nifty read on filters
- Thread starter GumbyJarvis
- Start date
- Status
yep cool test. The one thing that stood out and was pondered over was how in the world did the purolator classic perform better than the pureone?
Not sure how I feel about that.
Either way I like seeing the homemade tests. brownie points for those that do it.
edit: just saw they did a air filter test also. the classic also out performed the P1 airfilter. what the heck?
Not sure how I feel about that.
Either way I like seeing the homemade tests. brownie points for those that do it.
edit: just saw they did a air filter test also. the classic also out performed the P1 airfilter. what the heck?
Last edited:
This one's been around for a long time, right? I think I remember seeing it some time ago.
Interesting, the synthetic media's look a lot better, & most of the paper medias have similar results.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
This one's been around for a long time, right? I think I remember seeing it some time ago.
From the website: "Study conducted throughout January of 2011 and published February 2011."
Just a year and a few months ago.
Keith
This one's been around for a long time, right? I think I remember seeing it some time ago.
From the website: "Study conducted throughout January of 2011 and published February 2011."
Just a year and a few months ago.
Keith
Originally Posted By: KB2008X
Originally Posted By: Stelth
This one's been around for a long time, right? I think I remember seeing it some time ago.
From the website: "Study conducted throughout January of 2011 and published February 2011."
Just a year and a few months ago.
Keith
Oh, OK. I must be confusing it with.something else, or my CRS is acting up again.
Originally Posted By: Stelth
This one's been around for a long time, right? I think I remember seeing it some time ago.
From the website: "Study conducted throughout January of 2011 and published February 2011."
Just a year and a few months ago.
Keith
Oh, OK. I must be confusing it with.something else, or my CRS is acting up again.
Originally Posted By: Texan4Life
yep cool test. The one thing that stood out and was pondered over was how in the world did the purolator classic perform better than the pureone?
Or how the NAPA Pro Select beat the NAPA Gold???
yep cool test. The one thing that stood out and was pondered over was how in the world did the purolator classic perform better than the pureone?
Or how the NAPA Pro Select beat the NAPA Gold???
Been posted here before, several times. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2168298&page=1
Reading that thread, at first glance the patch test appeared to be something that could be used to judge filters. Upon further review though, based on the results, the test validity and reliability were debunked.
Several filters using the exact same media, eg., Fram Extra Guard/High Mileage, Wix/NapaGold showed very different 'patch test' results.
Also Puro Classic showed significantly better results than P1. And as mentioned above, Pro Select showed better results than Napa Gold. Subjective uncontrolled patch test results don't invalidate ISO Testing done in a lab.
So, the best part of the testing is the dissection pics, excellent. The 'patch test' results, unreliable.
The best testing of filters I've seen done relatively recently was done by Bitog member river_rat. And interestingly, his results confirmed much of the ISO test results and performance ratings of oil filters. And, one of his testing results showed that oem filters deigned similar to Toyota oil filters,, no end cap type, aren't very efficient. A result that has been recently confirmed by the Amsoil test of oem filters.
Links to the testing thread and summary site link are posted below.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1693153&page=1
Oil Filter Comparisons from the Workbench, Summary
Reading that thread, at first glance the patch test appeared to be something that could be used to judge filters. Upon further review though, based on the results, the test validity and reliability were debunked.
Several filters using the exact same media, eg., Fram Extra Guard/High Mileage, Wix/NapaGold showed very different 'patch test' results.
Also Puro Classic showed significantly better results than P1. And as mentioned above, Pro Select showed better results than Napa Gold. Subjective uncontrolled patch test results don't invalidate ISO Testing done in a lab.
So, the best part of the testing is the dissection pics, excellent. The 'patch test' results, unreliable.
The best testing of filters I've seen done relatively recently was done by Bitog member river_rat. And interestingly, his results confirmed much of the ISO test results and performance ratings of oil filters. And, one of his testing results showed that oem filters deigned similar to Toyota oil filters,, no end cap type, aren't very efficient. A result that has been recently confirmed by the Amsoil test of oem filters.
Links to the testing thread and summary site link are posted below.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1693153&page=1
Oil Filter Comparisons from the Workbench, Summary
Another irrelevant, unreliable test, though I applaud the effort and energy that went into it. The results are not comparable to any industry data and ISO standards. In other words, interesting snapshot but it's a little too blurry to gain anything useful from. I agree with sayjac.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
In other words, interesting snapshot but it's a little too blurry to gain anything useful from. I agree with sayjac.
The only thing I really liked was the photos of the construction. It's a good resource for that, and specifically for the application he chose. Aside from that, not so much.
In other words, interesting snapshot but it's a little too blurry to gain anything useful from. I agree with sayjac.
The only thing I really liked was the photos of the construction. It's a good resource for that, and specifically for the application he chose. Aside from that, not so much.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Another irrelevant, unreliable test, though I applaud the effort and energy that went into it. The results are not comparable to any industry data and ISO standards. In other words, interesting snapshot but it's a little too blurry to gain anything useful from. I agree with sayjac.
But does that mean the over whelming synthetic filter media results are bogus?
I think not. Considering most of the paper media results look awfully similar........and not nearly as good.
Another irrelevant, unreliable test, though I applaud the effort and energy that went into it. The results are not comparable to any industry data and ISO standards. In other words, interesting snapshot but it's a little too blurry to gain anything useful from. I agree with sayjac.
But does that mean the over whelming synthetic filter media results are bogus?
I think not. Considering most of the paper media results look awfully similar........and not nearly as good.
Who said anything about bogus. All I said is irrelevant, unreliable and not comparable to any industry standard tests. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the general conclusions but you have to arrive at them in the right way.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Oil Filter Comparisons from the Workbench, Summary
Very interesting thanks.
Oil Filter Comparisons from the Workbench, Summary
Very interesting thanks.
^^^^All the thanks are really to river_rat. And, the more I see these different oil filter "test" efforts the more I appreciate the work he did and the accuracy of the conclusions he reached. The Amsoil testing confirmation of the efficiency of oem filters of the Toyota design, with no previous published efficiency rating, is an excellent example.
As for the topic'd 'test', not disputing his conclusion that synthetic oil filters appeared to do well in 'his patch test'. But, the conclusion that they are more efficient than some cellulose or synthetic blend filters aren't proven by his testing. There's too many inconsistencies in the overall patch test results to reach that conclusion. And, the overall results aren't supported by ISO testing, in fact, many are directly disputed. But as said, a commendable effort, with some excellent dissection pics.
As for the topic'd 'test', not disputing his conclusion that synthetic oil filters appeared to do well in 'his patch test'. But, the conclusion that they are more efficient than some cellulose or synthetic blend filters aren't proven by his testing. There's too many inconsistencies in the overall patch test results to reach that conclusion. And, the overall results aren't supported by ISO testing, in fact, many are directly disputed. But as said, a commendable effort, with some excellent dissection pics.
Also, high efficiency isn't exclusive to synthetic media. You can have a high efficiency cellulose media. You just need to have more square inches of it because it's a surface-loaded media and loads faster rather than a depth media like most synthetics. And just like synthetic oils, there can be some that are at the low-rent end of their class.
On the first article, I think their 30 micron test was a little harshly rated. I don't think any filter really did BAD, but they were handing out D's like Halloween candy. In an ideal world, just like an air filter, it gets better once it get a bit dirty to start with.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
^^^^All the thanks are really to river_rat. And, the more I see these different oil filter "test" efforts the more I appreciate the work he did and the accuracy of the conclusions he reached. The Amsoil testing confirmation of the efficiency of oem filters of the Toyota design, with no previous published efficiency rating, is an excellent example.
+1 ... river_rat did an awesome job of comparing filters IMO. And yes, there is a good correlation on the Toyota filter between what river_rat showed and what the ISO test showed in the Amsoil comparison chart. In fact, it was after I saw river_rat's testing that I decided to stop using the Toyota filter on my Tacoma and go with a PureOne instead. Seeing the Amsoil chart just confirmed my decision.
^^^^All the thanks are really to river_rat. And, the more I see these different oil filter "test" efforts the more I appreciate the work he did and the accuracy of the conclusions he reached. The Amsoil testing confirmation of the efficiency of oem filters of the Toyota design, with no previous published efficiency rating, is an excellent example.
+1 ... river_rat did an awesome job of comparing filters IMO. And yes, there is a good correlation on the Toyota filter between what river_rat showed and what the ISO test showed in the Amsoil comparison chart. In fact, it was after I saw river_rat's testing that I decided to stop using the Toyota filter on my Tacoma and go with a PureOne instead. Seeing the Amsoil chart just confirmed my decision.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Also, high efficiency isn't exclusive to synthetic media. You can have a high efficiency cellulose media. You just need to have more square inches of it because it's a surface-loaded media and loads faster rather than a depth media like most synthetics. And just like synthetic oils, there can be some that are at the low-rent end of their class.
Excellent reminders.
Also, high efficiency isn't exclusive to synthetic media. You can have a high efficiency cellulose media. You just need to have more square inches of it because it's a surface-loaded media and loads faster rather than a depth media like most synthetics. And just like synthetic oils, there can be some that are at the low-rent end of their class.
Excellent reminders.
- Status
