use? I didn't think the OEM oil pump would be able to run a centrifuge, so I didn't even bother looking into one.
Originally Posted By: rrounds
...look at the Baldwin B168 and B199.
I contacted Baldwin and this is what they told me: I'm only posting the differences in the filters, aside from external dimensions and gasket sizes.

B161-S, 198 Square inches of media, 13.9 Grams of capacity, Beta(2)=18 microns, Beta(75)=40 microns
B168, 214.3 Square inches of media, 14.1 Grams of capacity, Beta(2)=12 microns, Beta(75)=30 microns
B199, 279.1 Square inches of media, 19.5 Grams of capacity, Beta(2)=18 microns, Beta(75)=40 microns

Looks like I'll be going with the Purolator PureOne PL14459
 
Last edited:
Hi,
txgp17 - It was a Mann-Hummel - the smallest version - with a disposable rotor

After some time I discontinued their use in that application as the stop/start configuration significantly reduced engine operating hours. This along with using a tandem FF and by-pass setup, a synthetic lubricant, and trending UOAS rendered them unnecessary in that application

Later I used a larger Mann-Hummel centrifuge with SS FF 40micron screens on my OTR engines. This version had a cleanable rotor and required an air supply to manage oil levels
 
Originally Posted By: txgp17
Beta(2)=18 microns, Beta(75)=40 microns

Looks like I'll be going with the Purolator PureOne PL14459


FYI ...

Beta(2) = 50% efficiency
Beta(75) = 98.7% efficiency

Purolator's 99.9% efficiency = Beta(1000)
 
Quote:
....
B161-S, 198 Square inches of media, 13.9 Grams of capacity, Beta(2)=18 microns, Beta(75)=40 microns
B168, 214.3 Square inches of media, 14.1 Grams of capacity, Beta(2)=12 microns, Beta(75)=30 microns
B199, 279.1 Square inches of media, 19.5 Grams of capacity, Beta(2)=18 microns, Beta(75)=40 microns....

98.7% at 30or40um. Fwiw, even the four smallest P1's including the PL14610/12 are rated more efficient. Kudos to Baldwin though for being forthcoming about specific beta's. Interesting though (to me) that Baldwin also has/specs different micron levels for efficiency of different filters.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Maybe because in Japan they are required to swap out the engine at some ridiculous low mileage (?). I could never understand why they do that in Japan.


I've heard of no such requirement.

Japanese tax law, however, ramps up sharply for vehicle owners at 3 years, and again at 5 years of age. As a result most Japanese trade-ins are 3 or 5 years old. It is cost prohibitive for the average person or company to own a vehicle older than 5 years. (This is a form of corporate welfare for the vehicle manufacturers, if it's not obvious).

Since there not a good domestic market for these used vehicles, some are scrapped and some are exported as is. As a result, the rest of Asia is filled with vehicles built with 3 to 5 year old Japanese used engines. There are at least two "multicab" type manufacturers in the Philippines that use 3 year old Japanese engines; they are sold with full factory warranties (the Philippines mfg not the Japanese). Practically all Jeepneys (a bus not a Jeep) are made to order with used Japanese diesel truck engines.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Maybe because in Japan they are required to swap out the engine at some ridiculous low mileage (?). I could never understand why they do that in Japan.


I've heard of no such requirement.

Japanese tax law, however, ramps up sharply for vehicle owners at 3 years, and again at 5 years of age. As a result most Japanese trade-ins are 3 or 5 years old. It is cost prohibitive for the average person or company to own a vehicle older than 5 years. (This is a form of corporate welfare for the vehicle manufacturers, if it's not obvious).

Since there not a good domestic market for these used vehicles, some are scrapped and some are exported as is. As a result, the rest of Asia is filled with vehicles built with 3 to 5 year old Japanese used engines. There are at least two "multicab" type manufacturers in the Philippines that use 3 year old Japanese engines; they are sold with full factory warranties (the Philippines mfg not the Japanese). Practically all Jeepneys (a bus not a Jeep) are made to order with used Japanese diesel truck engines.


Well, maybe required was the wrong word, but it is "required" by the Japan Gov't if the car can't pass a very stringent "shaken" inspection.

http://www.importinsider.net/2009/03/19/why-do-jdm-engines-have-low-mileage/

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=684206
 
^^^^I had heard similar conjecture (see link below) from an engineer regarding the Fram made Honda A-02 efficiency as compared to their US designed counterparts. Some poopoo the idea because they maintain more Japanese cars are sold in the US, so that wouldn't/couldn't be a reason. But, I don't buy that the Japanese know more about designing an oil filter, favoring flow and thus the very low ~55-65%@20um efficiency oem oil filters. As the many US designed and manufactured oil filters show, good efficiency, flow and holding capacity can be designed.

The other thing with the Honda oem, since they recommend every other oci for the filter, this reduces their advertised vehicle cost of ownership. Easier and cheaper for them to just spec rock catcher media that perhaps by second oci it might be loaded up enough to have a bit better efficiency, but not be too loaded to impede flow on the second oci. And perhaps there's some arrogance that their engines will last long no matter the filter efficiency. I am glad that Amsoil ISO tested a couple Japanese oem's and confirmed what river_rat found about no endcap type filters like the Toyota. But the Honda A02 was a bit of a surprise considering it was long thought to be a Tough Guard clone. In appearance yes, in efficiency, not so much. I suspect it was designed/spec'd to match the efficiency of the A01 and other no end cap Honda oems, wherever they were/are manufactured.

Japanese used vehicle exporting
 
What makes you think that Honda's engines shed so much material in the first place? What if Honda did extensive testing and found out that their engines barely shed any metal, thus, you can use an oil filter for two OCIs with ease.

The UOAs I performed on my 2007 Civic EX with Honda's newest 1.8L R series engine showed that there is barely any metal in the oil after 7,000 miles, 10,000 miles and even close to 15,000 miles. This was all with the same oil filter - a Mobil 1 or Amsoil.

Because the engines are designed and build so well, you can run the oil filter for two oil change intervals and save money on maintenance in the long run. Why spend $200 on oil filters over the course of 200,000 miles when you can only spend $100 and use that other $100 and take the wife to dinner when the car reaches 200k. Haha.
 
Quote:
What makes you think that Honda's engines shed so much material in the first place?...

I don't see anything in my post that specifically says I think any such thing. The point was/is why are Honda oem filters so inefficient as compared to their US designed and manufactured counterparts? Seeing as no authoritative answer has been published, I put forward another 'possible' explanation for thier inefficency. Add that to list the Zee advanced and I also heard from an engineer at Fram. Or the Honda culture and steadfast way of doing things that Jim Allen has suggested in another thread recently. I'm also not the first to make such a suggestion, Hokiefyd and Jim have also previously suggested something along a similar line, ie., flow vs efficiency for the Honda oem's over the two oci recommendation.

And since Bstone has said they see no difference in UOA results no matter the filter used, I don't view UOA's as a reliable indicator of a filter's value, which again is the point. Not how good Honda's engines are.

To be clear, I'm not against Honda's every other oci filter recommendation as this thread clearly indicates. I chose a filter with high holding capacity and efficiency (BD+). Having just finished a 6500mi/1year oci with a PL14610 and dissecting it, I'm confident it too could have gone two ocis had that been my preference. I'm saying I don't need to use an inefficient Honda oem to accomplish the two oci recommendation. But clearly the recommendation does contribute to a lower Honda advertised cost of ownership.

So while Honda engines may be excellent, imo that doesn't mean they have the model (inefficient) for how to make a filter good for two ocis. And as some of their AT's reliability show, thier engineering doesn't get right every time.

All that said, if you have an authoritative answer to Honda oem filter relatively low inefficiency, please post it as I'd be interested in reading it.
 
I was going off of your rock catcher media spec comment. Haha.

Perhaps we are over thinking this too much. I'm sure an el cheapo dollar store brand oil filter will do a fine job at keeping the oil clean and will help the engine last 200k miles without things going out of spec due to abrasive oil related wear...?

Having said that, I use Mobil 1's in all my cars and cars I service. I use them for 2x OCIs and get close to the 15k rating before trashing them. They offer peace of mind, knowing that its a quality filter with a good media / holding capacity.
 
Originally Posted By: Artem
I was going off of your rock catcher media spec comment. Haha....

I'd like to take credit for that, or maybe not. But that has become a term used frequently on this board when referring to the Honda oems, and specifically the A02 since it's ISO efficiency has now been tested and published. When compared to other equivalent silicone adbv filters, not that far off the mark.
 
Originally Posted By: Artem
What makes you think that Honda's engines shed so much material in the first place? What if Honda did extensive testing and found out that their engines barely shed any metal, thus, you can use an oil filter for two OCIs with ease.


Once an engine if fully broken in, I don't think any of them really shed much metal if a good oil and maintenance schedule is used to prevent wear. I think the filter catches more particles like dirt & debris (carbon deposits) that have blown by the rings. On my '04 Altima when I cut open filters and inspect, I find a few little chunks of carbon deposits in the pleats, and that's about it. Any wear metal is probably so small that it doesn't even get caught in the filter, and that's were a filter magnet or magnetic drain plug comes in handy.
 
Originally Posted By: jrustles
How do those toilet paper filters stack up??


Frantz? With $175 down and $3 per approved roll, you don't have to debate about it. They are not cost effective.

For 5K OCI's out to 200K miles, that's 40 filter changes, say $5 per can that's $200.

For Frantz that's 175 + 40*3 or $295.

For 300K miles it's $355 for Frantz versus $300 for cans.

I'll leave the TP versus purpose-made debate to others. Let's just say they're not going on any of my vehicles.
 
In order to answer that, you would have to define what toilet paper is being used, right? I mean, no one would expect a nice soft Charmin to filter the same as a 1000-sheet roll of commercial Scott would they? And what about the Sam's Club Member's Mark? I mean, you could be wiped out using the wrong stuff.

Originally Posted By: jrustles
How do those toilet paper filters stack up??
 
Originally Posted By: txgp17
Guys,
I typically run Mobil 1 or or Purolator PureOne filters on my autos. I know they're great filters.

But I'm searching out the best one I can use in a stand-by generator with a 3-cylinder Kobota engine. And I'd like to only focus on published data from a ISO4548-12 test.

The part number is a Onan 185-5835, and that crosses to
  • Mobil 1 M1-104
  • Purolator PL14459
  • Baldwin B161-S
  • NAPA 1344
  • Amsoil EA15K20
  • Bosch D3312
  • Donaldson P550162
  • and many others too numerous to list
What makes this different is that there are no space limitations, so any filter with M20x1.5mm threads and a gasket about 2.5" in diameter will fit.

For Amsoil, I cannot locate a EaO filter that will fit, only filters from the Ea15 line. And I read about the whole PL14610 versus PL14459 controversy as well.

Of that list of filters I'd likely choose M1-104. They claim a 99.2% efficiency and they use a base end by-pass valve. arrangement.
 
Originally Posted By: txgp17
Guys,
I typically run Mobil 1 or or Purolator PureOne filters on my autos. I know they're great filters.

But I'm searching out the best one I can use in a stand-by generator with a 3-cylinder Kobota engine. And I'd like to only focus on published data from a ISO4548-12 test.

The part number is a Onan 185-5835, and that crosses to
  • Mobil 1 M1-104
  • Purolator PL14459
  • Baldwin B161-S
  • NAPA 1344
  • Amsoil EA15K20
  • Bosch D3312
  • Donaldson P550162
  • and many others too numerous to list
What makes this different is that there are no space limitations, so any filter with M20x1.5mm threads and a gasket about 2.5" in diameter will fit.

For Amsoil, I cannot locate a EaO filter that will fit, only filters from the Ea15 line. And I read about the whole PL14610 versus PL14459 controversy as well.

I thank you in advance for your input.



I think Fram Ultra is .

FRAM ULTRA SYNTHETIC™

Ultimate dual-layer synthetic media provides greater than 15K miles of coverage1
99% Filtration efficiency2
 
So I have a little more info...

I've stumbled upon the PL24458, it seems to be identical to the PL14459, but it's an inch taller. That should keep me in the 20 micron rating with adequate flow. The PL14610 says 40 micron on the box so I'll steer clear.

Another find was the Mobil 1 M1-105. It's short and fat like the PL14459, but it's 3.65' in diameter, compared to the 3.14" of the PL14459 and Mobil 1 M1-104. But I don't know for certain if the larger diameter would translate to more area of filtering media.

Also, Baldwin said the most efficient lube filter they offer with M20x1.5 threads are the B7318, B7334 and B7419, each rated at 25 micron absolute.

image002_zps49d3d644.png


And here is the data from Baldwin on the filters I mentioned earlier
image001_zpsff5e4be4.png
 
Originally Posted By: txgp17
I've stumbled upon the PL24458
Bad news, looks like the PL24458 is discontinued.

But I did find the PL14460, identical to the PL14459 except it's bypass valve is 20-25 psi, rather than 12-15 psi.

And the M1-105 was not in stock at Advance Auto.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top