Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Oil Filters, whose is best, and Why?

14344454749

Comments

  • A member on Bob's board E-mailed Champion Labs about the disappearance of ST2808 from Walmart shelves.

    Here's The Champion Labs response:

    "Wal-Mart has requested we consolidate some part numbers in the Super Tech filter line. In doing so, the ST2808 will now be labeled as ST3593A.

    The ST3593A is fitted with an anti-drainback valve as well as a by-pass valve; as was the ST2808. The SuperTech filter line meets or exceeds all original equipment requirements for fit and function.

    If you require additional assistance, please feel free to contact our
    Filter Hotline at 800-882-0890.

    Thank you.

    Dale Hayes
    Technical Assistance
    Representative"
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    I think that the trend to consolidation will continue. While there should be a "standard", in fact there is not and probably will not. This is vexing in light of the fact that the functionality is fairly much the same.

    I have had TLC's since a older 87 onto a 97. Toyota has seen fit to resize and change the oil filters for the I6 engine at least three times that I know of. Equivalents have gone from like a Fram PH8A (softball and larger size) to an intermediate to the current AC Delco PF53(baseball size).

    For the Fram PH8A in 1987 IF I was lucky, I could catch a sale and buy two for 2.50 . OEM filters were 3.50 if you bought a case of 10. Today OEM filters can be had for 4.50-6. I can buy the SuperTech equivalent for 1.97 24/7. SuperTech advertises 98% single pass and 99% multiple pass efficiencies.

    In my view the filtering media as gotten better and cheaper.
  • knapp3knapp3 Posts: 112
    Fleetwood: I agree. IMHO, you get a lot more value with the Motorcraft than the Walmart SuperTech filter for a single $ more! The FL-820S has a silicone ADV, the ST has a nitrate one. And it's not the better nitrate design with a curled edge that Champion makes. It has the Ford designed bypass valve, not the new "clicker" design Champion labs are moving to. I've never seen any SAE filtering data on Motorcraft filters, but anecdotally, I think they are comparable to Walmart's line. Lastly, here is what Ford has to say in my owners manual where a FL-820S filter is specified: "If a replacement oil filter is used that does not meet Ford material and design specifications, start-up engine noises or knock may be experienced. It is recommended you use the appropriate Motorcraft oil filter (or another brand meeting Ford specifications) for your engine application."

    In this case, I think Ford knows what they're talking about.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    Incidently at the local WalMart they sell Fram, SuperTech and Motorcraft oil filters.
  • the Motorcraft stock is very limited in our stores.

    If I remember correctly, the Motorcraft filter is a Purolator Plus can with some of the PureOne refinements.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    according2me, thanks for posting that info. Today, I did not see a sticker on the shelf for the ST2808 so Wal-Mart does seem to no longer carry this filter. I'll have to look at the 3593 next time. Any idea of its size relative to the 2808?

    Over the weekend I used my last old-style blue can ST2808 for an oil change on a 98 Isuzu Trooper. It's a horizontal filter mount. If I remember correctly, the new ST2808 should work fine in a vertical filter mount, as is the case on our other vehicle which happens to take the same filters as the Trooper. So my leftover 2808s shouldn't be a total waste. Or am I better off just returning them?
  • I really dislike the "new" bypass setup. I looked at the replacement filter today and it also has the "new" bypass. I guess I'm going to look at a Motorcraft or go back to OEM for my Honda.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    I have to think that there MAY be more bullet proof function, or less complexity to lend itself to valve failure in the new style Supertech filters. I was a bit concerned, peering down at what appeared to be a metallic cover on the other side of a circle of holes in the end of the center tube in my only remaining ST-2 filter. This is an apparent departure in the way ST filters are made, and I'm getting that gnawing feeling. Meanwhile, I have a good supply of Motorcraft FL820S filters. I hope we have no need to fear the new breed of ST. The words from the Champion company are somewhat reassuring. Some independent testing of function would be appropriate, agree?
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    I would say that testing is already done, just not published. I am getting the feeling in terms of function that oil filters are almost as fungible as unleaded gasoline.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    It appears likely that only emotion sways us from brand to brand, while utility remains adequate across the board. But I must admit I have not forgotten factors such as anecdotes about casing ruptures and floating cardboard fragments.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    #2346

    It can be that the lowest failure rate percentage is really what we are buying,advertising and hoping for.
  • vidtechvidtech Posts: 212
    i am trying to locate the address for champion labs web page.would someone please respond with the url?thanks
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Posts: 1,091
    has his filter study started. Check it out. Send him some money like I did and get him to generate more data for us.

    http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&- amp;f=6&t=000513#000024
  • It's good to see him back there tinkering.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Posts: 1,091
    that it was bob doing the work. The point is that someone there is. It may be bob. I think the new owner of the site took over his nickname but I'm not for sure of that.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    I won't be sending "Bob" or anyone else any money. I'd appreciate getting some separation here between this Edmunds site and the "Bob" stuff. How about everybody picking one. As I recall, "Bob" got fed up with this site and left. I'll elect to stay here.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Posts: 1,091
    I'm OK if you are not interested in the filter pressure drop information that is being generated on different brands of filters. I think some people are though.
  • vadpvadp Posts: 1,025
    Very impressive setup...

    "Our goals are to try and see if we can watch bypass valves, when and how long do they stay open, oil drop across filters when oil is cold, when hot..."
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    I can appreciate where you're coming from on the info. I think it's fine. I only meant that I would prefer not having both sites being copies and recapitulations of one another. Then, everyone could choose one or the other (by interest) and not have two sites paralleling on material. Didn't Bob leave this site, not liking the content, or some such? Now, they both must be very close to the same.
  • but a lot less scientific than I would like. First there is no reason to have the oil pressure at 40 psi. This only serves to give people a warm and fuzzy feeling like it is on the engine. No wonder he is burning up the speed controller. Differential pressure is a function of flow and if you chart flow vs differential pressure, a knee will form when the bypass begins to operate. His does make an excellent example of how flow is restricted when the oil is cold. Given that you get almost 10# with room temperature oil, it is obvious that all oil filters go into bypass on winter days. I think I remember bypass operates in the 10-15# range. While interesting none of these tests are valid without flow readings and temperature. Running a pump can change the temperature and viscosity in a short time.

    Since I have all the same equipment, I will be doing some tests with transmission fluid to test remote transmission filters of the FL-1A size family.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    I could not help but to think if the MAJOR/minor filter manufacturing companies did their oil filter testing using these procedures, that at the minimum we would all be horrified!! :)

    I think this is a call for sharing more technical data, which I am guessing the OEM's are loathed to share. :(
  • knapp3knapp3 Posts: 112
    My apologies if this has been posted here before.

    If not, be prepared to laugh YAO.

    http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=691260
  • I am still around. I've never had a problem with anyone on this site and find it a very well managed board. Just that my board had become so much of a hand full, there's really no time for me to browse over here as I'm sure the moderators over here can tell you they are most likely faced with the same problems as well.

     I've did a quick browse through this thread and have seen some issues about proof how schaeffers oils does or does not hold up to a full synth.

     First, yes they have a 5w30 full synth that is not api certified. It is good, but for what you pay it's not that good. The blend can hold it's own for long extended drains as the full synth's can. Reason, well, in short, schaeffers doesn't just use one or two barrier additives, but 5 different combinations. moly,zinc,phos,penetro,antimony. Also, included is a surfactant the breaks the ionic tension of the additives giving it a better spread across the surface, like water, additives has ionic tension which if you were to fill a glass up to the brim with water, it will hold, but with a surfactant, it will break the tension and flow over. This is also commonly used in a good coolant additive such as redlines or schaeffers clean and cool.Another reason is they use more antioxidants vers detergents so it doesn't rely on having a higher tbn as the tbn drop is slower than those with higher tbns based on the antioxidants that neutralizes the acids before they become and acid, thus it doesn't affect the base oil, unlike higher tbn oils, then will lose their neutralizing effect sooner then rely on the tbn(detergents) to clean up what the acid's. Because of this, you'd want a full synth because acids attack the oxidation of the base oil, so if your not using as much antioxidants then a higher tbn is needed but also a higher level of base oil so it isn't oxidized as easy. That's why schaeffers blends perform as well as any full synth.

     Now, as for proof, Al did an analysis with the full blend, which I told him at that time of purchase he was wasting his money on as it wouldn't perform much if any better than the blend. Now his analysis was compared to m1 and did better than m1, but also compared to analysis all over my board, it shows no better than our blends. I personally have been doing a 4k oil analysis on my car, first with the 700 15w40 blend with a m1 filter.. Analysis showed a good report, then to prove that wear protection isn't based on the base oil but the additives, I switched over to the exact same oil only it doesn't have the pao and carries the same basic additive package as when most change up from a mineral they change brands to a full synth and thus different additives and my contention is that it is the additives that make the oil, not the base oil contrary to popular belief.

     Ok, now I have done the second 4k drain with a full mineral oil but only this time instead of having used the m1 filter I had used the cheapest fram filter I could get to ensure that it had nothing to do with the filtration. Well, to mine and many others surprise, the mineral oil came back with much lower wear numbers!. Based on this, it now struck me as to what might be happening. Maybe that flow has a lot to do with wear protection, particularly in stop and go traffic. So, this is where I decided to run the 5w30 mineral based oil again with the same fram filter to see if having a thinner oil will help the numbers even more. I'm currently on that now. Based on this information, this is why I setup the oil flow test. Yep, as always, there's always someone that thinks just because I do this, it's not proof enough it means anything. No problem, but There's a lot more going on with this test than has been brought out at this time.

     We are going to bring up the oil temp to 200degs and redo the test. I also have a way to possibly check the antidrainback valve for back pressure reliability. Also, since I do have a virgin fram filter with documented flow on this setup, when I do my oil change, I'm going to dump my old filter, and place it on there and measure what kind of resistance if any I may have on a 4k used filter based against the new one.

     Anyway, enjoy seeing you guys still pondering on oil and filters, and hopefully I'll keep some of you amused with my backyard test, but from where I stand, I've seen way to many " BS " data from many oil sites that have not established anything but say it's so, at least I'll take a stab at base line pressure tests and see what happens and so far, from what I have seen, m1 filter will never go back on my car at this time, as wear analysis and my pressure test has shown both that the 10lb drop was all it takes to increase wear. The wix/napa silver would be my second choice based on what we have so far seen.

     Anyway, have a good one, As I'll be going back to my site not to bother you anymore. Enjoy, hope you're all doing well. Cheers! Bob.
  • The 90vdc motor that I have was used in a tread mill with a pully. I'm using it as a direct drive and it is only producing 25vdc to the motor and it is over heating the drive circuit causing the 15amp breaker in line to open. The torque for this motor at that speed isn't high enough to run at a constant speed under than load, but was able to set it up to handle the 40lb variable I use to do these tests. I'm going to build a halfwave bridge using some heavy diodes and a variac control so to setup the vcc and make the pump run even faster. If for some reason that doesn't hold up then I'm off to a friends place who has some old lawn mower engines, and I'll set one of those 5hp briggs in place.. I'll have it where I can ramp up the pressure when I want or need it for longer periods of time.

     Also those tests where done in the coolest part of the day and night, temp was average of 75-77degs.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    Outstanding observations! I appreciate what you say about the additive package being the key to wear prevention. I am one of very few posters that seems to favor WIX/NAPA/CASTROL/PENSKE filters. Your data suggesting that these filters aid in lessening engine wear via high flow is very intriguing.
  • From what I've observed, this seems to make sense..

     Many talk about how it's much harder on the oil driving in town than on the hwy.. Ever really wonder how?, consider this. At idle, you may have say 28lbs of pressure of oil wedge at the rod bearings, and when you accelerate, you pump immediately jumps the flow up causing oil pressure to rise to say 40lbs from the filter back to the pump and depending on how long it takes for the oil to flow through the whole system which is anywhere from 3 to six foot(length of the motor at least twice,bottom and top cams), the longer the time it takes for the oil to build up the pressure you rod bearing is squeezing out the 28lb's our pressure easily as opposed to the 40lbs it normally would have. Each time you hit that gas from a stop, this occurs, thus scuffing the bearings when it shear the oil's hydrodynamic condition since there isn't enough oil pressure, this is whey the boundary lubricant becomes more important than ever in this condition. Obviously, it is better to have that 40lbs of wedge effect at the bearings which will protect better than just relying on a boundary condition.
  • csandstecsandste Posts: 1,866
    Sorry I haven't been here in the last few posts. IMHO Bob is able to post information on a very narrow field that would be (quite correctly) shut down by Edmunds. Both sites are valuable and perform slightly different functions. To pick one or the other would be like being forced to give up a newspaper (depth) or TV news (immediacy). If you don't think this is true, post a topic called "Castrol 5W20" virgin oil analysis and see how quickly it's shut down on this site. Both sites are great and perfectly complement each other.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    I guess I'm just being lazy, requesting that we try to show some separation between the two sites. I don't like having to stop, find my way to the other site, and then back; all within the scope of reading just one post with any hope of understanding the cross references! (:o]
  • zoomzoom626zoomzoom626 Posts: 124
    Hi all..I need some advice with filter changing interval.I drive 2000 Mazda 626 LX-V6 with Mobil 1 oil and PureOne filter PL14620. I run 10K between oil changes. Does Pure one has enough capacity to stay in all 10K or should I change it at 5K? Is this a good filter and what are alternatives that have similar filtering efficiency and don't have problem lasting up to 10K.
    Thanks
    Dejan
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    Other posters have stated that Mobil 1 filters are of particularly fine porosity, and likely plug up a bit faster than some larger pored filters. I suggest you present that question to the Mobil company. Additionally, I would admit that were I to decide to go 10K on the oil, I would do the same on the filter, recognizing that it might not filter as well toward the end of the period than it did in the beginning. I would seriously doubt that you would have any true need to change the filter more often than the oil.
  • armtdmarmtdm Posts: 2,057
    sounds like you have ben doing this for a while. I believe that you can do the 10,000 fine. Cut one open after the fact and look at it. I am chaning the oil tomorrow on one where I have 10,000 on the oil and filter over 8 months. I feel the filter will look fine and the analysis will also be fine.

    Under normal conditions I just don't see a oil filter as a useful appendage and I am trying in my own testing to see if this is true or false. For me it its the oil and driving conditions that make the difference, especially if you chagne every 3000 miles. then, you may not even need a filter
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    Past break in, I would not change the pure one oil filter. Change the 10,000 miles Mobil One oil and the oil filter at the same time.
  • zoomzoom626zoomzoom626 Posts: 124
    Thanks for the advice. Until now I used mazda filters and this oil change I decided to go with PureOne but since I then I found numerous people expressing their concerns about this filter being too restrictive on oil flow. Is there any merit to those concerns?
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    I don't think the Pure One (Purolator) should cause concern, beyond most any filter. I would not run the oil 10K, and therefore the filter question would be moot, due to simultaneous changing. The Mobil 1 filter has been questioned in these threads. I have never seen any convincing evidence that super filtration versus common filtering adds any appreciable advantage, but rather just lightens the wallet more severely.
  • zoomzoom626zoomzoom626 Posts: 124
    THIS CAME BACK YESTERDAY, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK?

    UNIT 2000 MAZDA 626 LX-V6
    MI/HR ON OIL 10,000
    MI/HR ON UNIT 60,000
    SAMPLE DATE 4/6/2003

    FIRST NUMBER IS MY OIL AND SECOND NUMBER IS UNIVERSAL AVERAGE

    ALUMINUM 7 4
    CHROMIUM 2 1
    IRON 33 12
    COPPER 7 6
    LEAD 23 5
    TIN 0 13
    MOLYBDENUM 75 0
    NICKEL 1 0
    MANGANESE 1 1
    SILVER 0 0
    TITANIUM 0 0
    POTASSIUM 2 0
    BORON 108 38
    SILICON 11 9
    SODIUM 9 6
    CALCIUM 2951 1304
    MAGNESIUM 73 481
    PHOSPHORUS 801 747
    ZINC 963 880
    BARIUM 0 1

    VISCOSITY @ 210 ºF 64 55-62
    FLASHPOINT IN ºF 415 >365
    FUEL % <0.5 <2.0
    WATER % 0 <0.05
    ANTIFREEZE % 0 0
    INSOLUBLES % 0.04 <0.6

    LAB COMMENT:Nothing too unusual showed up here. This oil was run quite a bit longer that what we
    normally see and this is the reason for most of the high wear. The universal averages column shows typical wear from this type of engine after 4,000-5,000 miles on the oil. Lead at 23 ppm shows mildly high bearing wear, though everything else looks okay. The TBN was 3.5 which is low, but not a problem. 2.0 or less is considered a problem. The oil started at 10-11. No fuel or anti-freeze was present. Suggest going 11,000 next oil and resample at that point to monitor.
  • armtdmarmtdm Posts: 2,057
    As this is the filter board what filter were you using. I posted my thoughts on the synthetic oil board where you also posted the results.

    Personally, I don't think filters make much diff in modern engines using quality oil. I sent in a smaple this past weeekend with the primary diff between it and previous samples being that I did not change the filter at 6000 miles as I did in the others, this one the filter went 10,000 miles. So, results should be interesting. I feel the results will be the same and changing the filter has no effect but I will await the report to confirm it.
  • zoomzoom626zoomzoom626 Posts: 124
    I USED MAZDA FILTER..I WOULD THINK THAT BETTER FILTER(HIGH EFFICIENCY) WOULD REDUCE WEAR..I PUT A PUREONE THIS TIME..CAN YOU PLEASE POST YOUR RESULTS WHEN YOU GET THEM SINCE I'M THINKING TO CHANGE FILTER AT 5K BUT IF YOUR RESULTS PROVE THAT CHANGING FILTER HALF WAY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE I WILL KEEP IT ALL THE WAY..WHAT FILTER DO YOU USE ON YOUR CAR?
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    If you can justify the expense, you really should change the filter and the oil BOTH at 5000. If you are stretching the change period as a matter of gaming, as seems commonly the motivation, go for it. If you want to better protect the engine, then change more frequently.
  • bigorange30bigorange30 Posts: 1,091
    The iron and lead levels do look a little high. They must not feel that it is too high since they recommended you go to 11k on the next drain. What oil were you using?
  • zoomzoom626zoomzoom626 Posts: 124
    I switched to synthetics for two reasons, one is better protection and second one is extended drain interval. Just don't have to much time to spend under the car changing oil ( I drive 20K+ per year). I'm also considering trying AMSOIL next oil change which should allow me to go 1 year between oil changes without sacrificing the engine protection(that is what they claim). I will do analysis halfway trough just to check that oil is doing its job along with changing filter.
  • armtdmarmtdm Posts: 2,057
    As noted above
     If you want to better protect the engine, then change more frequently.

    This is not necessarily true. If you can reduce the wear per mile driven by changing oil more frequently then yes, but chances are you don't reduce the wear/mile you just reduce the total amount of wear as shown in ppm. 1 ppm of iron at 500 miles is equal; to 10 ppm of iron at 5000.

    I use the Amsoil SDF filters except in one care where I use K&N. I have changed my phylosophy from filtering to flow and I now feel that flow is more important then filtering.

    If you switch to Amsoil do not assume you can go 20,000 miles in a year. Highly hioghly receommned analysis at 10,000 to see if the oil is holding up.
    Each engine and driving condition is differnet as some simply cannot do it. I have yet to find an engine of mine that can go beyond 12,000 miles and get a decent oil analysis report. IF you go to Amsoil use the 5W30 series 3000 (gas/diesel oil) better additive package then the regular 5W or 10W synthetic they sell. I use the 10W and cannot get beyond 12,000 miles, 7500 on my Toyota. Toyotas just beat the oil up bad. Do not be sold by an overzealous Amsoil rep that the oil can go 25,000 in a year. It rarely can.
  • zoomzoom626zoomzoom626 Posts: 124
    Thanks for the info on AMSOIL. I'll give it a shoot just to see how it stacks up against mobil 1.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    When you change at 5K rather than 10K, you reduce the exposure to potential exhaustion of the additive package. Also, as the additive package decreases in effectiveness, or in other words gets used up a bit, the wear RATE on the engine increases. These are just simple and obvious mathematical relationships.
  • armtdmarmtdm Posts: 2,057
    Until the time when that additiuve package begins to fail and the wear rate is about to increase is when or at what point does the oil need to be changed due to the additive package running out and the wear rate is about to increase? that is the key and how to predict it is the $64,000 question. Most people play it safe and go 3000 miles and never worry about it.

    the other question is if the wear rate is 10 ppm of iron at 5000 miles but goes to 30 ppm in 5000 miles how much sooner will that engine fail if we just continue on with the same oil and change habits. No one knows and so much is dependent on the individual engine, climate and driving habits.
  • fleetwoodsimcafleetwoodsimca Posts: 1,518
    The chemical dynamics of the process suggest that the additive package begins deteriorating the moment it is brought into action in an engine. If it's working, it's being consumed. The process is so "slow" that its effects are minuscule in practical terms, and not readily observed until a minor loss of effectiveness becomes measurable in meaningful dimensions. It is not an on/off switched event.
    The 3K oil and filter interval nullifies any reasonable concern in this matter in the vast majority of cases, as you implied.
  • edwardn1edwardn1 Posts: 103
    ...they went to a multifold origami type process that gets at least, by my looking at a filter I cut open at least twice the media area. This is the filter for a 4 cyl. late model Camry Toyota #90915-YZZA2. They use a crystal fold that has to be seen to be believed, and I wonder if other filters using conventional folds could match the flow and filter rates. IS THERE ANY INFO ON THIS?
  • sequoiasoonsequoiasoon Posts: 223
    Ok, help the new guy please. I read a bunch of posts and am now torn on what to get for my 93 Corolla (160K). My dad had always used OEM or Fram and so did I (until reading here and cutting one apart recently) Oil has always been 10W-30 Quaker State (again OEM spec and Dad). I checked 5 stores and nobody carried the Pure One. They did have STP S4967 (by Champion), Mobil 1, and Bosch, and of course (yuk) FRAM.

    OEM-90915-YZZA2
    Fram-PH4967
    STP- S4967
    I forgot the numbers for the M1 and Bosch.

    Oil changes are between 2500 and 3000 all the time. Car "uses /burns" 1/2 quart between changes and no leaks. Let the advice (and insults due to being naive) fly. I definitely want to use a better filter than that four letter word but the $13 M1 just hurts.

    I did cut the OEM and in this extremely small filter, the length of the material was 13 inches longer than the Fram. This will definitely be better choice than F. I am picking up my 2003 Sequoia in 2 weeks and want to start right with it (probably M1 and synthetic) and hopefully double the 160k on my current Toyota.

    Anybody have experience with BG Products? My local Toyota dealer uses their stuff for in house services (tranny and fuel injection). They actually pump out / through 15 qts of tranny fluid then change filter. What a difference in fluid color / clarity as to what my friend had done at AAMCO. On my car they used a synthetic gear lube (synchro shift 2) that actually cleared up a light grind on shifting. They said it was the synchros "dragging" with the regular GL-5. Also cleaned fuel injectors and added 44k cleaner to Gas and MOA during oil change. All I know is my car has not run this good since it was new.

    Thanks in advance for your advice.
  • ruking1ruking1 Posts: 19,825
    I saw a "less" than satisfactory writeup on the Toyota Corolla OEM oil filter product vs a "satisfactory" write up on the FRAM. I have since lost track of the link.

    The other thing is that on a 1987 TLC I ran almost strictly FRAM's PH 8A filter with Mobil One 5w-30 for app 250k miles on 15k intervals.
This discussion has been closed.