4 filters for Hyundai & Kia--relative weight

[NormanBuntz]

I know many advocate using OEM Hyundai and Kia oil filters, so here is a comparison of the weights of the Hyundai OEM compared to three replacement filters I have on hand. I used a digital Postal scale.

Hyundai 26300-35503 11.5 ounces
Baldwin B7243 10.0 ounces
Hastings LF565 10.2 ounces
Mann ML1002 8.9 ounces

Not considering filtering efficiency, you can see how much lighter weight the construction of the Mann filter (like Purolator Classic) is.

 

[ZeeOSix]

IMO, all pretty close in weight. The difference between the lowest and highest is only 15%.

 

[NormanBuntz]

Actually the Hyundai is 29.2% heavier than the Mann.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Actually the Hyundai is 29.2% heavier than the Mann.


Well yeah, after you edited your post and add the Mann AFTER I posted.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Actually the Hyundai is 29.2% heavier than the Mann.

Just so it's on the table in case someone has trouble understanding what you wrote:

Hyundai 26300-35503 ....... 11.5
Mann ML1002 .................... -8.9
............................................. 2.6

2.6 / 8.9 = 29.21%

I have found the Hyundai/Kia filters to be very well made, efficient, and problem-free. Although Hyundai in its start-up borrowed a lot of technology from Mitsubishi, they wisely went to Europe and obtained the technology to manufacture their own filters.

Comparing them with Mobil 1, Purolator, Honda Filtech, Nippon, Denso, Bosch, and Fram XG with oil analyses and disassembly over the years, I would rate their construction with the Mobil 1 and their efficiency with Mobil 1 and Fram XG.

And they're not very expensive.

 

[NormanBuntz]

ZeeOSix, you are exactly right. I hit the ENTER key twice, not realizing that equals SUBMIT. Then I had to edit and finish my post. You are speedy.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's pretty nebulous, and frankly worthless IMO, to try and determine which oil filter is "better" by the weight. Too many things that don't really matter on how the filter performs can contributed to a weight difference.

Cutting them open and inspecting the can and guts, plus knowing the filtering efficiency spec based on the ISO test is the best way to make a decision on what filters to use. And of course, what you see from post use in terms of how the filter looks inside, and if there were any problems seen, like torn media, failed ADBV, etc.

 

[Wilhelm_D]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Cutting them open and inspecting the can and guts, plus knowing the filtering efficiency spec based on the ISO test is the best way to make a decision on what filters to use.

The ISO beta efficiency tests actually don't correlate well to real world performance.

The proof of the pudding is in the oil analysis. That is more easily accomplished in a fleet where differences in driving style and so on cancel out.

The teardown is primarily to see if there are explanations for the results noted in the oil analysis.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yes, a UOA would be the tell all test. Wasn't there a UOA recently that someone posted that used a Fram Ultra and his particulate count was very low, significantly lower than usual. A fluke? ... could be, who knows?

Not sure if anyone here has spent the time and trouble to try and correlate specified filter efficiency with UOA results to see if there is an obvious correlation in the partial count data.