ECOGARD filter opinions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,270
Location
Washington
I was thumbing through rockauto.com thinking about placing a bulk order of oil filters for a few of my vehicles and I noticed this brand ECOGARD that is selling their product for only $1.42 a filter and their products are carried with Walmart and Amazon so I cant help but think they may be legit enough to be carried by national retailers unlike some of the cheap oil filters offered on rock auto. I saw some pictures and videos of these filters torn apart and they also look very legit meaning basically not Fram and not an ecore design that I stay away from. Information is hard to find about these filters so of course BITOG will be my source. The search also produced not much results either so a fresh post was necessary.
 
Eh, they are cheap, Chinese-made oil filters. They obviously aren't the best, but they're probably not the worst. Here's a thread on them from July of last year.

Link
 
I have seen pics of these cut open and they all seem to hold up fine for typical use. At around a buck each, you'll get your money's worth if you really need to buy filters in bulk.
 
If the following diagram is true, then after microgreen, their synthetic filter would be the best filter money could buy.

crackmeup2.gif


EcogardSynthetic.PNG
 
I've used many and never had any issues. Looks the same as many other Chinese made Puro clones. Except they don't tear like a purolator.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
If the following diagram is true, then after microgreen, their synthetic filter would be the best filter money could buy.

crackmeup2.gif


EcogardSynthetic.PNG



The fine print says other synthetic filter, doesn't say which one. But you show hard Amsoil style proof the Ecowhatever beats the Fram Ultra. There was a black no name filter that also beat the Ultra in particle separation ability in a real use test. Hmm well maybe Rome is falling a little.
24.gif
 
I've been using them on my mom's 07 Kia Optima and my dad's 1994 Jeep Cherokee. They still change their oil at 3k, so spending big bucks on a filter doesn't make sense. I plan to run this filter on my f150 once my 820s is done. For normal oci's they look fine.
 
BTW, keep in mind that Fram still manufactures some filters in Taiwan....and people use those without thinking twice.
 
I have one on my truck right now, and have one of their synthetic filters that I will use next.

As said above, seems they are decent budget filters. They list their efficiency as 88% @ 20 microns for the regular filter, and 97% @ 20 microns for their synthetic. Not as good as some, but not as bad as others.

While I have no problem using them, the fact that I can't just walk in to a store and grab one puts it lower on my list of filters to use.
A Supertech filter can be had any day for If you look at numbers, the Fram Extra Guard has better filtering than the regular Ecogard, plus the Extra Guard is now starting to come with a silicone ADV (which would put the Extra Guard on par with the Synthetic EcoGard, for less money).

If you are getting the EcoGard for < $1.50 shipped, it is a decent deal, but not something I would actively search out and try to get though.
 
More like Rome is confused.
wink.gif
FU couldn't be included in that grey line for obvious reasons as the 20u data point. If the Ecoguard was that good, it would be a hair better down around the 5u mark.

Of course, there is no efficiency test spec listed on the table, so they could be pulling a M+H 'tweaking' of some test spec and 'doing their own thing' beyond the ISO 4548-12 test standard.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Made in China, when it's easy to buy non China filters, strike one two and three, for me, and they are out.
I'm using a Chinese Fram, which, before use, appeared better constructed than most equivalent US-made filters I've seen. Should I expect to find a problem when it comes out in a couple thousand more miles?
 
This one had rust on the inside of the can.

EcoGard C&P

I have seen MotorCraft filters with rust on the outlet side of the center tube. That is a bad place for rust. One filter was less than 90 days old and stored in the house.

Caveat Emptor
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
More like Rome is confused.
wink.gif
FU couldn't be included in that grey line for obvious reasons as the 20u data point. If the Ecoguard was that good, it would be a hair better down around the 5u mark.

Of course, there is no efficiency test spec listed on the table, so they could be pulling a M+H 'tweaking' of some test spec and 'doing their own thing' beyond the ISO 4548-12 test standard.


Confusing indeed.

The chart, found only on rockauto, says one thing, the text next to the chart says 99% at 30 microns, blupupher is saying 97% at 20 microns.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
More like Rome is confused.
wink.gif
FU couldn't be included in that grey line for obvious reasons as the 20u data point. If the Ecoguard was that good, it would be a hair better down around the 5u mark.

Of course, there is no efficiency test spec listed on the table, so they could be pulling a M+H 'tweaking' of some test spec and 'doing their own thing' beyond the ISO 4548-12 test standard.

Confusing indeed.

The chart, found only on rockauto, says one thing, the text next to the chart says 99% at 30 microns, blupupher is saying 97% at 20 microns.


Yep ... 99% @ 30u looks to match the green Ecoguard graph line, but 97% @ 20u doesn't (red dot).

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top