Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Mark A on 24 Nov 2008 12:04 "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message news:492acb87$1(a)kcnews01... > I am mainly interested in filters for the vehicles I own or regularly > service - Fords, Toyotas, a Nissan, and a Mazda. For the Fords, from what > I have seen, the $3.28 Motorcraft FL820S Filter is better than the best > Fram equivalent, the TG2, which cost $6.15 the last time I bought one. The > TG2 is only marginally better than the lower priced, but used by the same > applications, Fram PH2 ($3.77) yet cost 40% more. Now maybe for some other > applications, the Fram filters are not so obviously inferior. But for the > applications I care about, Fram filters are not my choice. > > Ed I was referring to the $11.00 filter (not sure the name but at one time it was the X2). The point is that Fram can make anything somebody wants them make. It is just a question of much it will cost.
From: Mark A on 24 Nov 2008 12:13 "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ggemdt$v3c$1(a)posting2.glorb.com... > Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one type > is API certified. There is a difference between can not and refusing to > provide some proprietary information. The big lie.
From: SMS on 24 Nov 2008 13:03 WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote: > Amsoil meets or surpasses API specs, yes, according to them and one > type is API certified. There is a difference between can not and > refusing to provide some proprietary information. No, Amsoil admitted, a long time ago, the reason why they don't have API certification on some products. It has nothing to do with proprietary information. They used do use the "proprietary" excuse because they didn't want to admit the real reason, then one of their employees leaked the real reason. Here is the e-mail on this: ----------------- From: "Selbrede, Byron" <byr...(a)amsoil.com> To: "'no...(a)pinn.net'" <n...(a)pinn.net> Subject: RE: Technical Service Contact Form Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:18:15 -0500 "Actually it's the amount of phosphorus that is regulated-- but that is directly related to the amount of zinc that can be used as they are combined as zinc dithio phosphate (ZDP). This is only regulated in 2 viscosity grades, 5W30 and 10W30. Other than the Series 7500, AMSOIL lubes all contain more ZDP than can be used in an API licensed oil. For examples of our ZDP levels refer to data sheets for AMO, ARO, AMF or AMV." ----------------- The API limit on the amount of ZDDP was put in place because the phosphorus in the ZDDP shortens the life of the catalytic converter; the more ZDDP the shorter the life of the catalytic converter. The high level of ZDDP in the Amsoil non-API certified oil (and some other non-certified oils) provides better wear protection than the API certified oils with the lower level of ZDDP. So it would make sense to use these non-API certified oils in vehicles without catalytic converters, in fact this is recommended. Or if you don't mind shorter replacement intervals on the catalytic converter then it's fine too. Contamination of the catalytic converter is a slow process. It will fail earlier if you use oils with higher levels of phosphorus. You're not going to be able to convince an oil manufacturer that their non-API oil was responsible for a converter failing at 100K miles when it would normally go 200K miles. There's no reason to take the risk of using a non-API certified oil.
From: C. E. White on 24 Nov 2008 13:14 "Mark A" <someone(a)someone.com> wrote in message news:T3BWk.63355$XT1.17887(a)bignews5.bellsouth.net... > "C. E. White" <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in message > news:492acb87$1(a)kcnews01... >> I am mainly interested in filters for the vehicles I own or >> regularly service - Fords, Toyotas, a Nissan, and a Mazda. For the >> Fords, from what I have seen, the $3.28 Motorcraft FL820S Filter is >> better than the best Fram equivalent, the TG2, which cost $6.15 the >> last time I bought one. The TG2 is only marginally better than the >> lower priced, but used by the same applications, Fram PH2 ($3.77) >> yet cost 40% more. Now maybe for some other applications, the Fram >> filters are not so obviously inferior. But for the applications I >> care about, Fram filters are not my choice. >> >> Ed > > I was referring to the $11.00 filter (not sure the name but at one > time it was the X2). The point is that Fram can make anything > somebody wants them make. It is just a question of much it will > cost. I assume you are talking about the incredibly overpriced ExtendedGuard Fram Filters. The FL820S equivalent is the XG2. Autozone sells these for $22.99. That's right, almost $23 for a Fram Filter. It is a suckers deal. I have to admit I have not actually cut an XG2 open. However, given what I have seen in the past from Fram I'd wager it is not as good as the Motorcraft FL820S. The advertising copy for the XG2 says: * Synthetic blend media backed by a metal screen - This may be a good feature, Donaldson and Amsoil filters offer this, at a much lower price. * Long Life Silicone Anti-Drain Back Valve - the cheap Motorcraft filter comes standard with this. * Exterior Gasket with PTFE - Several filters (Amsoil for one) also offer this feature. I suppose if you change your oil filter once a decade or install it with a 10 foot pipe wrench, this might matter, but it is mostly advertising BS. At best it is a marginal advantage worth a few pennies. * 70% more capacity vs leading competitors average - totally meaningless BS. We don't know who are the leading competitors, exactly which filter p/n(s) this applies to, or the average capacity of the competitor's filters. In general FL820S size oil filters have far more capacity that will ever be required (compare an FL820S to almost any Toyota or Nissan filter for engines of similar size). * 96% Single pass efficiency - this is mediocre at best I'd be interested in cutting an XG2 filter open, but at a price of $23, there is no way I am buying one. If somebody has a used one they want to ship to me, let me know and I'll pay for the shipping.. I have a feeling they are sourcing this filter, or at least the media, from Donaldson (Donaldson also makes the Amsoil EA filters). The Donaldson filters are much cheaper. Ed
From: Tegger on 24 Nov 2008 13:21
SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in news:GOAWk.8994$YU2.4790(a)nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com: > Tegger wrote: >> SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in >> news:jvAWk.4957$8_3.1569(a)flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com: >> >>> Tegger wrote: >>> >>>> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like >>>> inside tell you absolutely nothing useful at all. >>> You're wrong. Those cut-apart evaluations tell you a couple of >>> things. >>> >>> 1. They tell you which filters to absolutely avoid due to >>> exceptionally poor construction. >> >> >> >> Exceptionally poor /looking/ consruction you mean, not exceptionally >> poor /functioning/ construction. >> >> Until those beauty-contest sites perform some kind of /function/ >> tests, they tell you absolutely nothing except the non-news that ugly >> girls don't win beauty contests. >> >> >> >>> 2. They show the amount of filtering area, which can vary widely. >> >> >> >> But they can't tell you how /good/ that filter medium is, which is >> the critical point. >> >> > > Thank goodness you snipped the third reason which proved you wrong yet > again! You must mean this: > 3. At "http://www.knizefamily.net/minimopar/oilfilters/index.html" he > tests the anti-drainback valves for leakage. I did snip that. But the author does NOT test drainback valves. He simply mentions what he thinks makes a good valve and what does not. On the Knize page (which is greatly updated and much more humble than the page I last looked at several years ago, this is found: "Hydrostatic Burst Pressure - Since I cannot test this myself, I have removed this data. SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency - Since I cannot test this myself, I have removed this data. SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency - Since I cannot test this myself, I have removed this data." Unfortunately, /these/ are the tests that primarily differentiate a "good" filter from a "bad" one, and /these/ are the tests the author has omitted. It's really too bad the author has left out the SAE test results. In most scientific and statistical testing, the raw data used in tests are made available to others along with test methodology. That's how you determine bias. Bias is not detemined on the say-so of somebody who refuses to reveal the data and methodologythat he claims are biased. I stand by my original assertion: There is not yet any reliable and verifiable evidence to prove that one oil filter is better than another, and, if some /are/ better, to what degree. -- Tegger |