Please Rank These Fully Synthetic Oil Filters

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: Kuato
They should have ratings for 20, 10, and 5 µm right on the box for when the filter is new. But since there are so many sheeple out there that don't know or don't care or don't care to know they will just go with whatever advertising works best for the masses

The sheeple observation is why I think Fram is crazy to offer a $9 oil filter that performs this well and doesn't use paper media or blended glass-paper media. Its bad business. Good for us, yes, yet thats a profit-generating company. They should offer a merely slightly upgraded ToughGaurd and call it an Ultra to compete against the paper-glass Mobil1 filter, and market it in ambiguous terms to appeal to sheeple. Right now, the Ultra competes on the shelf (to ignorant consumers) with M1 Ext Perf oil filters, and people don't know the difference in construction or performance. Bad marketing position with a superior product. Glad they do it though!!!


Bad marketing or striving to gain market share and customer loyalty?

 

[JustN89]

Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: Kuato
They should have ratings for 20, 10, and 5 µm right on the box for when the filter is new. But since there are so many sheeple out there that don't know or don't care or don't care to know they will just go with whatever advertising works best for the masses

The sheeple observation is why I think Fram is crazy to offer a $9 oil filter that performs this well and doesn't use paper media or blended glass-paper media. Its bad business. Good for us, yes, yet thats a profit-generating company. They should offer a merely slightly upgraded ToughGaurd and call it an Ultra to compete against the paper-glass Mobil1 filter, and market it in ambiguous terms to appeal to sheeple. Right now, the Ultra competes on the shelf (to ignorant consumers) with M1 Ext Perf oil filters, and people don't know the difference in construction or performance. Bad marketing position with a superior product. Glad they do it though!!!


Bad marketing or striving to gain market share and customer loyalty?

This right here.

I really like the Fram Ultra filter. The reason I keep buying it, however, is the price. If they raised the price up to Amsoil or M1 or RP levels, there are better values out there that I would lean towards. Now, if they keep it priced this way and continue producing such high quality, I have no reason to go with any other filter.

 

[gaijinnv]

Originally Posted By: Gebo
I only have the option of using these synthetic media oil filters. Please rank these with your first choice first, second choice second, etc. I'd rather limit any discussion to just these oil filters as these are the only ones I would consider purchasing. I know there may be some other great synthetic media oil filters but I only want your opinion about these specific ones. If you have reasons, you could type them beside them. For example, too expensive, hard to purchase, cheaply made, inferior bypass valve, cheaper anti-drainback valve, etc.


Listed in alphabetical order.

Amsoil EAO
Fram Ultra
Napa Platinum
TRD
Wix XP


For use in ALL your Toyota vehicles, and available from your local dealer or online vendors, my preferences would be:

TRD
TRD
TRD
TRD
TRD

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Bad marketing or striving to gain market share and customer loyalty?

Bad marketing. Most people go into Walmart or look on Amazon, and see an Ultra, a Bosch Premium, and the M1 Ext Perf. They want a good one in their mind. They don't see a difference between the performance of all three. They think they need to match up "synthetic oil with a synthetic oil filter" and equate synthetic blend oil filter media with the full-syn Ultra media. Mobil further confuses the consumer because they have an excellent M1 Ann Prot oil that is colored the same as their "matching" M1 Ext Perf oil filter, so people think they should "match".

My point is few people (DIYers) see the differences. Also, when have you seen a Lube Shop offer Ultra's???? Never. They go cheap at Lube Shops and dealerships cuz they know people don't care. Mobil1 lube shops use M1 Ext Perf oil filters because it "matches".

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: blupupher
From your list:

1: Fram Ultra - readily available, cheapest regular retail price, excellent published filtration, excellent flow

2: Amsoil EAO - cost a little more than the Fram, may be harder to get "right this second", not sure of actual filtration and flow, but is supposed to be good.

3: NAPA Platinum/Wix XP: Same filter. Can be found for good price on sale, readily available, seems filtration numbers are not as good as other synthetic media filters.

4: TRD - No idea on price, availability or filtration. It may be a really good filter, I just don't know any info on it.


This ...... +1

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: StevieC
2-Ply and as thick doesn't assure microscopic filtration. We can't see what's going on at the 20um level.

The Ultra is thicker, not just "as thick" as the others. Secondly, 4548-12 results for the Ultra correlates well with what we see. It simply performs better. Thirdly, we can do other visual inspections to see how all-synthetic fibers are thinner individual fibers and therefore trap more at the same flow rates across the media. This is a comparison at the same magnification of synth vs. paper filters:

Notice the synth on the left traps smaller particles while preserving adequate flow rates. In other words, at the same flow rates, the synth fiber filters better.


I wouldn't jump to conclusions as fast. The cellulose fibers random nature is good. Nothing beats nature. Those large fibers absorb water and hold it, and particles impinging on a thick fiber can be trapped. With synthetic, water is not held, and particles don't impinge into the fiber. I think a blend may be the best filter choice. Everything may not be so simple as it seems in a picture.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: StevieC
2-Ply and as thick doesn't assure microscopic filtration. We can't see what's going on at the 20um level.

That's where the Ultra's 99+% efficiency is rated at, so you are seeing what's going on at 20 microns.

Another thing to note is the efficiency vs particle size curve shape can be somewhat different for all full synthetic media filters. So a filter that is say 99% at 20 microns may not also be 80% at 5 microns, but others would be.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Yes the Fram site only claims 99% at 20 microns. This is the big problem there is no industry standard and of lot of them are jacking us around playing their little marketing games. The rating should be required on the box using the same standard to achieve that rating.


The accepted and latest "industry standard" to determine oil filter efficiency is ISO 4548-12, which Fram and a few others test to and reference in their claims. Other companies that don't list a standard, or just list a percentage efficiency without a corresponding micron rating are the ones playing little marketing games.


I'm not so sure the 4548-12 tells the whole story, but would certainly agree its bitogs favorite single point go to test, at the moment at least.

Take in point the Cummins Strata Pour Venturi 2 stage filter they claim is both full flow and scrubs to 5 microns in its second stage but offer no 4548-12 number?
Is is the held view of the "4548-12ers" , that Cummins are hiding something or lying about its capabilities or playing a marketing game?

Or is there something possibly something inherent with a 2 stage design that isn't immediately obvious in a 4548-12 alone?

UD


What spec does Cummins reference, if any? They could certainly test to ISO 4548-12 but not show it in their consumer information.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Napa Platinum and Wix XP are the same, except the name

Fram Ultra is #1 on that list. Best price/availability, has that helpful suregrip, good stuff. And if you don;t need the grippy end, and you buy a case at a time, you can get them even cheaper as the Fram Pro Synthetic FPS

$2 is Napa Platinum/Wix XP. Price can be as good as Fram Ultra, but only when on sale. Otherwise, a few dollars extra.

#3 is Amsoil/TRD/RP much more expensive, harder to find, not worth it for a filter no better than Fram Ultra and Wix XP

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
#3 is Amsoil/TRD/RP much more expensive, harder to find, not worth it for a filter no better than Fram Ultra and Wix XP.

How are these #3 when their efficiency is almost twice as good as the WIX/NAPA?

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog

#3 is Amsoil/TRD/RP much more expensive, harder to find, not worth it for a filter no better than Fram Ultra and Wix XP.

How are these #3 when their efficiency is almost twice as good as the WIX/NAPA?

That's the same thing I was thinking ZeeOSix.

 

[StevieC]

S
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: StevieC
2-Ply and as thick doesn't assure microscopic filtration. We can't see what's going on at the 20um level.

The Ultra is thicker, not just "as thick" as the others. Secondly, 4548-12 results for the Ultra correlates well with what we see. It simply performs better. Thirdly, we can do other visual inspections to see how all-synthetic fibers are thinner individual fibers and therefore trap more at the same flow rates across the media. This is a comparison at the same magnification of synth vs. paper filters:

Notice the synth on the left traps smaller particles while preserving adequate flow rates. In other words, at the same flow rates, the synth fiber filters better.


Sorry I read your post wrong then. I agree with what you are saying here...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: StevieC
2-Ply and as thick doesn't assure microscopic filtration. We can't see what's going on at the 20um level.

The Ultra is thicker, not just "as thick" as the others. Secondly, 4548-12 results for the Ultra correlates well with what we see. It simply performs better. Thirdly, we can do other visual inspections to see how all-synthetic fibers are thinner individual fibers and therefore trap more at the same flow rates across the media. This is a comparison at the same magnification of synth vs. paper filters:

Notice the synth on the left traps smaller particles while preserving adequate flow rates. In other words, at the same flow rates, the synth fiber filters better.


I wouldn't jump to conclusions as fast. The cellulose fibers random nature is good. Nothing beats nature. Those large fibers absorb water and hold it, and particles impinging on a thick fiber can be trapped. With synthetic, water is not held, and particles don't impinge into the fiber. I think a blend may be the best filter choice. Everything may not be so simple as it seems in a picture.


The full synthetic media fibers are just as random if not more (due to it's larger depth), and therefore catches just as well or better because the effective "pore size" is also smaller as seen in the side by side comparison shots. Frankly, I don't want my filter to trap water because it seems to warp the media in cellulose filters. Besides, if the car is driven enough to burn off all the moisture in the crankcase then the filter shouldn't be holding water.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Yes the Fram site only claims 99% at 20 microns. This is the big problem there is no industry standard and of lot of them are jacking us around playing their little marketing games. The rating should be required on the box using the same standard to achieve that rating.


The accepted and latest "industry standard" to determine oil filter efficiency is ISO 4548-12, which Fram and a few others test to and reference in their claims. Other companies that don't list a standard, or just list a percentage efficiency without a corresponding micron rating are the ones playing little marketing games.


I'm not so sure the 4548-12 tells the whole story, but would certainly agree its bitogs favorite single point go to test, at the moment at least.

Take in point the Cummins Strata Pour Venturi 2 stage filter they claim is both full flow and scrubs to 5 microns in its second stage but offer no 4548-12 number?
Is is the held view of the "4548-12ers" , that Cummins are hiding something or lying about its capabilities or playing a marketing game?

Or is there something possibly something inherent with a 2 stage design that isn't immediately obvious in a 4548-12 alone?

UD


What spec does Cummins reference, if any? They could certainly test to ISO 4548-12 but not show it in their consumer information.


I can find no spec on it other than their claim it filters to 5 microns through a combination of full flow and stacked disk media.
Certainly doesn't mean there isn't one, but I can't find it.



UD

 

[UncleDave]

https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/sites/default/files/LT32599_03_0.pdf

This is an interesting read, and snippet from here.

"Laboratory test results, with test dust, do not tell the whole story about the performance of an optimized oil filter "



UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/sites/default/files/LT32599_03_0.pdf

This is an interesting read, and snippet from here.

"Laboratory test results, with test dust, do not tell the whole story about the performance of an optimized oil filter "

UD

So that statement is on page 3-18 with some graphs. Are they trying to say that there's a difference between how a filter performs based on if the particles are organic or inorganic and the ISO dust test doesn't show that? Hard to tell. Yet they don't show any proof of that really being the case. How would an oil filter know the difference between a 20 micron particle if it was organic or inorganic? It either traps a 20 micron particle or it doesn't.

The graph on page 3-18 entitles "Captured Contaminant" shows a breakdown of the capturing of different types of particles, but there's no graph or data that breaks out the filtering efficiency vs particle type. It could be that's just the ratio of the different types of contaminates in those actual field tested engines. Says nothing about the filter efficiency vs particle type, only how much was captured of each type of particle.



My premise is that if 100 oil filters are tested per ISO 4548-12 and ranked in order of how they performed at filtering from best to worse, that performance order is basically going to stay the same in real use conditions in the field. Until some controlled test can show that is not the case, I'll have to stick to that theory. There is nothing else out there IMO to compare filtering performance on an apples-to-apples basis.

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
#3 is Amsoil/TRD/RP much more expensive, harder to find, not worth it for a filter no better than Fram Ultra and Wix XP.

How are these #3 when their efficiency is almost twice as good as the WIX/NAPA?


Where do you buy an Amsoil filter? The TRD filter is from the dealer, which automatically makes it expensive. Royal Purple filters can be bought at Pep Boys, but the price is still kinda high. There are more Wix XP part numbers than there are the Amsoil/RP/TRD filters. Price and availability are valid factors to consider

It doesn't matter how efficient a filter is if you can't buy it, or if they don't make one for your car

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
Price and availability are valid factors to consider

It doesn't matter how efficient a filter is if you can't buy it, or if they don't make one for your car

True, but let's assume all these filters do have an application for my car. For me, I'd pay a bit more and seek out the more efficient filter if I had to choose between the #2 and #3 filter choices.

Obviously, if the Ultra is available then it's a no brainer IMO.

I'd rather use the regular WIX/NAPA Gold filters with better efficiency (95% @ 20u) than their full synthetic models.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
https://www.cumminsfiltration.com/sites/default/files/LT32599_03_0.pdf

This is an interesting read, and snippet from here.

"Laboratory test results, with test dust, do not tell the whole story about the performance of an optimized oil filter "

UD

So that statement is on page 3-18 with some graphs. Are they trying to say that there's a difference between how a filter performs based on if the particles are organic or inorganic and the ISO dust test doesn't show that? Hard to tell. Yet they don't show any proof of that really being the case. How would an oil filter know the difference between a 20 micron particle if it was organic or inorganic? It either traps a 20 micron particle or it doesn't.

The graph on page 3-18 entitles "Captured Contaminant" shows a breakdown of the capturing of different types of particles, but there's no graph or data that breaks out the filtering efficiency vs particle type. It could be that's just the ratio of the different types of contaminates in those actual field tested engines. Says nothing about the filter efficiency vs particle type, only how much was captured of each type of particle.



My premise is that if 100 oil filters are tested per ISO 4548-12 and ranked in order of how they performed at filtering from best to worse, that performance order is basically going to stay the same in real use conditions in the field. Until some controlled test can show that is not the case, I'll have to stick to that theory. There is nothing else out there IMO to compare filtering performance on an apples-to-apples basis.


I agree if one basic test covered everything and everyone used it the world would be a simpler place but in the case of dual stages neither Cummins nor Microgreen, nor Baldwin publish a 4548-12. Is that a coincidence or is there something about that design thats truly different that a 4548-12 doesn't really show- seems Cummins says just that.

The publication is loaded with graphs and it says a lot of things, some contradict BITOG held Views like bypasses don't increase engine life, and it seems Cummins believes that a test bench scenario doesn't really tell the whole story.

There is a premise on bitog and on this thread that a filter without a 4548-12 # is simply charlatanism and cannot be any good and mere marketing hype, and I dont believe at least in the case of dual stages its that cut and dried.

Its easier to paint the microgreen guys with a marketing hype brush, but not so much Cummins who build these in house with their own proprietary media, nor Baldwin.

4548-12 is a great reference, but based authorities greater than the online presences here- is not a be all end all especially in the case of a dual stage design.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I agree if one basic test covered everything and everyone used it the world would be a simpler place but in the case of dual stages neither Cummins nor Microgreen, nor Baldwin publish a 4548-12. Is that a coincidence or is there something about that design thats truly different that a 4548-12 doesn't really show- seems Cummins says just that.

I mentioned in one of the Microgreen threads that a filter like a MG wouldn't do well in an ISO 4548-12 test because of the accelerated test method, and the 5 micron disc would just be overwhelmed and choke out in no time and not give any real benefit. If I recall correctly, MG did do a 4548-12 test on the main element (?). Same probably goes for Cummins, Baldwin, etc.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The publication is loaded with graphs and it says a lot of things, some contradict BITOG held Views like bypasses don't increase engine life, and it seems Cummins believes that a test bench scenario doesn't really tell the whole story.

Don't know who's claiming a bypass filter doesn't help reduce wear ... it should if it indeed keeps the oil cleaner. Everything I've read about engine wear vs oil cleaniness always says that the cleaner the oil, the less engine wear. Pretty simple concept.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
There is a premise on bitog and on this thread that a filter without a 4548-12 # is simply charlatanism and cannot be any good and mere marketing hype, and I dont believe at least in the case of dual stages its that cut and dried.

I'd say for the most part, if a filter maker can't give some kind of test procedure reference then they should be questioned, especially if it's not a big brand name filter manufacturer. I called WIX a while back and asked what test spec their full synthetic Platinum filter was tested to, and the guy told me that was "proprietary information". I chuckled and thought, "Yeah, known industry test specs are top secret". Thought WIX was a bit fishy and trying to hide something IMO. ISO 4548-12 and any other known industry filter efficiency test specs are not "proprietary" information.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
4548-12 is a great reference, but based authorities greater than the online presences here- is not a be all end all especially in the case of a dual stage design.

It may not be used for dual stage oil filters, but the makers of dual stage filters need a way to accurately show their filter's efficiency of at least the main filter element (% @ micron size, not just "captures down to 5 microns" marking hype), and to say what tests they used. Otherwise, it's anyone's guess of how well they actually filter.