Recent Topics
SKF grease with graphite
by PreludeDenarius. 05/24/19 03:42 AM
Quaker State Ultimate Durability 5W-30: $17.97 at WM
by The Critic. 05/24/19 01:31 AM
AT-205 Re-Seal for 1968 VW Bus?
by ZraHamilton. 05/24/19 01:22 AM
Can 5W-30 be Thicker than 10W-30?
by John344. 05/23/19 10:33 PM
Fastenal new policy-unhappy
by rekit. 05/23/19 10:23 PM
0w30 Showdown of European Oils
by Marco620. 05/23/19 10:12 PM
amazon basics 5-40 not as good
by benjy. 05/23/19 09:28 PM
Cost to Repair a Honda V6 Engine that Jumps Time
by The Critic. 05/23/19 09:18 PM
Youtube demonitisation of conspiracy sites ?
by Shannow. 05/23/19 09:15 PM
03 Subaru WRX Valvoline VR1 10/30 196K miles
by TurboJW. 05/23/19 08:43 PM
TT time
by benjy. 05/23/19 08:29 PM
Castrol Nexcel
by JunkdrawerDog. 05/23/19 08:25 PM
1st gen ford focus
by WhyMe. 05/23/19 08:21 PM
Coca-Cola 600
by kstanf150. 05/23/19 07:49 PM
New cell phones and company
by spk2000. 05/23/19 07:24 PM
Swivel Elbow for Garden hose reel
by JC1. 05/23/19 06:57 PM
Garage floor coating
by Eddie. 05/23/19 06:43 PM
Newest Members
Tina70, tongboy1, PersonaPriusDad, MetricMike, Harps
68195 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
25 registered members (2015_PSD, berlyn, bigdavey, Donald1953, ctechbob, Berto, 2 invisible), 540 guests, and 24 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics289,326
Posts4,967,010
Members68,195
Most Online2,967
Mar 10th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Lowest efficiency? #4776793
06/04/18 12:41 AM
06/04/18 12:41 AM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,149
Southeast Texas
gfh77665 Offline OP
gfh77665  Offline OP

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,149
Southeast Texas
Aside from jokes about tears in the media, what filters have the LOWEST efficiency? Any noteworthy to mention?

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: gfh77665] #4776794
06/04/18 12:43 AM
06/04/18 12:43 AM
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,024
North Carolina
rooflessVW Online content
rooflessVW  Online Content

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,024
North Carolina
Think it's Wix. Specifically their XP line, but their standard filters aren't king of the heap either.

They do, however, have consistent and rock-solid construction.


"Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead."
Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: rooflessVW] #4776804
06/04/18 01:28 AM
06/04/18 01:28 AM
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,169
San Antonio, TX
das_peikko Offline
das_peikko  Offline

Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,169
San Antonio, TX
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Think it's Wix. Specifically their XP line, but their standard filters aren't king of the heap either.

They do, however, have consistent and rock-solid construction.


That's all I care about right there.

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: das_peikko] #4776811
06/04/18 02:16 AM
06/04/18 02:16 AM
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 889
MA USA
andrewp1998 Offline
andrewp1998  Offline

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 889
MA USA
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
Think it's Wix. Specifically their XP line, but their standard filters aren't king of the heap either.

They do, however, have consistent and rock-solid construction.

approved approved approved
That's all I care about right there.


2001 Honda civic HX vtecE- 5 spd.
Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: rooflessVW] #4776837
06/04/18 04:25 AM
06/04/18 04:25 AM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,169
Virginia
bbhero Offline
bbhero  Offline

Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,169
Virginia
Their regular filters are 95% at 20 microns which is actually pretty good. Not 99.9999999999999999% at 20 microns but hey... Who's counting anyhow LOL


Nissan Altima 3.5 Coupe
Havoline high mileage 5w30 Microgard 57356
"Treat your family like your friends and treat your friends like your family."
Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: gfh77665] #4777088
06/04/18 10:27 AM
06/04/18 10:27 AM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,485
Katy, Republic of Texas
blupupher Offline
blupupher  Offline

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,485
Katy, Republic of Texas
Seems I read many OEM are the worst as far as numbers (Toyota I think?, the whole flow over filtration).


'18 Santa Fe:Delo XLE 10W-30, OEM, 3k
'12 xB: QSUD 5W-20, CQ Blue, 5k
'07 Vue: Synpower 5w-30, Ecogard Syn, OLM
'02 F150: Magnatec 5W-20, Bosch D+, 1yr
'94 VT1100: Peak 15W-40, Bosch D+, 1yr

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: blupupher] #4777213
06/04/18 12:36 PM
06/04/18 12:36 PM
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 41
USA
Macgyver452 Offline
Macgyver452  Offline

Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 41
USA
I'm pretty sure you could put sand in a Toyota's engine oil and it would still last over 100k miles.

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: Macgyver452] #4777223
06/04/18 12:40 PM
06/04/18 12:40 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,719
Toronto
PeterPolyol Offline
PeterPolyol  Offline

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,719
Toronto
Originally Posted By: Macgyver452
I'm pretty sure you could put sand in a Toyota's engine oil and it would still last over 100k miles.
LOL bringing out the greatest hits


There's no replacement...'scosity for natural viscosity
Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: Macgyver452] #4777247
06/04/18 01:04 PM
06/04/18 01:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,076
Western S.C.
CR94 Offline
CR94  Offline

Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,076
Western S.C.
Originally Posted By: Macgyver452
I'm pretty sure you could put sand in a Toyota's engine oil and it would still last over 100k miles.
That might depend on whether your sand grains were large enough to be captured by their filter.

Of cartridge filters I've examined, Toyota's easily gets my vote as the best constructed, least likely to allow some oil to bypass the media. There's limited point in having more efficient media if, for example, the media is allowed to collapse inward, or if faulty geometry allows unfiltered oil to bypass around the ends.


2011 Toyota Prius now at 99K
1981 Mazda GLC (323) retired at 606K
1972 Subaru DL retired at 190K
1954 Chevrolet retired at 121K
Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: CR94] #4777256
06/04/18 01:15 PM
06/04/18 01:15 PM
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,017
Columbus,Nebraska
Yah-Tah-Hey Offline
Yah-Tah-Hey  Offline

Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,017
Columbus,Nebraska
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: Macgyver452
I'm pretty sure you could put sand in a Toyota's engine oil and it would still last over 100k miles.
That might depend on whether your sand grains were large enough to be captured by their filter.

Of cartridge filters I've examined, Toyota's easily gets my vote as the best constructed, least likely to allow some oil to bypass the media. There's limited point in having more efficient media if, for example, the media is allowed to collapse inward, or if faulty geometry allows unfiltered oil to bypass around the ends.
Right you are CR94. Been using them for years. If they are good enough for the largest manufacturer of vehicles in the world, they are good enough for me.

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: gfh77665] #4777260
06/04/18 01:19 PM
06/04/18 01:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,092
Las Vegas
ArrestMeRedZ Offline
ArrestMeRedZ  Offline

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,092
Las Vegas
I'm not even sure you need oil in a Toyota for it to last 100k miles. My dear wife managed to run hers almost out 3 times, and it didn't seem to affect it.

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: gfh77665] #4777287
06/04/18 02:07 PM
06/04/18 02:07 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,120
Tennessee
goodtimes Offline
goodtimes  Offline

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,120
Tennessee
Efficiency doesn't mean the multi pass efficiency test alone. But as time goes on that false notion is being adopted. The standard lab test is done in four hours, or about 200 miles on the road, until the filter is full. In real life, that's instead about 10,000 miles, figuring Motorking's one gram of dirt made per thousand miles and a 10 gram load capacity. (low capacity to be even more fair)

To get a lab test showing real life efficiency in my example the test would have to be spread to 200 hours. They likely don't have the money to do that, and I don't think equipment can even measure such small amounts to make an accurate efficiency graph.

There have been some high quality tests done that show a no name oil filter beat the Fram Ultra in particle filtering, and another showed a Fram Ultra with a not so clean ISO score IMO.

The Toyota filter was claimed to be 51% @ 20 microns by Amsoil in 2011, apparently testing one small filter. They still list no lab source or data to this day on that claim. It's just them saying it, and it was seven years ago. So on that one I would say it is unknown multipass test efficiency on current filters. I put the Amsoil oil filter test table in the same category as Synlubes filter claims on another thread today. Amsoil writing Chevrolet as an oil filter instead of Delco gives a lot of pause as to who made the table and what they really were doing there. Someone copying lab results on actual tested oil filters doesn't change Delco to Chevrolet.

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: gfh77665] #4777324
06/04/18 03:01 PM
06/04/18 03:01 PM
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,149
Southeast Texas
gfh77665 Offline OP
gfh77665  Offline OP

Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,149
Southeast Texas
So, does anyone have any answers to the question, other than Toyota?

Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: gfh77665] #4777337
06/04/18 03:16 PM
06/04/18 03:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,305
Upper Midwest
kschachn Offline
kschachn  Offline

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 11,305
Upper Midwest
Originally Posted By: gfh77665
So, does anyone have any answers to the question, other than Toyota?

How would you know when none of the OEMs publish values for their filters?


1994 BMW 530i, 242K
1996 Honda Accord, 275K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 413K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 281K
Re: Lowest efficiency? [Re: goodtimes] #4777510
06/04/18 06:12 PM
06/04/18 06:12 PM
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 20,938
PNW
ZeeOSix Offline
ZeeOSix  Offline

Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 20,938
PNW
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Efficiency doesn't mean the multi pass efficiency test alone. But as time goes on that false notion is being adopted. The standard lab test is done in four hours, or about 200 miles on the road, until the filter is full. In real life, that's instead about 10,000 miles, figuring Motorking's one gram of dirt made per thousand miles and a 10 gram load capacity. (low capacity to be even more fair)

To get a lab test showing real life efficiency in my example the test would have to be spread to 200 hours. They likely don't have the money to do that, and I don't think equipment can even measure such small amounts to make an accurate efficiency graph.


I don't think it's a "false notion" ... especially since nobody can prove that a filter that tests lower in efficiency in the lab out performs a filter in the field that test higher in efficiency in the lab - with a controlled experiment.

Here's a real world controlled experiment done via SAE channels (SAE Paper 902238 - LINK ). No surprise that the most efficient filter tested in the lab was also the one that resulted in the cleanest particle count of the engine oil from the field samples. Filters B&C clearly outperform filters A&D in the field UOA particle counts. Filter D was not shown in Figure 2, but if it was it would be way above the Filter A curve (much higher particle count).







Related BITOG thread: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4442189/1

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There have been some high quality tests done that show a no name oil filter beat the Fram Ultra in particle filtering, and another showed a Fram Ultra with a not so clean ISO score IMO.


A data point of 1 ... which could have been a fluke due to sample contamination. Show information from a long thought out controlled experiment, and it might be more believable.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™