Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
in [Toyota]
|
From: Tegger on 24 Nov 2008 13:22 "WindsorFox<[SS]>" <windsor.fox.usenet(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:ggelbq$v0g$1(a)posting2.glorb.com: > Tegger wrote: >> HiC <brassplyer(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4-a7eb- >> 59162df7508a(a)w34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com: >> >>> I see opinions of the "I swear by" type all over the map. Anyone >>> know of a good site that shows the truth about which brand/type of >>> oil & filter performs the best? Thinking in the passenger car realm. >>> >>> >> >> >> There isn't any. Not such that I've ever been able to find online, >> anyway. >> >> Those sites that pull filters apart to see what they look like inside >> tell you absolutely nothing useful at all. > > It told me that the most expensive conventional filter (at the > time) had pieces of cardboard glued to the edges of the filter > media as end caps. It's not "cardboard". -- Tegger
From: HLS on 24 Nov 2008 14:06 "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message > I stand by my original assertion: There is not yet any reliable and > verifiable evidence to prove that one oil filter is better than another, > and, if some /are/ better, to what degree. > Tegger I stand with you on this point. One test is worth a thousand expert opinions.
From: Scott Dorsey on 24 Nov 2008 14:09 In article <_WCWk.6231$W06.4416(a)flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, HLS <nospam(a)nospam.nix> wrote: > >"Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message >> 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. > >I stand with you on this point. One test is worth a thousand expert >opinions. Agreed. One statement that we can make, though, is that any new oil filter is better than an old oil filter. Change your oil and filter regularly. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: C. E. White on 24 Nov 2008 14:10 "Tegger" <invalid(a)invalid.inv> wrote in message news:Xns9B6087A65CDA6tegger(a)208.90.168.18... > 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. The problem is simple, the equipment needed to run the SAE tests is very expensive. A consumer could 1) purchase the equipment and run the test for the many filters available for a given application, or 2) pay a test house to do the testing, or 3) request the information from the manufacturer. Options 1 and 2 are very expensive and well beyond the average consumer's means. I've tried option 3. Responses range from partial information, to "no way will we give anyone that information." Some companies (Wix) provide at least minimal information that you could use to make a comparison. Some companies provide nothing (ACDelco is the worst of the comanies that will actually respond). And some companies will send you a lot of meaningless advertising drivel that at best confuses the facts (Fram and Amsoil). So unless you are going to spend big bucks, a beauty contest is about the best you can do. In general OEM filters come off better in beauty contests than cheap aftermarket filters. And if you aren't willing to make any judgment calls based on appearance, then going with the OEM filter is likely the best option. I usually do this, unless the OEM filters are hard to find, or wildly overpriced. I think you are wrong to completely dismiss beauty contests, particularly those that measure the internal filter elements (particularly the media). All other things being equal, more media has to be better than less. Thick media is more likely to remove fine particles than thin. A filter with more filter media surface area is more likely to have a higher flow rate and higher filter capacity than filters with less total media area. It is obvious that some anti-drain back valves are made from stiff material, and likely to fail and that some relief valves seal poorly. Filter elements with the media well potted in metal end caps are more likely to be durable that filters with the media poorly glued to paper end caps. Etc. Etc. If a company goes to the trouble to include well made ,obviously superior, internal components (the parts the average person never sees), I feel certain they are also using top quality filter material. If a company builds filters with crummy internal components, but spends million on advertising...well you can guess what I am thinking. There are a few cases where the beauty contest falls apart. The Donaldson and Amsoil EA filters have media that is completely different that the traditional paper (cellulose, or even "synthetic" paper) types of media. I find it hard to directly compare them. And the situation with Toyota filters is really strange. The OE filters on the 2.4L I4 engines in the two RAV4s I service has media unlike anything else I have ever seen (even in the standard Toyota replacement filter for these engines). The OE filter is so different, I just think it has to be better, but can't prove it. The OE filter has other "better looking" features as well, so it wins the beauty contest anyhow (compared to the made in Thailand Toyota replacement filter). My experience with Honda replacement filters is limited. The one that I cut open that said Honda on the outside was, as far as I could tell, identical to a Fram on the inside. Perhaps it had superior media, but it did not look any different and it still had the crummy looking paper end caps and poor quality relief valve. I go for a Wix or Purolator filter for that application every time. Of course you can also question just how good a filter has to be. All filters go into bypass mode at times, so there is always the possibility of contaminants slipping by. The pick-up screens on the oil pumps block the grosser stuff that would lead to immediate damage, so the filter is mostly there to trap particles that could lead to long term wear. My feeling is, if you are concerned about engine wear, the air filter and PCV systems are more critical than the oil filter. Most of the "dangerous" contaminates that end up in your oil after the car is broken in, come in via the air intake. Cut down on the fine dust getting into the engine and you will go a long ways towards protecting your engine from wear. In the past there have been engines that didn't even have external oil filters (old VW bugs for instance). And I remember when GM only required you to change the filter with alternate oil changes (maybe they still do), meaning the filter might be on the car for 15k miles (or more). And despite this, GM used oil filters the size of a teacup (like most current Toyotas and Nissans). I've always wondered why Ford and Chrysler always used comparatively large filters and required them to be changed with every oil change and GM used small filters and allowed them to be changed every other oil change. It always made me wonder just how important the oil filter is. I've cut open quite a few used oil filter and never found much to be concerned about. However, I don't have a good way of determining how much the filter has actually trapped. If anyone has a suggestion on how this might be done CHEAPLY, I'd love to hear it. My only thought is to fill the new filter with oil and weigh it before I install it on the car. Then, when I remove the filter, refill it with oil (after emptying out all the old oil) and weigh it as a comparison, assuming any difference in weight represents contamination trapped by the filter. Ed
From: SMS on 24 Nov 2008 14:12
Steve W. wrote: > There are few online sites that have cut open filters and such but > unless they rig up a test bench, actually run something through the > filter and prove what it does and doesn't do the results are > meaningless. At least the test I saw, he tested the anti-drain back valves. It's a good idea to buy filters where the valves don't leak, since that reduces engine wear at start-up. Regarding the Toyota 90915 he wrote: "The filter does use a plastic bypass valve similar to the Fram filter, however I could not make this one leak. It is also held in place by a steel clip rather than plastic tabs like the Fram." I suspect that all of the filters actually filter acceptably. The difference is in the drainback valves, and how large the filter area is. A filter with more area will take longer to clog up than one with a smaller filter area. Construction does matter, because poorly constructed filters will often fail internally, without any indication. Unless you cut them open when you remove them, rather than just tossing them, you'll never know that they failed and not only were they no longer filtering, but dumped everything they did filter back into the oil that's circulating. After what happened with the Fram PH6017, which were failing due to construction quality, I swore off Fram. |