Lowest efficiency?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

01.gif
01.gif
01.gif

That's all I care about right there.
 
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.gif
 
I'm pretty sure you could put sand in a Toyota's engine oil and it would still last over 100k miles.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
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?


Amsoil had filters ran per ISO 4548-12 (the graph has been posted many times over the years here). You could too if you wanted to send some down to the SWRI along with a bunch of money.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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 ...


I'm sure if the data wasn't accurate Toyota would have sent a letter threatening a lawsuit over false info a long time ago. The graph is still used by Amsoil, so apparently Toyota hasn't claimed it to be false information.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: kschachn
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?


Amsoil had filters ran per ISO 4548-12 (the graph has been posted many times over the years here). You could too if you wanted to send some down to the SWRI along with a bunch of money.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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 ...


I'm sure if the data wasn't accurate Toyota would have sent a letter threatening a lawsuit over false info a long time ago. The graph is still used by Amsoil, so apparently Toyota hasn't claimed it to be false information.


You are sure how? Making it up isn't sure. Toyota tore down a million mile hard used Tundra that ran Toyotas filters and found it still OK. Not a lot of bad particles apparently. I would have to drive another 200 years in the same car to do that, which isn't happening.
I am not desiring multi pass tests on any filter soo not likely to spend any money. On the Toyota I now use problem free Toyota, On the Chevrolet I use Delco made by Mahle in Austria or Luber Finer. I don't need to know more. They who made the engine decide for me. All the talk of 94% vs 99% is nonsense IMO.
Amsoil still has Chevrolet oil filter listed. It gives great pause as to the validity of that table. It makes it look like they made it all up. It's now out of date anyway, besides questionable, meaningless. So sad.
On the other hand there have been some particle counts with great references that put a question mark on the Ultra, for me, as what's best under real world conditions.
I am entitled to my opinion, and there it is, and it's based on quite a bit of reading about filters on here. Time to move on to life other than oil filters.
laugh.gif
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes

You are sure how? Making it up isn't sure.


Not sure how him defending some actual testing data is "making it up"
21.gif


Originally Posted By: goodtimes

Toyota tore down a million mile hard used Tundra that ran Toyotas filters and found it still OK. Not a lot of bad particles apparently. I would have to drive another 200 years in the same car to do that, which isn't happening.


And the million mile Ford van I'm sure hasn't had special filters during its life either. Generally the vehicles driven to these mileages are used in an operating profile that is conducive to significant mileage accumulation in a short period of time. This is a relatively easy life when compared to short trip stop and go with cold starts, regardless of how somebody sells "hard used". Taxis and Limo's are another example, I've seen several 800+ thousand mile Town Cars for sale, I'm sure they didn't get anything special for oil or filters either.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

I am not desiring multi pass tests on any filter soo not likely to spend any money. On the Toyota I now use problem free Toyota, On the Chevrolet I use Delco made by Mahle in Austria or Luber Finer. I don't need to know more. They who made the engine decide for me. All the talk of 94% vs 99% is nonsense IMO.


Except those companies change their minds. Heck, the filters they ship with are different than their service filters for example. It isn't like OEM filters are static, they change too, and this could be on something as simple as price. Everything is a compromise in some manner. If the OEM was all about using the best, they'd all have threaded-end bypasses with silicone ADBV's and glass media, but they don't. But often their "high performance" racing versions do, or even their higher tier offerings. Toyota's own TRD filters are an example here, which use the superior glass media. Also, if the efficiency thing was "nonsense" they wouldn't sell their higher tier offerings and companies like Donaldson wouldn't exist. Simply because a consumer usage profile won't allow for the advantage of the product to be realized doesn't invalidate the advantage as "nonsense", but it may mean it isn't a cost effective option for that consumer.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Amsoil still has Chevrolet oil filter listed. It gives great pause as to the validity of that table.


So AMSOIL having Chevrolet on there somehow compromises the validity of the data provided by the lab? You are reaching...

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

It makes it look like they made it all up.


That's an even further reach.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes

It's now out of date anyway, besides questionable, meaningless. So sad.


Out of date? Sure, it might be, if the construction of the filters in the test has changed. If they haven't, then the results are just as valid now as they were then.

Questionable? Only if you believe that AMSOIL would knowingly publish falsified information. That would be inviting a lawsuit, so I seriously doubt that's the case.

Meaningless? If the data is still valid; if the filters are still the same as they were then, then the data is far from meaningless, it is some of the only data we have in contrasted filtration efficiency.

Not sure how you've managed to construe that as sad, this seems a construct of your own psyche to be able to obtain closure by invalidating this information.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
On the other hand there have been some particle counts with great references that put a question mark on the Ultra, for me, as what's best under real world conditions. I am entitled to my opinion, and there it is, and it's based on quite a bit of reading about filters on here. Time to move on to life other than oil filters.
laugh.gif



You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but if they are questionably based you shouldn't be surprised if somebody calls you on them. Some vague anecdotal allusion to contradicting 3rd party particle count data hardly stands as an affront to the validity of that obtained via controlled laboratory testing and the implication that it should be is ridiculous.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Amsoil still has Chevrolet oil filter listed. It gives great pause as to the validity of that table. It makes it look like they made it all up. It's now out of date anyway, besides questionable, meaningless. So sad.


You should email Amsoil and tell them you think the data in that graph is false and a total lie, and that you're going to file a lawsuit against them for showing false test information and making Toyota filters look inefficient compared to others they had tested. I'd like to hear what they say about that. Amsoil or any other big name brand company isn't going to show false information without some traceable records of how they came to that conclusion. They wouldn't be in business very long in today's world.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All the talk of 94% vs 99% is nonsense IMO.


Assuming those efficiencies are at the same micron level, then yeah perhaps it's splitting hairs. But IMO there's a drastic difference between say a filter that 50% @ 20u vs one at 99% @ 20u. The Bus Study graphs I showed earlier in this thread clearly shows the difference in oil cleanliness vs filter efficiency. Cleaner oil is better than not.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I am entitled to my opinion, and there it is, and it's based on quite a bit of reading about filters on here. Time to move on to life other than oil filters.
laugh.gif



Yes you certainly do have a right to an opinion, but seems a lot of the stuff you post is never backed up with supporting data ... just your theories. Nothing wrong with that, except being a broken record with nothing to back it up doesn't fly for very long around here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top