Some Filtration Comparisons from the Bench
- Thread starter river_rat
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the encouragement guys. It's a lot of work!
Originally Posted By: EagleFTE
Wix=PuroClassic=K&N=M1. The K&N and M1 being the same is not a surprise of course. But the other two being in that group does surprise me.
I estimate the K&N, M1, WIX are also in the 98% efficiency ballpark @ 20 microns.
The 99.2% rating the M1 states gives no micron size for that %.
There seems to be a three class pattern for all the commonly available filters in all these tests. 1. Sieves, 2. 98% area, and 3. super-high efficiency.
The 98% class, as I call it, is not bad, it's a happy medium for minimum oil pressure drop for picky engines, and quite good filtration.
As I stated before, I pretty much ignore the betas that WIX puts on their website. I think tose are relics from before a switch to synthetic blend media. And as Gary Allan points out, they do not market based on efficiency ratings (and they probably don't care).
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The Proline case looks cheap but it performs very well under your test conditions, specially the larger one.
I might skip the smaller one, myself, and pay the extra buck for a Purolator boxed version. Purolator Corporation is under no obligation to use their "97.5%" or "99.9%" medias to make bulk, ultra low-cost filters under other names with no reference to efficiency printed on the box.
Originally Posted By: EagleFTE
Wix=PuroClassic=K&N=M1. The K&N and M1 being the same is not a surprise of course. But the other two being in that group does surprise me.
I estimate the K&N, M1, WIX are also in the 98% efficiency ballpark @ 20 microns.
The 99.2% rating the M1 states gives no micron size for that %.
There seems to be a three class pattern for all the commonly available filters in all these tests. 1. Sieves, 2. 98% area, and 3. super-high efficiency.
The 98% class, as I call it, is not bad, it's a happy medium for minimum oil pressure drop for picky engines, and quite good filtration.
As I stated before, I pretty much ignore the betas that WIX puts on their website. I think tose are relics from before a switch to synthetic blend media. And as Gary Allan points out, they do not market based on efficiency ratings (and they probably don't care).
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The Proline case looks cheap but it performs very well under your test conditions, specially the larger one.
I might skip the smaller one, myself, and pay the extra buck for a Purolator boxed version. Purolator Corporation is under no obligation to use their "97.5%" or "99.9%" medias to make bulk, ultra low-cost filters under other names with no reference to efficiency printed on the box.
Originally Posted By: HyperJinx
River, do you consider the flow rate of the pureone to be a concern or would you say that it is adequate?
Generally, no concern. In some "picky" engines with small filters--maybe.
In my VW van's gauge, I see no difference in after-filter oil pressure with PureONE under all operating conditions compared to other filters. This engine has a small oil pump, but also uses a medium/large PL20195 that is 3" diameter and 4 3/4" long feeding oil to a little 1.6 liter, 4-cylinder engine.
In this case I would say that if a course media filter has, for example, 1/3 of the oil pressure drop of a PureONE, then the P1 maybe be dropping 3 psi out of 60 psi available, where the course filter drops 1 psi--and the gauge won't even show a difference.
My truck uses a smallish filter 3" diameter by 3 1/4" long. Although the OP light (no gauge) goes out right away on start-up with the standard size P1, I do run the oversized 4 3/4" long filter (with the same bypass setting, threads, burst rating, etc.) when I choose a P1...just because I can.
River, do you consider the flow rate of the pureone to be a concern or would you say that it is adequate?
Generally, no concern. In some "picky" engines with small filters--maybe.
In my VW van's gauge, I see no difference in after-filter oil pressure with PureONE under all operating conditions compared to other filters. This engine has a small oil pump, but also uses a medium/large PL20195 that is 3" diameter and 4 3/4" long feeding oil to a little 1.6 liter, 4-cylinder engine.
In this case I would say that if a course media filter has, for example, 1/3 of the oil pressure drop of a PureONE, then the P1 maybe be dropping 3 psi out of 60 psi available, where the course filter drops 1 psi--and the gauge won't even show a difference.
My truck uses a smallish filter 3" diameter by 3 1/4" long. Although the OP light (no gauge) goes out right away on start-up with the standard size P1, I do run the oversized 4 3/4" long filter (with the same bypass setting, threads, burst rating, etc.) when I choose a P1...just because I can.
ThirdeYe and river_rat, I'm also shocked the Honda A01 (Filtech) filtered so poorly, since it's rumored to be so much better than the Honda A02 (Fram). I love watching you debunk the urban legends about oil filters. Also, even the more expensive filters have nowhere to hide in these tests. For so long, we've been prey to Internet rumors...
Last edited:
I received my Denso filters for the 5.0 Mustang and I was suprised. These things are significantly larger than the Napa/Wix and feel twice as heavy. Its easily the largest filter I have ever used on a vehicle. Given what you have reported about them, I believe I will be pleased.
Originally Posted By: Bruce T
For so long, we've been prey to Internet rumors...
Lots of [censored] out there on the units that have no official filtration rating published in a meaningful and complete way. That includes most OEMs.
Doesn't meant they are good or bad, but there is an info vacuum. Denso turns out to be modest in the filtering department but the flow is good. That's OK, but I wanted to know that.
So I figured filters are for filtering--let's do some basic filtering and see how they compare.
That's all.
It's been fun but I got one more and then I really want to put my junk away and clean up my oily-mess of a shop for a while.
For so long, we've been prey to Internet rumors...
Lots of [censored] out there on the units that have no official filtration rating published in a meaningful and complete way. That includes most OEMs.
Doesn't meant they are good or bad, but there is an info vacuum. Denso turns out to be modest in the filtering department but the flow is good. That's OK, but I wanted to know that.
So I figured filters are for filtering--let's do some basic filtering and see how they compare.
That's all.
It's been fun but I got one more and then I really want to put my junk away and clean up my oily-mess of a shop for a while.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Lots of [censored] out there on the units that have no official filtration rating published in a meaningful and complete way. That includes most OEMs.
Doesn't meant they are good or bad, but there is an info vacuum.
Yes, I don't understand the subculture of wannabe experts on the Internet. They publish their suppositions as if they were fact, and mislead thousands of people. Or else they pass on unsubstantiated rumors from other people. It's irresponsible and dangerous. Thanks for cutting through the nonsense with your impartial testing.
Lots of [censored] out there on the units that have no official filtration rating published in a meaningful and complete way. That includes most OEMs.
Doesn't meant they are good or bad, but there is an info vacuum.
Yes, I don't understand the subculture of wannabe experts on the Internet. They publish their suppositions as if they were fact, and mislead thousands of people. Or else they pass on unsubstantiated rumors from other people. It's irresponsible and dangerous. Thanks for cutting through the nonsense with your impartial testing.
+1 It is 10 times worse on most dog forums plus who knows how much astro turf about dog food.
Originally Posted By: HyperJinx
River, do you consider the flow rate of the pureone to be a concern or would you say that it is adequate?
Did you see this thread? ... worth a look if you are concerned about the PureONE's flow performance.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451
River, do you consider the flow rate of the pureone to be a concern or would you say that it is adequate?
Did you see this thread? ... worth a look if you are concerned about the PureONE's flow performance.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: HyperJinx
I received my Denso filters for the 5.0 Mustang and I was suprised. These things are significantly larger than the Napa/Wix and feel twice as heavy. Its easily the largest filter I have ever used on a vehicle. Given what you have reported about them, I believe I will be pleased.
The Donaldson I sent him and he tested is for that same application.
I received my Denso filters for the 5.0 Mustang and I was suprised. These things are significantly larger than the Napa/Wix and feel twice as heavy. Its easily the largest filter I have ever used on a vehicle. Given what you have reported about them, I believe I will be pleased.
The Donaldson I sent him and he tested is for that same application.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Did you see this thread? ... worth a look if you are concerned about the PureONE's flow performance.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451
Thanks for that, I made an Excel graph.
Did you see this thread? ... worth a look if you are concerned about the PureONE's flow performance.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451
Thanks for that, I made an Excel graph.
Here we have two Purolator L10193’s—new and old, and a non-Ecore STP equivalent, courtesy of labman. Thanks labman!
The new Purolator Classic (97.5% efficient) and old Purolator Premium Plus (96% efficient) have the same amount of media, approximately 100 square inches of surface area and 2.6 cu in total. The non-Ecore STP has about 144 sq in of surface area and also 2.6 cu in total…it’s thinner than the Purolators.
The flow rates were all quite good, and a tie for all three in the testing.
It does appear that the new Purolators have improved over the old ones. The New Purolator tied with the STP, and both were superior to the old Purolator:
Filtration results Left to Right: New “Purolator Classic”, (Non-Ecore) STP, Old Purolator “Premium Plus”
These STP's if you can still find them, are very good.
The Puro media does appear to be improved from the old style (and it says so on their website)
The new Purolator Classic (97.5% efficient) and old Purolator Premium Plus (96% efficient) have the same amount of media, approximately 100 square inches of surface area and 2.6 cu in total. The non-Ecore STP has about 144 sq in of surface area and also 2.6 cu in total…it’s thinner than the Purolators.
The flow rates were all quite good, and a tie for all three in the testing.
It does appear that the new Purolators have improved over the old ones. The New Purolator tied with the STP, and both were superior to the old Purolator:
Filtration results Left to Right: New “Purolator Classic”, (Non-Ecore) STP, Old Purolator “Premium Plus”
These STP's if you can still find them, are very good.
The Puro media does appear to be improved from the old style (and it says so on their website)
My AZ had a whole shelf of them both in September when I bought the one I just dissected and Thanksgiving when I bought the one I sent you. Anybody know date codes? I just checked the dome end of the shell of the one I cut open. It starts out 121307H3. If that means it was made 2 years ago, somebody needs better inventory control. I have yet to sort out any rhyme or reason on which Champ numbers are Ecore. I haven't seen any less than 3'' Ecores, but the 3'' and up seem to be a random thing. Is it a matter of what somebody was overstocked in at the time of the change over? If it was volume, I would think the widely used 3593A would be Ecore.
The nice big Pronto, made in America by Hastings, I put on yesterday may be an unfair comparison if it is an oversize. The box has 2 numbers, PO4619 and PO3985. It also lists the following crosses, FL813, PF9, PH3664, L14619, 51626.
The nice big Pronto, made in America by Hastings, I put on yesterday may be an unfair comparison if it is an oversize. The box has 2 numbers, PO4619 and PO3985. It also lists the following crosses, FL813, PF9, PH3664, L14619, 51626.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
The new Purolator Classic (97.5% efficient) and old Purolator Premium Plus (96% efficient) have the same amount of media, approximately 100 square inches of surface area and 2.6 cu in total.
The Puro media does appear to be improved from the old style (and it says so on their website)
I'm glad you tested and confirmed an improved media in the Classic. It was my assumption that just as they had improved the P1's media, they did similarly to the Classic. That appears to be the case.
Several skeptics suggested or intimated that because the Puro site said "same quality product with a new look" that any increase in efficiency 'could be' due to something other than any change in the media. I suppose something like a new way of calculating efficicency, rather than any significant change in the media. The site doesn't specifically say, 'improved media', just a description of the media. Obviously it is improved.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
These STP's if you can still find them, are very good.
Are they discontinuing this STP? Is that STP dome or thread end bypass, just curious?
Thanks for all the testing!
The new Purolator Classic (97.5% efficient) and old Purolator Premium Plus (96% efficient) have the same amount of media, approximately 100 square inches of surface area and 2.6 cu in total.
The Puro media does appear to be improved from the old style (and it says so on their website)
I'm glad you tested and confirmed an improved media in the Classic. It was my assumption that just as they had improved the P1's media, they did similarly to the Classic. That appears to be the case.
Several skeptics suggested or intimated that because the Puro site said "same quality product with a new look" that any increase in efficiency 'could be' due to something other than any change in the media. I suppose something like a new way of calculating efficicency, rather than any significant change in the media. The site doesn't specifically say, 'improved media', just a description of the media. Obviously it is improved.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
These STP's if you can still find them, are very good.
Are they discontinuing this STP? Is that STP dome or thread end bypass, just curious?
Thanks for all the testing!
River rat, I cant find any tests for new ecores, have you done any. I may be able to send you a ST ecore and a AcDelco ecore and maybee a STP one of the same model if i can find it.
Originally Posted By: labman
My AZ had a whole shelf of them both in September when I bought the one I just dissected and Thanksgiving when I bought the one I sent you.
Might want to stock up. I got better results with this than the Ecores I looked at. The Ecores are OK, but this older STP is a good one. Do you know who makes it?
PS
I don't know about Protos, but the Baldwins are pretty good. Cost more though.
My AZ had a whole shelf of them both in September when I bought the one I just dissected and Thanksgiving when I bought the one I sent you.
Might want to stock up. I got better results with this than the Ecores I looked at. The Ecores are OK, but this older STP is a good one. Do you know who makes it?
PS
I don't know about Protos, but the Baldwins are pretty good. Cost more though.
- Status
Similar threads
