Latest BR Video Comparing 3 OEM Oil Filters & Bosch

[fantastic]

Posted 1 day ago & you can find it on YT under BR "Car Dealership Oil Filters are a RIP-OFF (Engineer tested)"
Ford Motorcraft, AC Delco, Toyota, & Bosch Premium oil filters tested.

The particle counts are revealing. Check out how high the PC's on the Toyota were. More evidence that the Toyota filters are not high efficiency. Some information presented are lousy but the testing is intriguing.

 

[camrydriver111]

Is it a genuine filter?

 

[Sayjac]

In his latest BR doesn't know or get that the ACD PF53 dissected does have a bypass, it's called a combo valve. Vid doesn't show back side of base plate. But others have been dissected showing second set of central holes that function as bypass. Not my favorite design, but his points about no bypass and dangers of that with PF53, incorrect.

I also don't agree with his subjective conclusion about the BP bypass doesn't function and/or seal properly.

That said, his "particle count" of the Toyota OEM does align with ISO testing sponsored by Amsoil on Toyota Denso OEM. Is that luck, coincidence, or more indicative? Idk.

The vid title though, too sensationalized for my taste.

Is it a genuine filter?

Based on what I see of the filter dissection, I believe it is. Typical Toyota Thai Denso OEM construction. Same seen in dissections this subforum many times.

 

[camrydriver111]

I see. It would be interesting to hear from Toyota why they targeted this filter performance.

 

[dnewton3]

Check out how high the PC's on the Toyota were. More evidence that the Toyota filters are not high efficiency.

And yet many Toyota engines are known to last hundreds of thousands of miles. While not the only brand able to do so, they are certainly renowned for their longevity even with dealer or quick-lube service oils and filters.

I do 100% agree that having good filtration is important. But what I have said for years is that filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Engines made with modern designs which run very clean, and which are made with modern manufacturing quality processes, don't need clinically clean oils; they don't need the ultra-super-duper "best" filter ever made by man.

Further, sump cleanliness is also a function of the OCI duration. Because most engines run very clean today (we see UOAs with low soot and insoluble counts as evidence of their clean combustion process), there's just not a lot of debris in large sizes and large quantities that result in high wear.

Most certainly, if you run an engine that is known to run dirty (poor combustion process) or you're going to run a really long OCI (well past 10k miles), then you'll want a higher quality filter.

But we cannot ignore the massive amount of anecdotal data (literally hundreds of thousands of vehicle examples) of Toyotas that run OE filters and lubes, and yet have very long-lived engines. The logical conclusion is that super-fine lube filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns; the more you spend, the less it matters.

The key to understanding my comment is that there is a difference between how well a filter can clean the oil, versus how efficient does the engine really need the filter to be? Engine wear is a function of many things:
- lube filter efficiency and capacity
- OCI duration
- TCB
- Oil base and add pack
- air filtration efficiency and capacity
- starting and driving cycles
- etc
The lube filter only represents one of these important criteria. Significant improvements in filtration are not often rewarded with tangible improvements in engine wear. Once the filter is "good enough", making it "better" doesn't really pay off in a modern engine under "normal" OCIs.

A good well built filter of good efficiency is very important. But past that point, it doesn't matter much; you don't get much if any ROI.

Given the examples of poor quality we've seen recently (in many brands and models of filters), I care FAR more about quality of build than I do the efficiency. Unfortunately, it seems to be a crapshoot these days.

 

[fantastic]

In his latest BR doesn't know or get that the ACD PF53 dissected does have a bypass, it's called a combo valve. Vid doesn't show back side of base plate. But others have been dissected showing second set of central holes that function as bypass. Not my favorite design, but his points about no bypass and dangers of that with PF53, incorrect.

I also don't agree with his subjective conclusion about the BP bypass doesn't function and/or seal properly.

That said, his "particle count" of the Toyota OEM does align with ISO testing sponsored by Amsoil on Toyota Denso OEM. Is that luck, coincidence, or more indicative? Idk.

The vid title though, too sensationalized for my taste.

I agree w/all of your points. It shows to be cautious of new information for sure. And it's nice to see the actual data testing program they've set up. You bring up an excellent point about comparing an already known test by Amsoil. I think it does give creedance to BR on that part b/c it does line up w/that testing.

And yet many Toyota engines are known to last hundreds of thousands of miles. While not the only brand able to do so, they are certainly renowned for their longevity even with dealer or quick-lube service oils and filters.

I do 100% agree that having good filtration is important. But what I have said for years is that filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Engines made with modern designs which run very clean, and which are made with modern manufacturing quality processes, don't need clinically clean oils; they don't need the ultra-super-duper "best" filter ever made by man.

Further, sump cleanliness is also a function of the OCI duration. Because most engines run very clean today (we see UOAs with low soot and insoluble counts as evidence of their clean combustion process), there's just not a lot of debris in large sizes and large quantities that result in high wear.

Most certainly, if you run an engine that is known to run dirty (poor combustion process) or you're going to run a really long OCI (well past 10k miles), then you'll want a higher quality filter.

But we cannot ignore the massive amount of anecdotal data (literally hundreds of thousands of vehicle examples) of Toyotas that run OE filters and lubes, and yet have very long-lived engines. The logical conclusion is that super-fine lube filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns; the more you spend, the less it matters.

The key to understanding my comment is that there is a difference between how well a filter can clean the oil, versus how efficient does the engine really need the filter to be? Engine wear is a function of many things:
- lube filter efficiency and capacity
- OCI duration
- TCB
- Oil base and add pack
- air filtration efficiency and capacity
- starting and driving cycles
- etc
The lube filter only represents one of these important criteria. Significant improvements in filtration are not often rewarded with tangible improvements in engine wear. Once the filter is "good enough", making it "better" doesn't really pay off in a modern engine under "normal" OCIs.

A good well built filter of good efficiency is very important. But past that point, it doesn't matter much; you don't get much if any ROI.

For a lot of the same reasons you state here is why I have no trouble's recommending Purolator Boss or other's that aren't seen as high efficiency filters. No doubt that Toyota goes the distance & these filters seem to be working for them. Also why we probably don't see many other OEM's advertising their efficiencies b/c they may be on the lower side. And as you already know oil flowing through a filter is better than bypassing. I would imagine they are looking at cost/performance balance & it would tip the scales in their favor when comparing the higher cost/performance of aftermarket filters. Us consumers pay that cost for "Higher efficiency". Almost makes me want to run the most disliked engine, oil filter, oil brand, just to prove a point.

6.0L Power Stroke, Purolator Boss, & Triax Oil

 

[cptbarkey]

I started watching this channel early on and I'm still waiting until they build some kind of test rig for comparing robot vacuums or lawn mowers based on their channel name. The simple fact that they only now are asserting some kind of expert opinion and found a reason to trash major OEM filters gives me alot of pause on the validity of this YT channels claims. I'm not even talking about the overly flashing effects, sound, and dazzle. Give me facts and data vs fluff. I'm not going to let them know my opinion "in the comments down below."

 

[dedonderosa]

just like Honda as their oem filters about about 66% efficient, Honda cares more about oil flow then filtration and my assumption is Toyota does as well.

 

[Sayjac]

..... You bring up an excellent point about comparing an already known test by Amsoil. I think it does give creedance to BR on that part b/c it does line up w/that testing....

Fwiw, I tend to agree with that. And BP did quite well in his "particle count" which would tend to align with its "rating". Also would tend to refute his subjective conclusion about the bypass.

As for OEMs, specifically the Toyota, it was ISO tested using the ISO 4548-12 industry standard test, in the oft posted Amsoil sponsored testing. Unlike BM rig "testing", no subjectively to that test or final results.

That said, always been fine with those that choose OEM filters for whatever reason(s). Their vehicle, their money, their call. It is good to know though, that at least when it comes filter efficiency, using an aftermarket filter very unlikely to lose anything. And in a great many cases a significant improvement over OEM achieved.

As for the flow over filtration argument oft cited for the Asian OEMs, 'in my observation', that argument has been pretty much debunked on this sub-forum. Personally, flow never a concern for me in PC use with any filter.

 

[fantastic]

As for the flow over filtration argument oft cited for the Asian OEMs, 'in my observation', that argument has been pretty much debunked on this sub-forum. Personally, flow never a concern for me in PC use with any filter.

Right, If I had to pick one of the logical reasons why they do that it would be to prevent a clogged filter by someone running it too far. When I look at OEM filters/lack of info & previous conversations I've had w/Purolator is the fact they really put a good deal of effort into not allowing clogging of the filter by having lower efficiencies. One might say that aftermarket premium filters have the ability of filter efficiently & holding capacity but that would raise the cost to the OEM. They're not going to pay that premium when they can get a cheaper filter that prioritizes not clogging.

The OEM's especially have quite the legal responsibility to keep the engine lubed to prevent significant engine damage under warranty. Again, if run too far past OLM or ODI. In those Asian vehicles what are they known for.. Fuel efficiency, & it could be easy to put higher mileages on them in a years time, potentially "forget" to change the oil. That's why they use lower efficiency IMO.

 

[kschachn]

It’s nearly humorous when people keep trying to make a poor filtration efficiency a “feature” rather than a detriment.

One can have both good flow and good efficiency and it does not cost a lot.

 

[kschachn]

Right, If I had to pick one of the logical reasons why they do that it would be to prevent a clogged filter by someone running it too far. When I look at OEM filters/lack of info & previous conversations I've had w/Purolator is the fact they really put a good deal of effort into not allowing clogging of the filter by having lower efficiencies. One might say that aftermarket premium filters have the ability of filter efficiently & holding capacity but that would raise the cost to the OEM. They're not going to pay that premium when they can get a cheaper filter that prioritizes not clogging.

The OEM's especially have quite the legal responsibility to keep the engine lubed to prevent significant engine damage under warranty. Again, if run too far past OLM or ODI. In those Asian vehicles what are they known for.. Fuel efficiency, & it could be easy to put higher mileages on them in a years time, potentially "forget" to change the oil. That's why they use lower efficiency IMO.

So the vast majority of users are subject to increased wear over the life of the vehicle to cover up for those who actually have a clogged filter? What happened to the bypass for such events? That's the part I don't understand. Why engineer an oil filter to the lowest common denominator?

My ancient old 1MZ-FE "sludge monster" engine has very little in the filters I've cut open, even at well over 400,000 miles. I'm drawn to an inescapable conclusion that there has to be something very wrong for an engine to clog a filter, and if it did happen then just the fact that it might bypass is one of the least of your concerns.

 

[kschachn]

The OEM's especially have quite the legal responsibility to keep the engine lubed to prevent significant engine damage under warranty.

Actually no they don't. Every owner's manual I have seen states that owner-induced damage may not be covered by warranty. If you have so neglected your OCI that the filter clogs and causes damage, good luck in obtaining warranty repair. Oil filters don't clog unless the OCI is hideously long, or there is a mechanical defect in the engine - which would be covered by warranty.

No automaker has "quite the legal responsibility" to pay for an owner's neglect.

 

[camrydriver111]

I think we are overthinking it. There is a simpler explanation: CAFE

The oil filter creates resistance on the oil pump which in turn creates resistance on the engine itself.

By using a high flow filters manufacturers can easier meet CAFE regulations.

 

[ZeeOSix]

just like Honda as their oem filters about about 66% efficient, Honda cares more about oil flow then filtration and my assumption is Toyota does as well.

As for the flow over filtration argument oft cited for the Asian OEMs, 'in my observation', that argument has been pretty much debunked on this sub-forum. Personally, flow never a concern for me in PC use with any filter.

Yep Sayjac, no flow difference if the oil pump is not in pressure relief. Very rare for an oil pump to hit pressure relief with hot oil, even at redline. A few more PSI of dP across an oil filter won't matter to a positive displacement oil pump. And even if the pump did hit relief, still likely that the oil output flow volume is still adequate for full lubrication.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I think we are overthinking it. There is a simpler explanation: CAFE

The oil filter creates resistance on the oil pump which in turn creates resistance on the engine itself.

By using a high flow filters manufacturers can easier meet CAFE regulations.

If you do a hydraulic HP equation calculation of how much HP is reduced with an oil filter that has 5 PSI or less dP reduction at high flow rate, you'd laugh. It's super small. Engine designers save more HP with variable volume output oil pumps, but in doing so they may also be reducing the adequate oil flow lubrication volume headroom to the engine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

At time 10:45 in the video, he says the Toyota filter had the lowest dP vs flow, but it was actually the ACDelco, which also had the highest dP vs flow with hot oil. Looking at the hot oil dP vs flow, at around 8 GPM there is only a 3 PSI difference in dP between the lowest vs highest dP curve. To get 8 GPM of flow going in most engines, it's going to be revving pretty high. As mentioned before, a small dP difference at pretty high flow rate is noting to be concerned about with a proper PD oil pump.

Also, in the cold dP vs flow testing, obviously the bypass valve is opening well into that test, and once the bypass valve opens then the dP vs flow curve it being skewed based on how big the flow area of the bypass valve is. That's probably why the ACDelco had the least dP vs flow in the cold test, because its bypass valve has more flow area.

 

[JHZR2]

I do 100% agree that having good filtration is important. But what I have said for years is that filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Engines made with modern designs which run very clean, and which are made with modern manufacturing quality processes, don't need clinically clean oils; they don't need the ultra-super-duper "best" filter ever made by man.

I think the only rebuttal to this is that the modern manufacturing (not necessarily “clearances” but rather asperities, surface finish, etc. allows for thinner oils and less of a hydrodynamic wedge in moving parts, without excess wear. The downside to those conditions is that smaller particles can do more damage easier. This drives the criticality of filtration up, at least to the point that the particles can’t cause damage. Granted it seems that the low efficiency filters do good enough.

The logical conclusion is that super-fine lube filtration is subject to the law of diminishing returns; the more you spend, the less it matters.

I think the discriminator here is what super fine. And do the relatively lower performance characteristics of the oe filters really matter?

 

[Reloader59]

I enjoyed the video and give credit for their work. I have a Toyota and will continue to use their filters. I think people here overthink everything. I personally feel particle size and for the quantity of them in the oil is not as concerning as you would think. Most will be under suspension anyway. I'll take the flow and filtration capacity over the particle size. What's a couple hundred millionths anyway?

 

[fantastic]

I enjoyed the video and give credit for their work. I have a Toyota and will continue to use their filters. I think people here overthink everything. I personally feel particle size and for the quantity of them in the oil is not as concerning as you would think. Most will be under suspension anyway. I'll take the flow and filtration capacity over the particle size. What's a couple hundred millionths anyway?

I agree about most of this but do find it a bit weird how some here say "Overthink everything". Many here are using our grey matter wisely & one must not confuse "Critical Thinking" as "over thinking".