Premium Synthetic OIl Filter Selection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
21
Location
Des Plaines, Illinois
I am trying to select a premium synthetic oil filter and want to select the filter that has the best filtration but also matches or exceeds my 2013 Honda Accord V6 oil flow rate spec. Can't find the Honda flow rate spec and have had limited success finding filtration specs on premium synthetic oil filters. The Nappa Platinum filter looks good but I can't find a spec on the filtration. The Amsoil filter spec is at 15 microns when everyone else is at 20 microns. The Fram Ultra filter is 99% of particles > 20 microns not at 20 microns. Have there been any independent tests of these filters using the same testing methodology on all filters? Can anyone tell me what my engine oil filtraton gpm spec is?
 
Actually the filter is not nearly as important as the oil you chose. Any decent quality one will serve you well.
 
Any synthetic fiber filter is going to flow better than most lower teir filters including the filter that was on your Honda when it was new. The Honda OEM filters are basically Fram Toughguards and they are middle of the pack as far as flow goes, but are rated at 99% efficient which is very high.

Fram Ultra, Bosch D+, Puro Syn or Napa Platinum are all going to be an upgrade from OEM. Pick the one that suits you. I think they are all about 99% efficient as well, I think the D+ is the efficiency leader though the differences are very minor.
 
Agree with KCJeep's recommendation.

welcome2.gif
 
The advertising folks are quoting final filtration for the 99% figure, not initial filtration figures which are more important. It's very difficult to get the full specs for an oil filter and all you can do is look at some of the better actual test results. If in doubt use a real OEM one because it can be bad news if the bypass valve is set at the wrong pressure.
How long you use an oil filter for is more important in performance terms than most folks think because they are far more efficient when dirty, so that tends to work in favour of the long life oil filters if you don't change them too early.
The 2 oil changes per filter routine that Honda has for some engines is good in oil filter performance terms and has been used for a lot of smaller marine engines to good effect for some years.
 
Last edited:
Here's an independent study. Follow link at bottom. Came out a couple years ago, so there were only a few synthetic filters on it. I'm using the Ultra on 2 different vehicles. One currently on a re-use during winter. Has 12k on it. No complaints. Be careful with high efficiency filters during extended intervals. There is the potential for clogging and flow issues depending on engine cleanliness. But on the other hand My oil "looks" cleaner longer which is something I like to see. Anyone with variable valve timing needs the oil and engine as clean as possible.

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/gradesheet.htm
 
Welcome to Bitog. First, when it comes to oil filters in passenger car use, oil filter flow is for all intents and purposes, is a non factor/consideration. To quote member ZO6 (from the link below*) "any good brand filter will flow way more than that engine's oil pump can supply." That and the engine is generally 15x more restrictive than the oil filter. So, I wouldn't be concerned with matching Honda 'flow spec'. If there is such, much like the Honda oem efficiency, it's not published.

As for independent tests the only ones I'd trust are the ISO test specs done in a controlled lab and are published. As flow is not a concern ISO efficiency tests are the ones I'd look at. And, though some like to point to the gmc filter dissection as some kind of proof of flow and/or efficiency, the findings in that dissection are flawed with many in direct conflict with ISO test specs. If you want look at the pics, they're fine, the results however are unreliable and the test not valid.

Now if you just 'prefer' a synthetic filter, as mentioned the Fram Ultra is readily available at Wally, for ~$9. Others are the Purolator Synthetic, Napa Platinum, Royal Purple and Amsoil to name some, any should work fine. As for Fram specing 99% > 20um as opposed to @, that's the way they do it. Consensus here seems to be that it implies @ but it has been a topic of discussion in the past as other brands do use @. I'd really not be concerned as the Ultra is a quality filter with excellent ISO efficency spec.

Best flowing oil filter
 
JB257....after looking at everything I could find on the forum re filters, relative to my '13 Accord 4 cyl, I decided on the Fram Ultra. The quality appears to be top notch, its synthetic media, and its claimed to be good for 15K miles, and the price is right. I plan on using M1 oil and changing at 8-10K as I do now with my '07 Altima. I've never used anything but M1 filters, but decided to try an all syn media filter. Another small factor is price; $7 ea on Ebay for the Fram Ultra including shipping for 6 filters. Since my Altima uses the same (XG7317) I can make use of one filter for both cars. I change filters when i change oil.
 
tc1446 makes a good point about the Fram Ultra. Hard to beat a good filter with syn media for $6.99/each shipped. I'm about to buy 6 each for the Civic and the Corolla.
 
Originally Posted By: JB357
I am trying to select a premium synthetic oil filter and want to select the filter that has the best filtration but also matches or exceeds my 2013 Honda Accord V6 oil flow rate spec. Can't find the Honda flow rate spec and have had limited success finding filtration specs on premium synthetic oil filters. The Nappa Platinum filter looks good but I can't find a spec on the filtration. The Amsoil filter spec is at 15 microns when everyone else is at 20 microns. The Fram Ultra filter is 99% of particles > 20 microns not at 20 microns. Have there been any independent tests of these filters using the same testing methodology on all filters? Can anyone tell me what my engine oil filtraton gpm spec is?



I don't have any direct information to your specific questions, but I contend that you're likely focusing on the wrong part of the equation. And, we're missing one very important piece of info from your description: how long is your intended OCI?

I ask because if you're intending to be at, near or less than the OEM OCI, my answer (predicated on literally thousands of UOAs) is that oil filter selection really does not matter. Now, I'll qualify that by stating you need to select a filter that is properly rated and approved by the filter maker for your application, and that all mechanical conditions are in control (fuel, coolant, air ingestion, etc).

While there are lots of ISO tests that show finer filters do indeed do a "better" job of restraining particulate, the real world does not show any manifestation of that "better" filtration into less wear in normal circumstances. Wear rates are only affected by the filtration after the "normal" products (represented by good minimum performance standards as established by the OEM) are compromised, often OCIs that are farther out than most folks comfort zone.

You can do as you see fit; nothing wrong with that, especially if it makes you sleep well at night. But you're fooling yourself if you think a "better" filter is going to make a hoot's worth of difference in the real world application of your engine in a "normal" sense of lube/filter/OCI use.

Simply put; "better" ISO filtration does not manifest into "better" wear results in normal life if the "normal" products are properly designed/made. Once a decent level of filtration is attained (by most any reasonable filter) then it's the add-pack and OCI that dictate the wear data. Only when those are usupred does filtration make a big difference. And I would ask anyone who disagrees with that statement to show real, tangible statistical data. I offer my UOA normalcy study as my proof.

There are most certainly filters that "filter better" in the lab, but they typically don't reveal themselves in the real world to have any tangible effect.

As Jim has stated many times, and I tend to agree, the air filtration is more important than the oil filter, if wear is your concern. I don't have large amounts of data on air filter correlation/causation in regard to UOAs, so I can't make a fair assessment in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sayjac
As for Fram specing 99% > 20um as opposed to @, that's the way they do it. Consensus here seems to be that it implies @ but it has been a topic of discussion in the past as other brands do use @. I'd really not be concerned as the Ultra is a quality filter with excellent ISO efficency spec.


All good points in sayjac's post. Just wanted to comment about the FRAM filtering performance spec that FRAM uses. I consider it to basically mean "99% @ 20 microns or greater" because technically 20.0001 microns is greater than 20 microns. I think FRAM may use >20 microns to mean the filter will catch 99% of all particles greater than 20 microns, because saying "@20" microns may be misinterpreted by some people to mean just 20 micron particles would be filtered. Of course, most people who are oil filter savvy will know that if it can catch 99% of 20 micron particles, it should catch 99% (or better, like 100%) of larger particles. Technically, if that is FRAM's intention, then they should really say "99% @ 20 microns or greater". I think that's what they basically mean.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: sayjac
As for Fram specing 99% > 20um as opposed to @, that's the way they do it. Consensus here seems to be that it implies @ but it has been a topic of discussion in the past as other brands do use @. I'd really not be concerned as the Ultra is a quality filter with excellent ISO efficency spec.


All good points in sayjac's post. Just wanted to comment about the FRAM filtering performance spec that FRAM uses. I consider it to basically mean "99% @ 20 microns or greater" because technically 20.0001 microns is greater than 20 microns. I think FRAM may use >20 microns to mean the filter will catch 99% of all particles greater than 20 microns, because saying "@20" microns may be misinterpreted by some people to mean just 20 micron particles would be filtered. Of course, most people who are oil filter savvy will know that if it can catch 99% of 20 micron particles, it should catch 99% (or better, like 100%) of larger particles. Technically, if that is FRAM's intention, then they should really say "99% @ 20 microns or greater". I think that's what they basically mean.

I am skeptical that Fram actually means their filter filters 99% @ 20 microns when they actually say their filter filters 99% > 20 microns. This is a night and day difference, 99% @ 20 microns being very precise and meaningful and 99% > than 20 microns being practiaclly meaningless. I believe a filter company as big as Fram, without question, knows the difference between the two statements and hopes most people reading the statement 99% > 20 microns won't realize the statement is practically meaningless.
 
Originally Posted By: JB357
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: sayjac
As for Fram specing 99% > 20um as opposed to @, that's the way they do it. Consensus here seems to be that it implies @ but it has been a topic of discussion in the past as other brands do use @. I'd really not be concerned as the Ultra is a quality filter with excellent ISO efficency spec.


All good points in sayjac's post. Just wanted to comment about the FRAM filtering performance spec that FRAM uses. I consider it to basically mean "99% @ 20 microns or greater" because technically 20.0001 microns is greater than 20 microns. I think FRAM may use >20 microns to mean the filter will catch 99% of all particles greater than 20 microns, because saying "@20" microns may be misinterpreted by some people to mean just 20 micron particles would be filtered. Of course, most people who are oil filter savvy will know that if it can catch 99% of 20 micron particles, it should catch 99% (or better, like 100%) of larger particles. Technically, if that is FRAM's intention, then they should really say "99% @ 20 microns or greater". I think that's what they basically mean.

I am skeptical that Fram actually means their filter filters 99% @ 20 microns when they actually say their filter filters 99% > 20 microns. This is a night and day difference, 99% @ 20 microns being very precise and meaningful and 99% > than 20 microns being practiaclly meaningless. I believe a filter company as big as Fram, without question, knows the difference between the two statements and hopes most people reading the statement 99% > 20 microns won't realize the statement is practically meaningless.


I doubt FRAM is going to risk a lawsuit by one of the other big filter manufacturers because the they use a performance statement that is ambiguous and useless.

In other words, Purolator could take the filter that FRAM references in their performance statement and test it per the same ISO standard. If they found it was 99% efficient at say 40 microns but less than 99% efficient at say 35 microns, then they could sue FRAM for false advertising because the filter was not 99% efficient at 35, 30, 25, and 20.1 microns. In order for FRAM to make the claim of "99% for >20 microns", the filter would technically have to filter 99% @ 20.1 microns also. 20.1 microns is still greater than 20 microns, and is close enough to 20.0 microns to just say it's basically 99% @ 20 microns. Like I said, if that is FRAM's intention, then they would do themselves a favor if they said "99% efficient at 20 microns or greater" just to be crystal clear.

Maybe our FRAM Rep Motorking could chime in on this one to clarify FRAM's intentions if he reads this thread.
 
Since my V6 Accord is under warranty I will be following the maintenance minder, probably changing oil at about 8,000 miles. I drive about a 1,000 miles a month. I'll probably use Toyota or Sustina 0W-20 as I must use API certified 0W-20 under warranty. My wanting to use a very good oil and oil filter at my low OCI is more for piece of mind. I figure the difference between $5.00/qt oil and a $5.00 filter and $10.00/qt oil and a $10.00 filter is about $.11 per day driving 1,000 miles a month. With my short OCI I am not worried about oil filter dirt holding capacity as much as I want a very efficient filter that filters small particles well. I know the Pure 1 is rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns and the Amsoil Ea oil filter is rated at 98.7 @ 20 microns. I like the quality of the NAPA Platinum oil filter but as far as I know the filter efficiency specs are not published. I wonder if the Pure 1 really does filter 99.9% @ 20 microns, if so I have not seen any full flow filter with higher filtering efficieincy.
 
Originally Posted By: JB357
I know the Pure 1 is rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns and the Amsoil Ea oil filter is rated at 98.7 @ 20 microns.

I wonder if the Pure 1 really does filter 99.9% @ 20 microns, if so I have not seen any full flow filter with higher filtering efficieincy.


It depends on what Purolator filter number you're talking about. There are a few spin-ons and all the cartridge filters are rated at 99.9% @ 40 microns instead of @ 20 microns.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: JB357
I know the Pure 1 is rated at 99.9% @ 20 microns and the Amsoil Ea oil filter is rated at 98.7 @ 20 microns.

I wonder if the Pure 1 really does filter 99.9% @ 20 microns, if so I have not seen any full flow filter with higher filtering efficieincy.


It depends on what Purolator filter number you're talking about. There are a few spin-ons and all the cartridge filters are rated at 99.9% @ 40 microns instead of @ 20 microns.

On the Purlator site it says the Pure 1 filter filters to 99.9% efficiency with an asterisk that at the bottom of the page says *Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001. So what they are saying is only one of their Pure 1 filters meets this spec? I guess that is what they are saying. So are the rest of the Pure 1 filters only 99.9% efficent @ 40 microns? Pretty mediocre efficiency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top