Maybe the Japanese Care about efficiency after all.

[Ablebody]

I found these specs on the Tokyo Roki. Seems pretty efficient.
I'm sure some of y'all have seen it but it's new to me.
You can see specs on many oil filters here
http://oilfilterdata.com/index.php?view=filter_info&model=2281251100
Some list micron ratings and some don't.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Well there's some data but why am I missing the efficiency rating at 20 microns of all those filters?

 

[Ablebody]

Some of them list it. I guess it's just what the filter company makes available. Toko Roki lost theirs at 17u some at 25i. Pure one list 99.9 at 20u Wix varies depending on on filter it seems.
Upon looking further, the Tokyo Roki filters seem limited to some oems.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I have no confidence in the efficiency data shown on that website. They have incomplete efficiency data on WIX filters, and none listed on some brands, even though that info is on the manufacturer's website. So who knows where they have come up with the data. IMO, if the efficiency info isn't directly off the manufacturer's site with a referenced test procedure, then it's possibly inaccurate. Does Tokyo Roki have data on their official website to backup this site's info?

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I have no confidence in the efficiency data shown on that website. They have incomplete efficiency data on WIX filters, and none listed on some brands, even though that info is on the manufacturer's website. So who knows where they have come up with the data. IMO, if the efficiency info isn't directly off the manufacturer's site, it's possibly inaccurate. Does Tokyo Roki have data on their official website to backup this site's info?

Lol you kill me dude.

 

[ZeeOSix]

LoL, do you believe everything you find on unofficial websites without verifying the info?

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I have no confidence in the efficiency data shown on that website. They have incomplete efficiency data on WIX filters, and none listed on some brands, even though that info is on the manufacturer's website. So who knows where they have come up with the data. IMO, if the efficiency info isn't directly off the manufacturer's site with a referenced test procedure, then it's possibly inaccurate. Does Tokyo Roki have data on their official website to backup this site's info?


This!

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
LoL, do you believe everything you find on unofficial websites without verifying the info?

Can't seem why they would make it up. Take it or leave it though.

 

[kschachn]

The problem is that it is difficult and relatively expensive to obtain that information if the manufacturer does not provide it. Do you think they ran the test themselves? If not, then where did they get the data?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
LoL, do you believe everything you find on unofficial websites without verifying the info?

Can't seem why they would make it up. Take it or leave it though.


I'll leave it ... I only trust data from the actual manufacturer of the filters. Or from a well know company that shows they had filters independantly tested per ISO 4548-12.

As kschachn said, where did this website get the data? If it's not off the filter manufacturer's website, then its questionable. And If it's off the manufacturer's website, then anyone here should be able to verify the info.

 

[UncleDave]

I don't and wouldn't trust third party filter data.

These kinds of cross references and lookup tables are loaded with errors all the time.

Shouldn't it say yes or no in the bypass valve section- ideally followed by an opening pressure ?




UD

 

[Ablebody]

Lol you guys are super serious about all this stuff. I'll guess disregard the information then I guess. I didn't think it was bogus or think there's a purpose to falsify the info. But what do I know.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Does the filter manufacturer's website show that same efficiency info? If not, then there's no way to verify the accuracy of that 3rd party website's information.

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Does the filter manufacturer's website show that same efficiency info? If not, then there's no way to verify the accuracy of that 3rd party website's information.

I suppose they could have outdated info or incorrectly transfered info. Can't imagineine they would list incorrect info intentionally as the manufacturers might sue them. If they had contact information I'd call them.
Maybe they listed some info because some company representatives told them it was true. Seems to be considered valid around here lol.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Able, I don't think either of them is saying don't use that website at all. BUT, just use it as a starting point for your own verification. That site IS a good place to reference similar-sized filters, especially if you are looking at moving up in size.

You just need to use the data there as a starting point, and then track down the manufacturer's data to prove what oilfilterdata.com said, just for your own information. It's a third party website, so there is no "guarantee" their data is correct. That's all ZeeOSix was saying, I believe... I use that site to cross reference filters when I am trying to find a larger filter frequently. It's a good source for the initial steps of your oil filter odyssey.

I'll save you a little heartache though; try as I have to upsize and chase better filters, it's actually really tough to beat just grabbing a stock-size Fram Ultra and leaving it on for 20k. I had not been a Fram guy AT ALL because of the OCOD stories, and once I came here and read data about the Ultra, then did my own research (!), then tried some tests to verify, I believe there are not many, if any, street applications that can be better served by another filter. I'm not going to jump on the TG or EG wagons just yet, because well $9 max for an oil filter just doesn't rank as outrageous for all of the benefits. My .02!

I've actually sent '53 Stude around $150 of new and used filters to cut open here, and you can see the Ultras are extremely well constructed even when handled poorly. It's a great filter, I would fill my shelf up with the size(s) I need just in case they realize overnight what they're essentially giving away. It's got to be a loss leader for Fram, but take advantage!

 

[NYSteve]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Does the filter manufacturer's website show that same efficiency info? If not, then there's no way to verify the accuracy of that 3rd party website's information.

I suppose they could have outdated info or incorrectly transfered info. Can't imagineine they would list incorrect info intentionally as the manufacturers might sue them. If they had contact information I'd call them.
Maybe they listed some info because some company representatives told them it was true. Seems to be considered valid around here lol.


A company rep acting in his official capacity is legally admissible is court if you think he is lying about specs. I'm in a different industry but we have reps that represent us online as well and it is the same as putting it on our website, an ad or any other public communication.

The thing with the website you link to is that is they are ultimately a third party to the manufacturer so whether they have inaccuracies due to bad, old or malicious info, there is much less recourse you have than a company rep stating the specs for a filter.

Same thing as an amazon or eBay seller having bad info for all oil spec vs Mobil. The first you can get a refund vs holding the manufacturer liable.

 

[Ablebody]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Able, I don't think either of them is saying don't use that website at all. BUT, just use it as a starting point for your own verification. That site IS a good place to reference similar-sized filters, especially if you are looking at moving up in size.

You just need to use the data there as a starting point, and then track down the manufacturer's data to prove what oilfilterdata.com said, just for your own information. It's a third party website, so there is no "guarantee" their data is correct. That's all ZeeOSix was saying, I believe... I use that site to cross reference filters when I am trying to find a larger filter frequently. It's a good source for the initial steps of your oil filter odyssey.

I'll save you a little heartache though; try as I have to upsize and chase better filters, it's actually really tough to beat just grabbing a stock-size Fram Ultra and leaving it on for 20k. I had not been a Fram guy AT ALL because of the OCOD stories, and once I came here and read data about the Ultra, then did my own research (!), then tried some tests to verify, I believe there are not many, if any, street applications that can be better served by another filter. I'm not going to jump on the TG or EG wagons just yet, because well $9 max for an oil filter just doesn't rank as outrageous for all of the benefits. My .02!

I've actually sent '53 Stude around $150 of new and used filters to cut open here, and you can see the Ultras are extremely well constructed even when handled poorly. It's a great filter, I would fill my shelf up with the size(s) I need just in case they realize overnight what they're essentially giving away. It's got to be a loss leader for Fram, but take advantage!

Yes Ive seen the filtes youve sent so far cut. Always enjoy it.
Have used some ultras too and cut them as well myself even posted them. No doubt the media is well constructed. It's just that on one of my cars it was not a good experience. Some people think I'm making it up I guess but that's the experience I had on that car with the ultra.
I don't wanna use it on that one again.
Mostly I've just got a new found hobby and I'm just enjoying it as I have too much time on my hands lately.
Maybe I'll eventually draw the smaller conclusion but you have but for now I'm just checking everything out.
I also like to see things first hand for myself. Like to approach things scientifically I guess you could say although I'm constantly told there's really no way to tell if a filter is or isn't really preforming and the manufacturers iso testing is the all mighty authority on the matter, real world testing is pointless, uoas are useless except to identify a problem basically. Yet I've read otherwise by some as well.
Everything should always be questioned. I agree as should popular opinion on bitog.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by NYSteve
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Maybe they listed some info because some company representatives told them it was true. Seems to be considered valid around here lol.

A company rep acting in his official capacity is legally admissible is court if you think he is lying about specs. I'm in a different industry but we have reps that represent us online as well and it is the same as putting it on our website, an ad or any other public communication.


That's right about how a company Rep needs to covey true information, no different than if it was printed on their website or on literature. Jay even mentioned it, so he's well aware of the rules/laws concerning that issue.

More hints of JJ coming out, especially since his old self hasn't chimed in yet after the long "hiatus".

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Ablebody
Like to approach things scientifically I guess you could say although I'm constantly told there's really no way to tell if a filter is or isn't really preforming and the manufacturers iso testing is the all mighty authority on the matter, real world testing is pointless, uoas are useless except to identify a problem basically.


It's been mentioned a few times in the last couple of days that a particle count is the best way to see how clean a filter is keeping the oil in real world use. The UOA "insolubles" data is useless. Been a couple of different discussions showing that filters that tested best in the lab for efficiency also performed the best in a particle count test, which means they kept the oil cleaner than less efficient filters. No surprise, why would it not be that way?