quote:
Originally posted by 427Z06:
Chill Filterguy. It's too easy to push your button.
You mix big rig diesels in with regular gasoline automobile engines and hybrids. I never said those divergent uses have to use the same test. However, whether it's a Corvette, an Accord or a Supra, I don't see why a standardized test can't be applied to those similar gasoline applications. If gasoline engine applications are so different, why can I take a filter spec'd for a Ford and put it on my Toyota and get virtually identical results?
Look here, seems like it's not so difficult to do when it's a selling point:
www.baldwinfilters.com/lit/form186.pdf
427Z06:
OK...look at it the other way. Since oil filters don't make headline news and because most people don't know or care about their oil filters, why not just reveal the performance specs when asked?
Afterall, this isn't rocket science. Well...maybe for Mel it is.
You know..I don't now your name.
I don't single you out when posting unless you post like you did.
It gets old with your snide personal references.
All I attempt to do is try to explain things as best as possible, as simply as possible.
There are all kinds of people who read this forum. If someone wants a more technical answer I will try to provide it.
You however, seem to want to make things personal. I do not appreciate that.
If you have a point you want to raise, I have and will answer it. If you don't like the answer, i'm not going to make one up.
Filter Companies rarely provide testing information for consumers with the parameters of the test. Especially because they private label for others. If a private brand wants to tout certain qualities of their filter they can.
I see you've found a Baldwin Bulletin. Impressive isn't it. What you don't know is the story behind it and why Baldwin came out with that.
If Baldwin can do that for a couple of part numbers, ask yourself why they don't do that for their entire product line? Why just the one bulletin? Ask yourself why they don't do that for popular car filters?
The reason Baldwin came out with that bulletin was to counter act Cummins and Fleetguard who had test information showing that Baldwin filters for thier engines weren't as good when tested against the Cummins specs. Those filters are all Cummins applications.
Baldwin primarily used SAE and ISO test procedures for their tests. Didn't they? They tested very well and out performed Fleetguard.
The problem is they didn't run those filters to all of the Cummins test procedures. Cummins has their own private test procedures based on ISO and SAE where they specify certain flow rates, add rates, a special test contaminant and assign a Cummins test procedure number. Not the ISO contaminant and that is what Baldwin used for most of their test. ( you can check out the fine print to confirm. Cummins requires Soft C2A. Not PTI fine for oil filter tests. Any tests showing the other contaminant is not per Cummins spec. I know I had a copy of the full Cummins procedures. There are only two tests in the bulletin where Baldwin shows they used Cummins test procedures. When I did my training seminars at Champ we showed all of our Cummins filters in the Luberfiner brand tested to Cummins specs. Not SAE or ISO.)
Which brings me back to my point, which i've posted before, unless you know all of the parameters of a test and have the data to compare apples to apples based on the parameters of the test...you don't know the whole picture. And even with Baldiwn showing bits of the test they used, you still don't have the flow rate, Add rate, test termination, etc. Do you?
Now this is not to say Baldwin is a bad filter. Lot's of fleets use their filters. It's just that their performance wasn't as good as Fleetguard across the board. And that was the information Cummins/Fleeguard were showing fleets at the time. Baldwin had to react. Otherwise you'd never see a bulletin like that from a filter company.
So as Paul Harvey would say..now you know the rest of the story.
and btw..Soft C2A..is a special "sludge" compound of material which includes carbon black, not test "dirt" like PTI fine or AC Fine. Hence totally different test results.
--------------------------------------
Now back to your question..you use Baldwins bulletin as an example...well why aren't there Detroit engine filters in there? Caterpillar? Volvo? Mack?
You want to use a Ford filter for a Toyota or vice versa...only because the threads match. It doesn't mean the filter is better.
You confuse being able to match threads, maybe OD's, maybe lenght of the filter and come up with something that works.
You want the two engine companies to agree to run the exact same test procedures and parameters. You really expect that? Just because a filter filters oil on a gasoline engine doesn't mean all engine manufaturers are going to run "standardized" test parameters. They do run standardized procedures.
You claim you get the same "results". Which means what? They both last your oil change interval? They both performed relatively equally in oil analysis? Since when is oil anylsis part of OEM specs or filter performance specs? Did they both performed relatively equally in particle counts?
Or maybe you are using a brand of filter which uses the same media in both. In which case you shouldn't see a difference, should you?
And if you are using different brands..say Wix and Purolator...is it not conceivable the two filters have similar performance medias and there is no drastic difference. Or a difference "that" noticeable in whatever it is you are doing..like say oil anaylsis.
However, in the other thread I posed the offer for you to test a $2 and change Super Tech filter versus $14-15 Amsoil (or whatever they go for). A filter 6-7 times the cost of the Super Tech. You can be the judge if the Amsoil gives you 6-7 times the performance. Or if the Super Tech is 6-7 times worse. Those two filters definately have different medias.
Let's compare the filters and see.
