If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:492acb87$1@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. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in message
... > 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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
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" > To: '" > Subject: 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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
"Mark A" > wrote in message . .. > "C. E. White" > wrote in message > news:492acb87$1@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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
SMS > wrote in
: > Tegger wrote: >> SMS > wrote in >> : >> >>> 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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
"WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in
: > Tegger wrote: >> HiC > wrote in news:8455880c-4d03-4ce4-a7eb- >> : >> >>> 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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
HiC wrote:
> 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. > > Thanks > Don't know of one that really tests the items in the real world and then rates them. All the different manufacturers claim that they test against others and that theirs are the best. The catch is that you never see them saying who they tested against or what the real results were. 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. It doesn't mean a thing if you have more media in the can if that media isn't filtering well. As for cardboard end caps, So what, the filter media is paper or fiberglass weave which will blow out first. The drain back valve MAY make a difference, however as long as it functions it doesn't matter if it's rubber, silicone or metal. My personal preference is to use a filter that has proven itself over a long time and from a company that stands behind their products. Same with oil. Use the proper oil in proper grade and don't use the gimmick crap. Synthetic if the customer asks or it's the proper oil. On oil filters I tend to use the larger filter if more than one fits the vehicle, and it will fit. For instance on the GM 4.3 there are two filters, one is listed for the 4X4s and the other for the 2WD. The larger filter will fit on 99% of them, the only ones it is tight on is the early remote mount units with the filter on the inner fender. -- Steve W. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
"Tegger" > 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
In article >,
HLS > wrote: > >"Tegger" > 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." |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?
"Tegger" > wrote in message ... > 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison? | HiC | Technology | 306 | December 5th 08 04:47 PM |
Oil filter changing irritation and fuel filter question. | Some Dude | Ford Explorer | 4 | August 19th 06 01:04 AM |
86 accord/motor oil in air filter pan | alscubapal | Honda | 9 | January 2nd 06 07:53 PM |
Rigorous air filter comparison test | Daniel J. Stern | Driving | 52 | January 6th 05 10:40 AM |
Rigorous air filter comparison test | Daniel J. Stern | Technology | 28 | January 6th 05 10:40 AM |