Notice the AmsOil is right between the Purolator Classic and PureOne in the test, but not in the "filtering" grade?
New Oil Filter Study
- Thread starter Boomer
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I found it kind of odd that the Purolator Classic 34631 seemed to filter better than the PureOne 34631.
Yeah me too, and how does the ProSelect flter better than the Gold?
Just look at the media. I think it is a good test in general, but there are some anamolies there that would probably disappear in repeated tests.
I found it kind of odd that the Purolator Classic 34631 seemed to filter better than the PureOne 34631.
Yeah me too, and how does the ProSelect flter better than the Gold?
Just look at the media. I think it is a good test in general, but there are some anamolies there that would probably disappear in repeated tests.
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Yeah me too, and how does the ProSelect flter better than the Gold?
Just look at the media. I think it is a good test in general, but there are some anamolies there that would probably disappear in repeated tests.
...or in plain real-world, real-time application on each of our cars. Napa Gold, PureONE are better than their 'entry' level counterparts.
Yeah me too, and how does the ProSelect flter better than the Gold?
Just look at the media. I think it is a good test in general, but there are some anamolies there that would probably disappear in repeated tests.
...or in plain real-world, real-time application on each of our cars. Napa Gold, PureONE are better than their 'entry' level counterparts.
yeah thanks for the info., but price/grade is funny= a one dollar increase from a m1 to K&N, and it goes from D to F...
Do we know if those numbers reflect the amount of contaminates passed or the amount used for the test? I find it hard to argue that the ACDelco has the worst looking lab filter paper but it also one of the smallest mass numbers. So is that number what was put in, what was filtered out or what passed through?
For the price, I'll stick with Purolator P1's. Right now, I've got and M1 filter on the car, only because it was on sale with the M1 oil at auto zone.
Originally Posted By: cp3
Do we know if those numbers reflect the amount of contaminates passed or the amount used for the test? I find it hard to argue that the ACDelco has the worst looking lab filter paper but it also one of the smallest mass numbers. So is that number what was put in, what was filtered out or what passed through?
I was wondering this myself because as the Amsoil filter got the highest "grade" for filtration, its "contaminant mass" figure is neither the highest or lowest. That being the case, which is the figure we're to compare one another that indicates one being better than the next?
Do we know if those numbers reflect the amount of contaminates passed or the amount used for the test? I find it hard to argue that the ACDelco has the worst looking lab filter paper but it also one of the smallest mass numbers. So is that number what was put in, what was filtered out or what passed through?
I was wondering this myself because as the Amsoil filter got the highest "grade" for filtration, its "contaminant mass" figure is neither the highest or lowest. That being the case, which is the figure we're to compare one another that indicates one being better than the next?
Very interesting read. The almighty and revered P1 didn't do quite as well as its reputation here. Perhaps the saying is true they you get what you pay for. The Mobil filter did well. It is very often priced with Mobil and/or other synthetics for about $30 with 5 quarts which would put it at about $5.00. I agree that the grading system was subjective and could have been different. Also I am sad that a Bosch Distance wasn't tested. I would assume that it would have done well.
Last edited:
From the thoughts here, and my own, I wouldn't be swayed at all by this test into thinking which filter is better than another, at filtering. It was a good effort, can't knock that. The pics are nice to see. I doubt the can thickness data is something to quote on as well.
Quote:
Do we know if those numbers reflect the amount of contaminates passed or the amount used for the test?
With some time to look closer, I now believe it is the amount of contaminate used. Meaning that the 30um results are based on the author's rating of the images on the filter paper.
As others have mentioned, skeptical of results showing the Classic performing better (substantially) than a P1. But this particular one time experimental procedure, doesn't change my opinion of P1. For those that remember, river rat also did his own experimental oil filter study in which the P1 did well. I suspect those that liked P1 for price for filtration will continue to do so, and for those that didn't, this will do nothing to change their mind either.
But yes, nice dissection pics, spreadsheet and effort. Kinda funny he calls the Fram endcaps cardboard.
Do we know if those numbers reflect the amount of contaminates passed or the amount used for the test?
With some time to look closer, I now believe it is the amount of contaminate used. Meaning that the 30um results are based on the author's rating of the images on the filter paper.
As others have mentioned, skeptical of results showing the Classic performing better (substantially) than a P1. But this particular one time experimental procedure, doesn't change my opinion of P1. For those that remember, river rat also did his own experimental oil filter study in which the P1 did well. I suspect those that liked P1 for price for filtration will continue to do so, and for those that didn't, this will do nothing to change their mind either.
But yes, nice dissection pics, spreadsheet and effort. Kinda funny he calls the Fram endcaps cardboard.
I was under the impression that filter makers use 20um test material for their filtering ratings.
I also tend to think that the Quaker State filters would be equal to the Shell filter (by Purolator).
I also tend to think that the Quaker State filters would be equal to the Shell filter (by Purolator).
Originally Posted By: Capa
Very interesting read. The almighty and revered P1 didn't do quite as well as its reputation here.
Looks like something is flawed in the testing methodology here. I highly doubt a guys garage lab test setup is going to give more accurate and definitive information than a main stream filter manufacture's certified lab testing.
When the PureOne is ranked 15 filters below the Classic in the filtering test, something is suspect IMO.
Very interesting read. The almighty and revered P1 didn't do quite as well as its reputation here.
Looks like something is flawed in the testing methodology here. I highly doubt a guys garage lab test setup is going to give more accurate and definitive information than a main stream filter manufacture's certified lab testing.
When the PureOne is ranked 15 filters below the Classic in the filtering test, something is suspect IMO.
If you read it on the internet it has to be true.
It's possible the P1 they tested was flawed from the outset. All of these makers will occasionally create an anomaly. The best test would have been to utilize a good quantity of each, but that would have been very expensive. Let's keep in mind also that the P1 is substantially cheaper and therefore it would be unrealistic to expect it to outperform in every or most categories filters 2-3 times more expensive.
Also keep in mind that just because P1 claims great filtration doesn't necessarily mean that it is 100% accurate. We need to be wary of marketing tactics (like T-Mobile consistent claims that they are the biggest 4G network when they aren't). Just because a company states something doesn't mean that it is true. That said, any of these filters would be fine for a short to medium OCI. Personally, I would only do an extended OCI with a filter that is sold as such (and P1 isn't); filters like Bosch Distant Plus, Fram Extended Guard, and Mobil EP would fit the bill.
Also keep in mind that just because P1 claims great filtration doesn't necessarily mean that it is 100% accurate. We need to be wary of marketing tactics (like T-Mobile consistent claims that they are the biggest 4G network when they aren't). Just because a company states something doesn't mean that it is true. That said, any of these filters would be fine for a short to medium OCI. Personally, I would only do an extended OCI with a filter that is sold as such (and P1 isn't); filters like Bosch Distant Plus, Fram Extended Guard, and Mobil EP would fit the bill.
Which filter do we use to allow our engine to outlast the ownership of the vehicle?
I find it hard to believe that filters vary enough in production to justify multiple units for that test, especially seeing as he only tested a piece of the media.
This test only shows a certain particle size filtering ability but add Greases filter test and River Rats filter test and the info we get from btanchors ,gives us at least a guide line to see what the filters do. They seem to be better than what the filter manufactures give us. I have enjoyed the mentioned testing. Thanks to all the authors of the tests.
Originally Posted By: Capa
Also keep in mind that just because P1 claims great filtration doesn't necessarily mean that it is 100% accurate. We need to be wary of marketing tactics (like T-Mobile consistent claims that they are the biggest 4G network when they aren't). Just because a company states something doesn't mean that it is true.
It better be true, or they have the possibility of getting sued over false advertising.
If Purolator or Mobil 1 or Motorcraft advertise a spec that is based on some kind of certified testing standard/procedure, then I have some pretty good confidence that it is true ... unlike some data gleaned from some kind of "home experiment testing".
If at home testing basically correlates with what the manufacture's claim, then hey ... it just backs up the numbers from the manufacturer's. But if the home testing data refutes the manufacture's data, then I have to go with the manufacture's claims.
Also keep in mind that just because P1 claims great filtration doesn't necessarily mean that it is 100% accurate. We need to be wary of marketing tactics (like T-Mobile consistent claims that they are the biggest 4G network when they aren't). Just because a company states something doesn't mean that it is true.
It better be true, or they have the possibility of getting sued over false advertising.
If Purolator or Mobil 1 or Motorcraft advertise a spec that is based on some kind of certified testing standard/procedure, then I have some pretty good confidence that it is true ... unlike some data gleaned from some kind of "home experiment testing".
If at home testing basically correlates with what the manufacture's claim, then hey ... it just backs up the numbers from the manufacturer's. But if the home testing data refutes the manufacture's data, then I have to go with the manufacture's claims.
Great info--thanks for sharing
quite refreshing to see the REVERED WIX an NAPA's are,---no more than middle of the road, as I suspected
Wonder how many STP filters will be ripped from their mounting pads with utter disgust after reading this? Pobably get used for target practice as well
Steve
P1 user
quite refreshing to see the REVERED WIX an NAPA's are,---no more than middle of the road, as I suspected
Wonder how many STP filters will be ripped from their mounting pads with utter disgust after reading this? Pobably get used for target practice as well
Steve
P1 user
lol, NG/WIX has always been on par with Purolator in my book. They've always been priced as middle of the road filters. The best filters in the study, the Amsoil, K&N, Royal Purple etc. are all the priciest filters. If the study is accurate, their final grades correspond well to actual filter price, with the Fram's best filters perhaps being the only few 'shockers', though most knew they were solid products.
- Status
