Oil Filter Comparison by Filtration, Capacity,Flow
- Thread starter snakyjake
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't that make all our lives a little easier!
Oil filter companies are always tinkering with things. A list would no sooner be made and then be inaccurate.
Oil filter companies are always tinkering with things. A list would no sooner be made and then be inaccurate.
Unfortunately no there isn't but you can save yourself a headache and just buy Fram Ultras and be done with it.
This might help a bit.
http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/index.html
It doesn't cover every filter but it has some decent information.
Cheers.
http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/index.html
It doesn't cover every filter but it has some decent information.
Cheers.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: snakyjake
Is there a compiled list of oil filter that are compared by filtration, capacity, oil flow?
Thanks in advance. Jake.
In terms of the three criteria, you're going to be hard pressed to find full detailed data for all major brands.
Some brands will discuss general statement such as efficiency to ISO protocol, not all will. Heck, there exists silly debate here time and time again about the Fram statement (is it equal to or greater than .....
)
When it comes to capacity, fewer statements exist. Some premium filter will mention their capacity, but typically not the "normal" filters.
When it comes to flow, other brands may make a statement, but not all. Wix will state flow and some other criteria, but they took a "whitewash" approach to the eff a few years back ...
I will say this. Nearly all data I've ever seens shows that flow is NEVER an issue. Just about any filter will flow WAY more than the pump is going to push. A swag on the value would be perhaps 2:1 in terms of flow potential versus pumped volume. IOW - the filter will flow (generally) twice as much as the pump will move. So, in effect, it's moot. What little difference that would exist in flow delta between brands is completely inconsequential.
Same goes for capacity, relative to the application. Over-extending an OCI way past the capacity of a filter will always be a bad idea, but my personal garage testing has shown that even "normal" filters (Puro Classics, MCs) can easily go 2x or 3x the "normal" OCI on a healthy engine. (Nasty sludgers and neglected equipment are excluded). So, again, there is way more capacity in a typical filter than your engine would ever consume. What differences may exist between brands (tier to teir) is simply moot. What loading a FU can hold versus a M1 or other syn media filter is simply silly; they will all hold WAY more than you'll put in there. Same even goes for normal stuff like the OCOD and a Classic and such; they have a really good amount of holding capacity that is likely to never be usurped by your normal OCI. I ran 10k miles on a classic and 15k miles on a MC; neither showed any signs of durress upon teardown.
What I am trying to show is that, regardless of what comparison/contrast you can find, all the major brands are made well enough that they are well more than qualified to work in their intended application. Certainly we have seen various failures of filter media occasionally, from more than one brand. But overall I think the market is well served by the genearal offerings out there. And they are all engineered to serve the intended OCI, and probably well past that "just in case" ....
Is there a compiled list of oil filter that are compared by filtration, capacity, oil flow?
Thanks in advance. Jake.
In terms of the three criteria, you're going to be hard pressed to find full detailed data for all major brands.
Some brands will discuss general statement such as efficiency to ISO protocol, not all will. Heck, there exists silly debate here time and time again about the Fram statement (is it equal to or greater than .....
When it comes to capacity, fewer statements exist. Some premium filter will mention their capacity, but typically not the "normal" filters.
When it comes to flow, other brands may make a statement, but not all. Wix will state flow and some other criteria, but they took a "whitewash" approach to the eff a few years back ...
I will say this. Nearly all data I've ever seens shows that flow is NEVER an issue. Just about any filter will flow WAY more than the pump is going to push. A swag on the value would be perhaps 2:1 in terms of flow potential versus pumped volume. IOW - the filter will flow (generally) twice as much as the pump will move. So, in effect, it's moot. What little difference that would exist in flow delta between brands is completely inconsequential.
Same goes for capacity, relative to the application. Over-extending an OCI way past the capacity of a filter will always be a bad idea, but my personal garage testing has shown that even "normal" filters (Puro Classics, MCs) can easily go 2x or 3x the "normal" OCI on a healthy engine. (Nasty sludgers and neglected equipment are excluded). So, again, there is way more capacity in a typical filter than your engine would ever consume. What differences may exist between brands (tier to teir) is simply moot. What loading a FU can hold versus a M1 or other syn media filter is simply silly; they will all hold WAY more than you'll put in there. Same even goes for normal stuff like the OCOD and a Classic and such; they have a really good amount of holding capacity that is likely to never be usurped by your normal OCI. I ran 10k miles on a classic and 15k miles on a MC; neither showed any signs of durress upon teardown.
What I am trying to show is that, regardless of what comparison/contrast you can find, all the major brands are made well enough that they are well more than qualified to work in their intended application. Certainly we have seen various failures of filter media occasionally, from more than one brand. But overall I think the market is well served by the genearal offerings out there. And they are all engineered to serve the intended OCI, and probably well past that "just in case" ....
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Roob
This might help a bit.
http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/index.html
It doesn't cover every filter but it has some decent information.
Cheers.
That filter comparison is good. The Ease of Flow list would be very useful to those in and above the salt belt.
This might help a bit.
http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/index.html
It doesn't cover every filter but it has some decent information.
Cheers.
That filter comparison is good. The Ease of Flow list would be very useful to those in and above the salt belt.
Originally Posted By: Roob
This might help a bit.
http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/index.html
It doesn't cover every filter but it has some decent information.
Cheers.
This one may also be of interest.
GM Truck Cenral
This might help a bit.
http://filtrationcomparisons.weebly.com/index.html
It doesn't cover every filter but it has some decent information.
Cheers.
This one may also be of interest.
GM Truck Cenral
Of the two links listed above, both of which have been oft discussed in the past, I'll take river_rat's work, (Filtration Comparisons from the Bench) head and shoulders over the GMC patch test. Here's why.
Much of the GMC patch test results are directly disputed by ISO 4548-12 filtration testing. Filters with the same media like orange can/high mileage, Napa Gold/Wix show different results. And filters with higher rated efficiency like P1 show lower results than Classic.
Otoh, r_r's results actually align with ISO filter test results. And in the case of the no endcap filters like Toyota Denso oem was predictive. His results showed them to be much less efficient and favor flow. That was later confirmed by Amsoils ISO testing showing the Denso OEM to be in the 50%@20um range. Fairly amazing imo.
Tha said, really only the ISO efficiency filter testing results and holding capacity specs are the final say if thay are published or available. As for flow, been said many times here, in pc use an insignificant consideration.
Much of the GMC patch test results are directly disputed by ISO 4548-12 filtration testing. Filters with the same media like orange can/high mileage, Napa Gold/Wix show different results. And filters with higher rated efficiency like P1 show lower results than Classic.
Otoh, r_r's results actually align with ISO filter test results. And in the case of the no endcap filters like Toyota Denso oem was predictive. His results showed them to be much less efficient and favor flow. That was later confirmed by Amsoils ISO testing showing the Denso OEM to be in the 50%@20um range. Fairly amazing imo.
Tha said, really only the ISO efficiency filter testing results and holding capacity specs are the final say if thay are published or available. As for flow, been said many times here, in pc use an insignificant consideration.
Here is the best oil filter overview of performance factors I have come across.
Anatomy of an Oil Filter
With the very low temperatures this last week I also feel this likely applies to the multiple PL10241 fatigue cracks (in the wide spaces pleats) I have experienced.
" Cold Oil and High Viscosity Start-Ups
Engine and hydraulic filters are subjected to varying temperature changes and pressure surges. The resulting increased differential pressures across the element can cause deformation or separation of the filter media pleats if the pleats are not properly supported and designed. This will result in an ineffective filter."
Factors That Affect Oil Filtration
I also won't dismiss Honda and Toyota(Denso) for apparently focusing on flow over finer micron filtration. Maybe filtration is better than bypass (neglected changes, cold starts, media damage, other?)
Anatomy of an Oil Filter
With the very low temperatures this last week I also feel this likely applies to the multiple PL10241 fatigue cracks (in the wide spaces pleats) I have experienced.
" Cold Oil and High Viscosity Start-Ups
Engine and hydraulic filters are subjected to varying temperature changes and pressure surges. The resulting increased differential pressures across the element can cause deformation or separation of the filter media pleats if the pleats are not properly supported and designed. This will result in an ineffective filter."
Factors That Affect Oil Filtration
I also won't dismiss Honda and Toyota(Denso) for apparently focusing on flow over finer micron filtration. Maybe filtration is better than bypass (neglected changes, cold starts, media damage, other?)
Interesting that the flow test shows that the Fram Extended Guard's flow is among the worst. This contradicts to the general belief here on Bitog that the Fram Ultra flows well. It is a gravity test but all other filters are pretty much in line with the expectations except the Fram EG (Ultra).
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
^^^^^Fram extended guard is not the Ultra and that is old info. No need the wonder about the Ultra's performance as many details including flow, delta p, and efficiency are posted on here.
+1
^^^^^Fram extended guard is not the Ultra and that is old info. No need the wonder about the Ultra's performance as many details including flow, delta p, and efficiency are posted on here.
+1
Ok, you convinced me to give the Fram Ultra a try. I have just installed the filter on my Subaru BRZ. Haven't have a cold start yet. Everything seems normal when the engine is running. So I have converted both of my cars (Renault has had the Ultra for a few years but it's a low RPM engine) to the Ultra. I was reluctant to use it in a presumably high flow Subaru engine. Hope it will be fine.
Originally Posted By: Ded Mazai
Ok, you convinced me to give the Fram Ultra a try. I have just installed the filter on my Subaru BRZ. Haven't have a cold start yet. Everything seems normal when the engine is running. So I have converted both of my cars (Renault has had the Ultra for a few years but it's a low RPM engine) to the Ultra. I was reluctant to use it in a presumably high flow Subaru engine. Hope it will be fine.
The Ultra is full synthetic media, so it will flow very well ... no worries.
Ok, you convinced me to give the Fram Ultra a try. I have just installed the filter on my Subaru BRZ. Haven't have a cold start yet. Everything seems normal when the engine is running. So I have converted both of my cars (Renault has had the Ultra for a few years but it's a low RPM engine) to the Ultra. I was reluctant to use it in a presumably high flow Subaru engine. Hope it will be fine.
The Ultra is full synthetic media, so it will flow very well ... no worries.
- Status
Similar threads
