Oil Filters, whose is best, and Why?

zr2rando

The PF52 is for the Chev/GM 4.3 v6 and also the 350-v8, that's why I was so surprised there was a difference in them...no strings like the purolators, no Champ labs hole pattern, ..
the Kmart version is the Mopar study version.
The Walmart version looks like the Champion labs version except for the inlet holes, so I'm not positive about that one...but it and the Super-tech look the same when looking in the outlet hole....as far as cheap filters go...the Walmart/Supertech gets my vote at the moment.
Probably gonna start using the PureOnes after I use up the AC's I have on the shelf right now though

tsjay

The 47 is shorter

tom

adc100

as tsjay said the PF47 is shorter than the PF52. The Purolator sizes are the same size as their AC counterpart. PL10111 is shorter than the PL24011

zr2rando

some pl-24011s on my garage shelf....

zr2rando

The Walmart version :
filter can looks thicker, (eyeball comparison)
has a leaf spring tensioner, Kmart version did not

brorjace

Thanks tsjay, for your thorough answer.

I would not believe that Honda would spec-out a filter media for their filters that would fray and introduce errant fibers into the lubrication system.

It's a shame he let such a silly, amateurish observation taint a rather labor intensive review and comparison.

--- Bror Jace

tsjay

Like I have said before, guys, I am not, and do not claim to be, an expert on automotive oil filters. I am bad to the bone at developing filter media for them, though.

I have to know something about filters in order to do a good job of designing media, but it's not like I worked for a filter manufacturer. I can't quote you center tube diameters, pleat height, pleat count, relief valve pressures, etc., etc., for all the various filters out there.

We usually work on developing the paper for one specific filter, and then the customer may take that same paper grade and use it in other filters without consulting us. That is certainly their prerogative.

I have been to all of the major filter manufacturers' plants, and I have learned a few things about how filters are built, but I am far from being a filter expert.

tom

bluedevils

tsjay, did I understand you correctly? You indicated that buying a filter from the dealer will likely/possibly yield a better-quality filter than buying the same brand/model filter from an auto parts store or discount retailer?

This is interesting, and a little disturbing.

tsjay

Yes, my friend, it is possible that you get a better filter from the dealer than the same filter from other sources. The key word is POSSIBLE. I'm not saying that is always the case.

There are sometimes three sets of specs, OEM-Engine Plant, OEM-Replacement, and Aftermarket.

I haven't actually seen all three sets of specs for a particular filter, but our customers, the filter manufacturers, have told us this. It could just be the level of testing required on the part of the filter manufacturer rather than an actual difference in the specs. I wish I knew more about this, and I will try to find out.

tom

bluedevils

I can't believe a company would do this. It's really annoying. If I buy a Motorcraft FL-820S filter from Meijer or Wal-Mart, I have every right to expect it's the same exact filter as the one at the Ford dealer down the street. How else can you know what you're getting?

bidandsell

supertech 2808 filter (fits Hondas). Small filter inside, metal end caps and 45 pleats , coated paper , smooth paper, evenly spaced on the pleats height of cartridge 1.5 inches. Had bypass built into cartridge.Also cut a Fram XG3593A (the one in the can). 35 fuzzy uniform pleats, 2 inch tall cartridge, plastic cheap bypass valve. Good looking filter except for the bypass. tsjay this fram has ink marks on the filter side(fuzzy) right where the ends come together.

tsjay

Unfortunately, Fram uses our competitor's paper, so I'm not familiar with the media. It's possible those ink lines are just showing through from the other side of the sheet. Sometimes the ink lines are a little too heavy, and you can see them through the paper, even though they are actually applied to the other side. They still serve the purpose, since they are much darker on the side they are applied to, making it ovbious which side is which.

Maybe our competitor marks the felt side of the sheet instead of the wire side. Just don't know.

If the ink lines are only apparent where the two ends come together, maybe it's just their sealing technique that makes them appear there. I'll bet that's it.

tom

bidandsell

Post today!

adc100

At Pep Boys is the same cartridge as Pure One.

tsjay

It HAS been quiet around here lately, huh?

I'm still checking in about every day, though.

I have been busier than a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest at work lately, so I haven't had time to do a couple things that I promised to do, but I haven't forgotten them. I am going to try to find a pic of some filter paper taken through a microscope, and I am also going to try to find out more about the different specs for OEM-engine plant, OEM-replacement, and Aftermarket.

Tom

dlaughlin

Does anyone know where I can find this filter? I would like to see if they make one for My LS.

armtdm

I believe is mail order only! On the Amsoil (promo info) they rate HArdDriver second or third to their own, biased of course but I beleive a good filter. Myself, I usually use Amsoil followed by Pure One or Mobil 1.

Does any one have any idea how drain back valves are tested??? Not so much interested in whether they seal well, which they should, but how many stops etc. are they tested for, since everyone says you should change the filter at least every 6 months or(Amsoil 12,500 miles) how many times is the valve supposed to be good for?????

adc100

PF 52 will fit the Cavalier/Sunfire 2.2 and the 3.4L series GM no problem. Gives about 40% extra filtering capability.

seelig

myself and a few other silverado owners that use Mobil 1, have also tried the Mobil 1 oil filter. for some reason (not sure if good or bad), the oil pressure reading dropped as much as 10 psi. this may mean nothing, but to me, you want all the pressure you can get.

dlaughlin

Main reason for trying to find their oil filter, is the selection for my Lincoln LS. There is no listing for it in most filters. Amsoil doesn't make one, pure one, Mobil 1, etc. Just trying to come up with what is available for my car (V8)

grundtner

Hello all. I recently bought a '92 Lumina. It has the 3.1L engine. When buying oil filters last week, I noticed that the filter called for on the '92 Lumina is actually longer than the one for a '93 Lumina (same engine code, multiple reference guides & brands). The ring profile is the same. The funny thing is that I also have a '99 Malibu LS with the 3.1L. It has the same filter as called for on the '93 Luminas. So why did Chevrolet change from the longer filter('92) to the shorter version('93-'99). Does it have to do with the pump, and should I think about using the longer version on either of my cars? Just curious why they switched sizes like that.

Thanks for the advice.

wtd44

Why is a word very often associated with General Motors. I own a Geo in my household fleet, so I guess I can joke at the General's expense!
(Well, it IS a Toyota Corolla in disguise...)

armtdm

I think they may be trying to standardize and the smaller filter fits mroe cars. I, personally, always go with the larger filter if it will fit in the space.

wtd44

Please be careful to ascertain that all the other characteristics of the filter are the same as the "recommended" filter. Bypass pressure and backflow, as well as the diameter of the filter seal ring, etc. There are filter books full of specifications that make the decisions easier.

adc100

I looked up the info in the back of the Purolator book. Same head, and neither has a relief valve. Both have an antidrainback valve which is not needed on the 3.1. The engine on the 92 and 93 are identical as far as I know. In '94 the engine changed slightly and got another 10 HP. Both engines will take the long or short filter. As armtdm said, they probably changed to the smaller to standardize. Before you use the long one though make sure it is well away from the frame. Wen you accelerate or deaccelerate the engine rotates and could hit the frame. Also if the filter hangs down below the pan and is not protected go with the short one. Other GM dvisions use the same engine. The 3.1, 3.4, 3.8 use the same filter.

Not disagreeing wdt that's certainly sound advice.

armtdm

Confirms what the auto studies have said about Frams, JUNK

http://www.twocreeks.net/toby/oil_filters.shtml

Take a look at it, nothing scientific but interesting.

wtd44

Good site reference. I'm always interested in auto AND cycle info.

bottgers

I read in a study somewhere on the internet where the Mobil 1 was ranked the best, with the Puralator Pure One ranking a very close second. It makes me curious to find out why the Mobil 1 filter costs twice as much as the Puralator if these two filters are of almost equal quality.

wh23fdct

I have read posts 29 through 278 the past 2 hours and I see alot of stuff which I know nothing about, Way too much technical jargon, But that is fine for you guys. I started to read this post to figure out if I am using good stuff or what. I currently do all maintenence on my 99 explorer V8 and have been using the Purolator Pureone filter with penzoil 5W-30 as reccomended by ford. From what I gather from reading 29-278 is the next best thing to pureone is these amsoil filters everyone seems to love. Is baldwin and amsoil comparible? should I switch from pureone to amsoil or baldwin? You guys are definetly the pros here so I will check back in the near future to see any replies. My eyes are tired im going to bed. Thanks, Jim

adc100

You took the time to read instead of just ask a question that has been discussed 100 times before. I certanly don't consider myself a pro, but there is no evidence I have seen that says Pure One is not the best. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Mobil 1 may have the best filter media. It uses fiberglass which is the best. The problem here is we do not know how much or if some other brands have some and if so - how much. I use both Pure One and Mobil 1. They list the single/multipass efficiencies. So I don't think you can go wrong with either of those. I'm sure Amsoil is a very good filter, but I don't recall any of the Amsoil boys publishing their efficiencies.

Bottgers: You can read anything on the Internet (Look at the Sludge Board) so your statement : "I read in a study somewhere on the internet where the Mobil 1 was ranked the best, with the Puralator Pure One ranking a very close second" Carries no weight.

Later

tsjay

The Pure One has micro glass, and it actually has a lot of it compared to other high-efficiency filters. That's why they get 96% efficiency on the J806 test. We make the media for the Pure One, so I know what goes into that paper.

tom

armtdm

Baldwin owns HAstings and the HAsting filters and Amosil filters are made in the sam eplant, however Amsoil claims that theres are made to higher specs. The Amsoil filter does have synthetic media as well.

I have used all three and I use primarily Amsoil(which I like and is cheaper then Mobil 1), and Pure One on one car that I had a problem with the Amsoil filter on. However, quite honestly, I really like Mobil 1, can't say why exactly , oil analysis seemed to come back with fewer dirt and wear particles but all three filters have given me great results when changed at 6 months and oil once a year.

adc100

I apprecate that information and may be more tempted to use the Pure One even more than I do.

sdayalani

>> have used all three and I use primarily >>Amsoil>>(which I like and is cheaper then >>Mobil

the mobil1 filter for my mazda costs $9.99 whereas the amsoil filter (sdf-13) costs $13.99 +s/h

maybe you were referring to amsoil being cheaper if one were to get it at dealer price.

armtdm

I was referring to a dealer price. I finally did receive Amsoil's response in the mail today and they have stated in writing that although the Hastings Filters and Amsoil filters are made in the same plant that the Amsoil filters are made to different specifications which they claim are higher then Hastings. Well, at least they replied, whether they are providing marketing hype, who knows.

sdayalani

just going a little off-topic here, from oil to air filters.

k&n claims their air filter (or filtercharger as they like to call it) is the best (but obviously).

on their website they have a filter comparison chart where they list the amsoil foam filter as being the worst compared to a dirty k&n filter, a paper filter and a clean k&n filter.

any comments on this?

armtdm

Well, I have tried the Amsoil oil foam filters on a few cars and this is my opinion of air filters although I have never tried the foam K&N.

The Amsoil foam performed well as indicated by oil analysis however I no longer use them for two reasons. Like K&N they are supposed to last a lifetime, a real pain to clean and re-oil, sorry but you either under oil or over oil the foam after cleaning and the oil flows down into the filter box and is a mess to clean up etc, a pain in my opinion and after about 3 years the foam started to decompose due to heat and washing and because I found that the OEM air filters (not true of oil) but the OEM air actually filter as well as the foam filters based upon oil analysis. And, the OEM appear to filter better then aftermarkets Purolators etc., they seem to be fuzzy paper as opposed to clean cut pressed paper which does not seem to filter as well.

I have been tempted to try the K&N air charger system (not the foam OEM replacement as I have been there before with the Amosil and I guess I consider them similar) , but on my TOY however the hype about more air flow is useless unless one alters the exhaust system as well
and I am not willing to do that now.

SO, K&N says their filter is better with better air flow and trapping dirt, well, my IMHO the hassle of cleaning and re-oiling is not worth it! The OEM replacements do a great job based upon my personal experience with oil analysis.

bottgers

adc100

My saying the the Mobil 1 filter was rated the best with the Pure One rating a close seceond may not mean much to you, but this test was conducted by an independant lab, which means a lot more more to me than the heresay posted in this topic.

armtdm

The K&N filter only needs to be cleaned every 100,000 miles. Considering this alone makes it worthwhile because you'd have to change out the OEM filters at least five times in this many miles. I've also noticed an increase in fuel economy with every car I've used a K&N in. I've seen anywhere from 1-3 MPG increase, depending on the car, and type of driving.

adc100

uhh...just who was the independent lab and where is the information/documentation. As I recall I asked this question before.

sdayalani

armtdm

tks for your informative comments. i was also leaning towards the perception that OEM paper filters did a comparatively good job of filtering air, and that the re-oiling and cleaning process was a pain. one could never get the "right" amount of oil and either over or under oiling was bound to happen.

i installed my K&N air filter last week, so i wont bother about that right now ...i'll cross the bridge when it comes.

bottgers:

IMO, 50,000 miles would be a more realistic figure for cleaning a K&N air filter instead of 100,000

bottgers

adc100

If you really want to read the results of this lab study, you can search for it just like I had to. I don't remember the site address.

sdayalani

Even if you clean the K&N every 50 grand, it still beats the he11 out of OEM filters!

adc100

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Speedway/1080/oilfiltertech.html

Is this what you were referring to?? My only point is that it would be helpful to present the referenced information with your post.

seelig

i currently own 2 silverados, 1 for work and 1 for our everyday use. the rado i use for my long highway commutes (work) is the one i installed a K&N filter in. after 10K mi. i checked to see what it looked like, and was amazed to see a light soot covering the face of the MAF. the intake tube behind the MAF also had a generous coating of soot. not dirt or sand though. my other truck with the factory filter with same mileage was clean as a whistle. not that this makes the K&N a poor filter, because i still use it, just that it does allow some fine particles through during the initial use. when checked at 20K mi. it was clean as i expected. so after a few miles, the thing does start filtering better as they claim. i also learned a tip from a guy who swears by them, when it comes time to reoil it, just do so as K&N prescribes, but to use a shopvac w/bristle brush on the intake side of the filter to suck off the excess oil. don't hit it vigorously, but just enough to get the intial stuff. as far as increased fuel mileage is concerned......i've read where some guys feel they get a 10-15% fuel mileage increase.....don't count on it. some guys are also thinking they can feel a 5 HP increase, again no way, unless of course you run the thing at WOT, but who does that. the only advantage to the K&N i see, is it will outlast the vehicle, so you save on paying for filters.

bottgers

adc100

No, actually it's not. The one I read was conducted in '98 or '99, and was a fairly lengthy article (5-6 pages). It included how the test was performed, gave a breakdown of how each filter was constructed, and finished with rankings. It gave highly recommended filters, and filters to stay away from (Fram amoung others).

seelig

I'm not saying it's felt like I had an increase in fuel economy when using K&N filters, I HAVE had an increase, I've seen the numbers and have done the math. Numbers don't lie! I can't vouch for an increase in HP, as I've never had one of my cars dynoed, and 3-5 HP is really tough to feel in a car.

craigs4

I have used K&N filters for many years in several vehicles, both the drop in replacement and filtercharger kit. If you read the fine print from K&N they recommend periodic re-oiling between cleanings to ensure filter cleaning efficiency. I use a can of the aerosol spray K&N oil to give my filters a light recote every 3 months or so. It makes a difference as you usually can see through some parts of the filter after that amount of time. I also recommend cleaning every year or so depending on the air quality where you live. A better option than the K&N filter charger is the PRM intake, which I have on my Mazda MX6 V6. It is enclosed, thus sucks in cooler air for more power, is quieter and stays clean longer. See them at www.prmracing.com.

wh23fdct

Well I am sticking with the Pure one adc100 & tsjay, I see a lot of posts on this board from you all so ya know your products. Thanks for the replies!

dougsey

Would you know if the Motorcraft filter uses the same high quality filter media as the PureOne?

tsjay

The Motorcraft filters have good paper, but it is not the same paper that is used in the Pure One.

Ford has changed their philosophy on filtration (for the better, in my opinion) and has gone to a more efficient type of paper than they used a few years ago.

They used to emphasize filter life at the expense of fitler efficiency, and the paper in the old filters was a very "open" sheet, with low efficiency. Those filters would last way beyond the length of time that anyone who cared about their vehicle would dare to leave them on the vehicle, but they just didn't have much efficiency.

About four years ago or so, Ford increased the efficiency requirement of their filters and got more in line with the other major brands as far as efficiency. I think they have now struck a nice balance between life and efficiency.

If you want to go back many years, probably at least 15 years, Ford made their own filters. These were "partial flow" filters as opposed to the "full flow" filters that almost everyone is using today. These parial flow filters had some kind of very coarse filtration through a "doughnut" of some porous material that would only catch the very largest particles. About 85% of the oil at any given time would be going through this coarse filtration. The remaining 15% of the flow went through some cotton batting that gave very highly efficient filtration.

The way I understand it, when Ford wanted to stop making their own filters, no one was willing to produce the partial flow filters like the ones Ford had made themselves, so they had to go to a full flow type filter.

Long answer, but the bottom line is... the Motorcraft filters are good filters.

tom

brorjace

K&N filters ... I have one of these cones in my '95 Civic Coupe DX and have run it since almost new. I take it off in the winter and use the stock airbox and regular paper element for the sloppiest season. I think the K&N added a couple horsepower ... but the change in engine performance was more noticeable when I added a large diameter stainless exhaust system. The two together really 'woke up' this ho-hum economy car.

Anyway, I've heard tales about these cotton gauze filters letting a fair amount of really fine particles through. When I take mine off in another month or so (Thansgiving weekend, usually) I'll thoroughly inspect the inside of my filter elbow and the pipe it connects to for residue. I'm committed to keeping my intake on this car as it went 100,000 miles without requiring a drop of top-off oil, regardless ... but finding even a trace of reside (I made sure it started out clean) will make me a lot less likely to buy a K&N cotton gauze filter for my next car.

--- Bror Jace

runpanther

Does anyone have any thoughts on Penske filters? I threaded through most of the messages on this board and found they are possibly manufactured by Wix(?). Thanks