What's the best filter out of these?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Always good to see statistics that are passed off as fact but contain qualifiers including "(I) Believe", "Rumor is" and two separate "Who knows."
36.gif


You may have to go back to the bat cave and spin some more numbers....
02.gif



Then stop whining and tell us what the real numbers are then for those filters if you can actually find the info from the manufactures.


Whining? Please. I may not have any figures for you at this moment in time, but at least I'm not going to pass off some bogus numbers as "fact".

whistle.gif


Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Always good to see statistics that are passed off as fact but contain qualifiers including "(I) Believe", "Rumor is" and two separate "Who knows."
36.gif


You may have to go back to the bat cave and spin some more numbers....
02.gif





I thought you were the director of the bat cave? I mean look at all those Fram Ultras in your signature.


No no no...Im not the director of the bat cave. That is the affection name bestowed upon the collective hiding place deep underground where those who names shall not be mentioned meet to come up with bogus numbers and statistics that can be disseminated to further their own personal or professional agenda.

Originally Posted By: bbhero
Hey give jk 636 credit for running the Fram Ulras
smile.gif


Or has the rest of us call them Ultras. I think it's pretty awesome he is doing this. I have run the Purolator Boss and Purolator reds just to try them out. When I finally get my necessary tool to cut those open then I will make the decision whether or not to run them again. I have a Wix, Purolator red, and a O Reilly's Microgard ready to go when needed. But my cut up of the red will determine if I will run that one.


I'm not afraid to run a Fram Ultra. I have NEVER disputed that they are a good filter. They are one of a handful of filters that I keep in rotation. Are they a good filter? Sure. Are they the best? No, I would say not. But that doesn't mean I'm bashing them. But here on BITOG, if you don't concede that the Fram Ultra is the best, then you think it is the worst and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of Tribology Law
grin.gif
 
So when you said:

Originally Posted By: jk_636
They are all pretty much (with the exception of the Microgreen) the same when it comes to filtration.


You pulled that completely out of your... right?
 
Oh it sure is, no data whatsoever.

At least you didn't make that up.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
No.

Look at their website. Pretty self explanatory.

Feel free to contact them yourself and see what they have to say.
smirk.gif
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I'm not afraid to run a Fram Ultra. I have NEVER disputed that they are a good filter. They are one of a handful of filters that I keep in rotation. Are they a good filter? Sure. Are they the best? No, I would say not.
Out of curiosity, what criteria do you use to define "best"? I mean, you must have some qualifier?
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Always good to see statistics that are passed off as fact but contain qualifiers including "(I) Believe", "Rumor is" and two separate "Who knows."
36.gif


You may have to go back to the bat cave and spin some more numbers....
02.gif



Then stop whining and tell us what the real numbers are then for those filters if you can actually find the info from the manufactures.


Whining? Please. I may not have any figures for you at this moment in time, but at least I'm not going to pass off some bogus numbers as "fact".

whistle.gif



My bad ... guess it's more trolling than whining, but actually it's a mix of both.

Most of the numbers were pulled right from the maker's website. But those that were not were clearly stated as 'who knows'. Here's a hint for ya ... if a manufacturer can't divulge the efficiency with an associated micron rating, then chances are it's not very good.

I'll be waiting for your 'figures' ...
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Exactly ...
crackmeup2.gif

Ah, come on, you know the numbers will be posted on the 12th...


...of never.
 
So does anyone have anything to say about bypass PSI spec? Why would subaru have specified such a high bypass value? I saw a graph somewhere that said the max PSI would probably be like 12 or so.

I'm trying to balance the almost certainly better filtering of say a Fram Ultra compared to the correct bypass PSI of an OEM/Wix filter.

It's a tiny little eco 2 liter engine, there's no way it has higher oil pressure than almost any other vehicle on the market.
 
Originally Posted By: horse123
So does anyone have anything to say about bypass PSI spec? Why would subaru have specified such a high bypass value? I saw a graph somewhere that said the max PSI would probably be like 12 or so.

I'm trying to balance the almost certainly better filtering of say a Fram Ultra compared to the correct bypass PSI of an OEM/Wix filter.

It's a tiny little eco 2 liter engine, there's no way it has higher oil pressure than almost any other vehicle on the market.


There have been a few threads in the past about the Subaru's high volume oil pump and the high bypass valve setting in the OEM oil filters.

Keep in mind that one factor in the bypass valve setting is also the flow restriction of the oil filter itself. That along with the oil pump's max output and the oil viscosity used will define the PSID vs Flow curve for the filter.

So the only reason I can think that Subaru chose such a high bypass valve setting is because: 1) The OEM filter is pretty flow restrictive, 2) The high oil pump volume output (something like 12~14 GPM near red line) and 3) Subaru might think customers are going to beat the engine pretty hard before the oil gets fully warmed up.
 
I also have to question whether the oil really does constantly need to be filtered. What are the consequences for the filter opening once in a while on hard acceleration or a freezing cold engine? Is it really going to wear the engine out faster? Given the insanely tiny amount of junk filters (at least on my car) catch, you have to figure that the oil going unfiltered for maybe 10 seconds a few times a day at best is most likely 100% inconsequential.

Would a UOA shed light on whether my current oil filter (the very low PSI bypass HP1010) is allowing masses of [censored] to flow through and wear my engine prematurely?
 
Last edited:
A particle count is the only way to tell how a filter is working, I can't believe (on a well maintained engine with a GOOD air filter/system) that a low efficiency oil filter makes that big of a difference-but Puro disintegrating media is out in my book.
 
Originally Posted By: horse123
For my Impreza in my signature. 5000 mile OCI right now.

My options are Mobil 1 M1-110, Fram PH7317 Extra Guard, Fram XG7317 Ultra, Fram TG7313 Tough Guard, Subaru 15208AA15A (blue filter), Purolator PSL14612, Bosch 3974, microGreen 101-7, K&N HP-1010 (I've been using this).

Does it really matter out of all of those? Just choose what's cheapest?


It matters to me, maybe not you though.

1. The Microgreen- is the only dual stage in the group. Full stop.

MG gets heat here because they only cite generic ISO testing, but you can look up PTFE filtration online and see its easy to come by 2 micron units.
They offer a unique value proposition and the only real differentiated product.

2. Then the Ultra- the current best single stage

2.5 Bosch distance +(not sure if thats the part number you selected) is either tied with or just above the M1

3. -The Mobil 1

Amsoil isn't on the list but should be.



UD
 
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
It matters to me, maybe not you though.

1. The Microgreen- is the only dual stage in the group. Full stop.

MG gets heat here because they only cite generic ISO testing, but you can look up PTFE filtration online and see its easy to come by 2 micron units.
They offer a unique value proposition and the only real differentiated product.


Well that's an oxymoron then that it matters to you, since this is the entirety of what it says on their site:

"Also conducted were ISO 16889 mutli-pass tests."

I could say the same thing about my window screen. They also say:

"By capturing particles down to 2 microns the life of the standard media filter is extended."

I could also say that about my window screen.

If it mattered to you, then you would:

1. Want to know the results of the 16889 multi-pass tests
2. Want to know the efficiency at 2 microns (or at any other micron rating).
 
Not really.

They have lots of info on their site.

I want to know all the same details you do, but I am quite convinced they have what they claim.

I understand what they are doing.

Anyone here can go look up their patents and then look at how PTFE filter media is sold and figure out how they build this filter. Their claims are easily achievable with the tech they are using.

Its just not that tough to figure why its a better mousetrap.

My only gripes with the thing are its cost when not sold in packs of 2 and that I can't buy it retail, and they don't disclose iso chapters and results.

Not convinced? Stick with the single stage of your choice.


UD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Not really.

They have lots of info on their site.

I want to know all the same details you do, but I am quite convinced they have what they claim.

I understand what they are doing.

Anyone here can go look up their patents and then look at how PTFE filter media is sold and figure out how they build this filter. Their claims are easily achievable with the tech they are using.

Its just not that tough to figure why its a better mousetrap.

My only gripes with the thing are its cost when not sold in packs of 2 and that I can't buy it retail, and they don't disclose iso chapters and results.

Not convinced? Stick with the single stage of your choice.


UD



Looks like I got back to the conversation a little late, but UD is absolutely correct. Spot on judgement UD!
 
Originally Posted By: horse123
So does anyone have anything to say about bypass PSI spec? Why would subaru have specified such a high bypass value? I saw a graph somewhere that said the max PSI would probably be like 12 or so.

I'm trying to balance the almost certainly better filtering of say a Fram Ultra compared to the correct bypass PSI of an OEM/Wix filter.

It's a tiny little eco 2 liter engine, there's no way it has higher oil pressure than almost any other vehicle on the market.


Like Z said, there are a lot of theories but little hard or verified reasons why they do that but it has been a part of the Subaru engine design since forever.

If they spec the high bypass, I use a filter with that higher bypass setting. Because of all the quick-change shops and not hearing Subie oil-filter related problems, I do not think that you are going to immediately implode an engine but... I prefer to stick with the higher bypass just in case.

The wix/napa 57055 is an extremely good filter and event better if you consider the pricepoint. I don't think you will get a better filter by spending more considering that the top-tier filters are often in the 8-12psi range.
 
The microgreen has a bypass rating of as low as 8psi, that's WAY too low. You couldn't pay me to put it on my car.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: horse123
The microgreen has a bypass rating of as low as 8psi, that's WAY too low. You couldn't pay me to put it on my car.


They say its based on the filter so it will vary.

did you find the number for your filter specifically?

UD
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Best Filter - GM 3.6L LGX/LGZ???
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
Rogueman2016s
Robvette
Wix = Nominal (50%) at 21 microns? (Corvette LT1 Filter Options)
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
7K
ZeeOSix
zerosoma
What’s the best cartridge filter now?
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
Plawan
Tyro_2004_2004
  • Locked
No Mash Pleats Oil Filter For Solstice GXP
Replies
18
Views
1K
M56959
Ignatius
  • Locked
K&N HP-1010 Oil Filter
Replies
8
Views
5K
Sayjac
Back
Top