Im not saying the engine is garbage yet, I only have 40k on it so far. I use full synthetic and top of the line filters. I hope the car makes it too 100k but I have my doubts. Its funny how the dealership tries to tell me to use nothing but Hyundai filters everytime I go there. There already trying to make an excuse because they know ill be back for something else that's wrong with the junk they sold me.
Hyundai OEM Filter specs
- Thread starter jdmstr22
- Start date
- Status
Oh my word, are you going to start on Maxlife next?
Oh wait....
Originally Posted By: jdmstr22
Found some info in this video feel free to contribute if youknow more specs.
Hyundai spin on filter #26300~35503
Media area ~ 1,120 cm2
Efficiency Ratio~ 99.2% @ 50 UM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEfmPFRaoNo
Wow, that's a very unimpressive efficiency spec. I read somewhere before that the efficiency was not very good, but I didn't know the actual numbers. The Hyundai OEM filters are built like a tank (and that is important), but if they don't filter that well, then they are not doing their job very well ... just my opinion.
Found some info in this video feel free to contribute if youknow more specs.
Hyundai spin on filter #26300~35503
Media area ~ 1,120 cm2
Efficiency Ratio~ 99.2% @ 50 UM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEfmPFRaoNo
Wow, that's a very unimpressive efficiency spec. I read somewhere before that the efficiency was not very good, but I didn't know the actual numbers. The Hyundai OEM filters are built like a tank (and that is important), but if they don't filter that well, then they are not doing their job very well ... just my opinion.
waltywalt, You are right about the engine not making it to 100k - I also had my doubts...they realized
Needed a short block at 96k on my 2012 Kia Forte 2.0L - Supposedly the piston skirts wore out causing piston slap, but it sounded like engine knock to me. Perfect oil change history on the car(but not perfect according to dlundblad) (oh by the way KIA owners...for what its worth, KIA Corporate told me they do not recommend using conventional oil after using synthetic oil. They recommend staying with either conventional or synthetic forever - they said switching back and forth will prematurely wear out the engine)
Originally Posted By: waltywalt
Im not saying the engine is garbage yet, I only have 40k on it so far. I use full synthetic and top of the line filters. I hope the car makes it too 100k but I have my doubts. Its funny how the dealership tries to tell me to use nothing but Hyundai filters everytime I go there. There already trying to make an excuse because they know ill be back for something else that's wrong with the junk they sold me.
Originally Posted By: waltywalt
Im not saying the engine is garbage yet, I only have 40k on it so far. I use full synthetic and top of the line filters. I hope the car makes it too 100k but I have my doubts. Its funny how the dealership tries to tell me to use nothing but Hyundai filters everytime I go there. There already trying to make an excuse because they know ill be back for something else that's wrong with the junk they sold me.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Lin0
waltywalt, You are right about the engine not making it to 100k - I also had my doubts...they realized
Needed a short block at 96k on my 2012 Kia Forte 2.0L - Supposedly the piston skirts wore out causing piston slap, but it sounded like engine knock to me. Perfect oil change history on the car(but not perfect according to dlundblad) (oh by the way KIA owners...for what its worth, KIA Corporate told me they do not recommend using conventional oil after using synthetic oil. They recommend staying with either conventional or synthetic forever - they said switching back and forth will prematurely wear out the engine)
Originally Posted By: waltywalt
Im not saying the engine is garbage yet, I only have 40k on it so far. I use full synthetic and top of the line filters. I hope the car makes it too 100k but I have my doubts. Its funny how the dealership tries to tell me to use nothing but Hyundai filters everytime I go there. There already trying to make an excuse because they know ill be back for something else that's wrong with the junk they sold me.
Oh boy. Here we go with the Hyundai/Kia internet bloviating.
Use high quality aftermarket filters if your heart so desires. I use a K&N HP-1004 on my Optima and a K&N PS-7022 on my 3.3 Santa Fe. The Santa Fe has 182k on it with not a whimper out of the engine. 5w-30 Valvoline Synthetic in both the Kia and Hyundai. My wife beats the snot out of the Santa Fe on the daily, we even pull a 2 horse trailer with it. I'm a Ford lover but that Hyundai has taken a severe beating over the years.
waltywalt, You are right about the engine not making it to 100k - I also had my doubts...they realized
Originally Posted By: waltywalt
Im not saying the engine is garbage yet, I only have 40k on it so far. I use full synthetic and top of the line filters. I hope the car makes it too 100k but I have my doubts. Its funny how the dealership tries to tell me to use nothing but Hyundai filters everytime I go there. There already trying to make an excuse because they know ill be back for something else that's wrong with the junk they sold me.
Oh boy. Here we go with the Hyundai/Kia internet bloviating.
Use high quality aftermarket filters if your heart so desires. I use a K&N HP-1004 on my Optima and a K&N PS-7022 on my 3.3 Santa Fe. The Santa Fe has 182k on it with not a whimper out of the engine. 5w-30 Valvoline Synthetic in both the Kia and Hyundai. My wife beats the snot out of the Santa Fe on the daily, we even pull a 2 horse trailer with it. I'm a Ford lover but that Hyundai has taken a severe beating over the years.
69torino,
I'm gonna help ya out a bit...Your wifes engine was designed during a time when Kia/Hyundai were trying really hard to make a name for themselves - rebuilding their brand. The possible engines in your wifes ride were designed very well with longevity in mind, especially the 2.7L MU 60°V6 which I believe should be a Wards List engine - The bean counters didn't get in the way on the 2.7MU or the 3.3Lambda - I predict your wifes Santa Fe is capable of at least 300K - But the north american line of Kia/Hyundai engine issues have nothing to do with either of your familys vehicles...so all of us 2010-2014 Forte or even Sonata owners are staring at your comment and saying "aww the little ford guy picked a four leaf clover out of the field this morning, how cute!"
I'm gonna help ya out a bit...Your wifes engine was designed during a time when Kia/Hyundai were trying really hard to make a name for themselves - rebuilding their brand. The possible engines in your wifes ride were designed very well with longevity in mind, especially the 2.7L MU 60°V6 which I believe should be a Wards List engine - The bean counters didn't get in the way on the 2.7MU or the 3.3Lambda - I predict your wifes Santa Fe is capable of at least 300K - But the north american line of Kia/Hyundai engine issues have nothing to do with either of your familys vehicles...so all of us 2010-2014 Forte or even Sonata owners are staring at your comment and saying "aww the little ford guy picked a four leaf clover out of the field this morning, how cute!"
Last edited:
I must say I did get a chuckle out of your closing comment. Very witty. Thanks for the smile.
I'm very familiar with the Theta II engine woes, I've been a Kia Master Elite tech a little over 5 years now. Good thing the 2015 Optima in our stable is a lease, right?
I'm very familiar with the Theta II engine woes, I've been a Kia Master Elite tech a little over 5 years now. Good thing the 2015 Optima in our stable is a lease, right?
I got this from somewhere.
Quote:
The Hyundai 26300-5503 oil filter in these pictures is manufactured by the Dongwoo Division of Mann+Hummel AG of Ludwigsburg, Germany. It is engineered specific to Hyundai specifications and has the correct PSI spring pressure, paper media and outlet holes for Hyundai engines. Mann+Hummel is the OEM filter manufacturer for MB, BMW and Audi
Mobil1 filter particle counts:
ISO Code (3): 15/14/12
>= 2 Micron: 479
>= 5 Micron: 177
>= 10 Micron: 49
>= 15 Micron: 19
>= 25 Micron: 4 (typical aftermarket filter rated to 20micron)
>= 50 Micron: 0
>= 100 Micron: 0
Hyundai OEM 26300 35503:
ISO Code (3): 17/17/14
>= 2 Micron: 2474
>= 5 Micron: 916
>= 10 Micron: 253
>= 15 Micron: 98
>= 25 Micron: 23
>= 50 Micron: 2
>= 100 Micron: 0
If you don't want to believe the above data, Hyundai brags about their 50 micron efficiency when most aftermarket filters are rated down to 20-25 micron or less!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEfmPFRaoNo
In the 1988 Correlating Lube Oil Filtration Efficiencies With Engine Wear technical paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE), the relationship between filtration levels and abrasive engine wear was established. Testing determined that wear was reduced by as much as 70 percent by switching from a 40µ filter to a 15µ filter. The SAE conducted tests on a heavy-duty diesel engine and an automotive gasoline engine, and both provided consistent results.
Quote:
The Hyundai 26300-5503 oil filter in these pictures is manufactured by the Dongwoo Division of Mann+Hummel AG of Ludwigsburg, Germany. It is engineered specific to Hyundai specifications and has the correct PSI spring pressure, paper media and outlet holes for Hyundai engines. Mann+Hummel is the OEM filter manufacturer for MB, BMW and Audi
Mobil1 filter particle counts:
ISO Code (3): 15/14/12
>= 2 Micron: 479
>= 5 Micron: 177
>= 10 Micron: 49
>= 15 Micron: 19
>= 25 Micron: 4 (typical aftermarket filter rated to 20micron)
>= 50 Micron: 0
>= 100 Micron: 0
Hyundai OEM 26300 35503:
ISO Code (3): 17/17/14
>= 2 Micron: 2474
>= 5 Micron: 916
>= 10 Micron: 253
>= 15 Micron: 98
>= 25 Micron: 23
>= 50 Micron: 2
>= 100 Micron: 0
If you don't want to believe the above data, Hyundai brags about their 50 micron efficiency when most aftermarket filters are rated down to 20-25 micron or less!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEfmPFRaoNo
In the 1988 Correlating Lube Oil Filtration Efficiencies With Engine Wear technical paper published by the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE), the relationship between filtration levels and abrasive engine wear was established. Testing determined that wear was reduced by as much as 70 percent by switching from a 40µ filter to a 15µ filter. The SAE conducted tests on a heavy-duty diesel engine and an automotive gasoline engine, and both provided consistent results.
in the little video the chart says 99 > 50 microns, but it also could be 99 > 20. On whatever test procedure it was. No one knows, it doesn't say. It only says 99 > 50. Can't assume the % goes down under 50 unless it is shown. May go to 99 > 20 and flat line. Not a lot of headroom over 99%.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99% >50u means just that. It can't magically become 99% > 20u.
Reading will show what I said is correct. It doesn't magically become 20, never was said it did, but it doesn't say ONLY > 50 either. You don't know it isn't also at 20, or what the test was. Another new myth starts based on poor assumptions.
99% >50u means just that. It can't magically become 99% > 20u.
Reading will show what I said is correct. It doesn't magically become 20, never was said it did, but it doesn't say ONLY > 50 either. You don't know it isn't also at 20, or what the test was. Another new myth starts based on poor assumptions.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99% >50u means just that. It can't magically become 99% > 20u.
Reading will show what I said is correct. It doesn't magically become 20, never was said it did, but it doesn't say ONLY > 50 either. You don't know it isn't also at 20, or what the test was. Another new myth starts based on poor assumptions.
If it was 99% >20u it would have said so. Instead it said 99% >50u.
If it's 99% >50u, then it has to be much less than 99% at >20u.
So please explain how the efficiency vs particle size curve/plot could show otherwise.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99% >50u means just that. It can't magically become 99% > 20u.
Reading will show what I said is correct. It doesn't magically become 20, never was said it did, but it doesn't say ONLY > 50 either. You don't know it isn't also at 20, or what the test was. Another new myth starts based on poor assumptions.
If it was 99% >20u it would have said so. Instead it said 99% >50u.
If it's 99% >50u, then it has to be much less than 99% at >20u.
So please explain how the efficiency vs particle size curve/plot could show otherwise.
The only official ratings I've ever seen for the H/K OEM filters have been nominal ones along with the example Shoz posted that you'd gather shows results closer to a typical OEM filter. I personally think the H/K filters are built very well and typically better than many aftermarket filters...but I think their paper media and filtration is much closer to their Toyota/Honda counterparts than a top aftermarket filter.
On the other hand, if you have a filter location that's exposed to any degree, I'd feel a lot safer with the H/K filter there than most aftermarket filters I've used. At that point, microns might not mean **** if a chunk of concrete or heavy road debris is jettisoned into that area of your engine bay. The H/K filters are certainly more "tank-like" than many I've used.
On the other hand, if you have a filter location that's exposed to any degree, I'd feel a lot safer with the H/K filter there than most aftermarket filters I've used. At that point, microns might not mean **** if a chunk of concrete or heavy road debris is jettisoned into that area of your engine bay. The H/K filters are certainly more "tank-like" than many I've used.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99% >50u means just that. It can't magically become 99% > 20u.
Reading will show what I said is correct. It doesn't magically become 20, never was said it did, but it doesn't say ONLY > 50 either. You don't know it isn't also at 20, or what the test was. Another new myth starts based on poor assumptions.
If it was 99% >20u it would have said so. Instead it said 99% >50u.
If it's 99% >50u, then it has to be much less than 99% at >20u.
So please explain how the efficiency vs particle size curve/plot could show otherwise.
Show the graph they made at the 20 mark. You make the claim it's less based on guessing, I make no claim except it isn't known. Show a link to the type of test they used. Already it is assumed to be the USA multi pass test. Context is important, who knows who or what for they put 50 in the video. The efficiency could be 99 >20, flat line at 99, and they chose 50 because the fake filter is so poor it catches zero at 20. Many reasons people do things.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99% >50u means just that. It can't magically become 99% > 20u.
Reading will show what I said is correct. It doesn't magically become 20, never was said it did, but it doesn't say ONLY > 50 either. You don't know it isn't also at 20, or what the test was. Another new myth starts based on poor assumptions.
If it was 99% >20u it would have said so. Instead it said 99% >50u.
If it's 99% >50u, then it has to be much less than 99% at >20u.
So please explain how the efficiency vs particle size curve/plot could show otherwise.
Show the graph they made at the 20 mark. You make the claim it's less based on guessing, I make no claim except it isn't known. Show a link to the type of test they used. Already it is assumed to be the USA multi pass test. Context is important, who knows who or what for they put 50 in the video. The efficiency could be 99 >20, flat line at 99, and they chose 50 because the fake filter is so poor it catches zero at 20. Many reasons people do things.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Show the graph they made at the 20 mark. You make the claim it's less based on guessing, I make no claim except it isn't known. Show a link to the type of test they used. Already it is assumed to be the USA multi pass test. Context is important, who knows who or what for they put 50 in the video. The efficiency could be 99 >20, flat line at 99, and they chose 50 because the fake filter is so poor it catches zero at 20. Many reasons people do things.
Everyone who knows anything about an oil filter's efficiency vs particle size plot knows that if a filter is rated at 99% >50u then it has to be much less efficient at >20u. You've most likely seen the various efficiency vs particle size plots posted from time to time. You seem to think that's not the case here ... if so, then tell why.
And why would they say it's 99% >50u when it really wasn't? Certainly not just for the sake of the fake filter by trying to make their filter look pretty inefficient. Hyundai: "Hey, let's shoot ourselves in the foot because we don't want to make this fake filter look too bad".
Show the graph they made at the 20 mark. You make the claim it's less based on guessing, I make no claim except it isn't known. Show a link to the type of test they used. Already it is assumed to be the USA multi pass test. Context is important, who knows who or what for they put 50 in the video. The efficiency could be 99 >20, flat line at 99, and they chose 50 because the fake filter is so poor it catches zero at 20. Many reasons people do things.
Everyone who knows anything about an oil filter's efficiency vs particle size plot knows that if a filter is rated at 99% >50u then it has to be much less efficient at >20u. You've most likely seen the various efficiency vs particle size plots posted from time to time. You seem to think that's not the case here ... if so, then tell why.
And why would they say it's 99% >50u when it really wasn't? Certainly not just for the sake of the fake filter by trying to make their filter look pretty inefficient. Hyundai: "Hey, let's shoot ourselves in the foot because we don't want to make this fake filter look too bad".
- Status
