Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Oil Filters, whose is best, and Why?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Try this link for photos. I couldn't find the one that had pics of the YZZB5.
http://www.mkiv.com/techarticles/parts/toyota_filter/
I have thought of switching to the Mobil 1 filter, but I am not so sure I like it's flow characteristics. There seem to be a lot of people who like the SuperTech from Wallyworld, but I just can't bring myself to put a $1.97 filter on my Runner. Maybe Ill try the Pure One or the STP if I can't get the Ultraguards.
Happy motoring,
Jack
That's it! I'll tell my lovely wife that I had to trade the 4Runner for a Corvette because it's the only car that works with my oil filter! What do you think?
Thanks for the info. I think I'll load up on the Ultraguards if I can find some.
The only "documented" case I know of comes from Mazdatrix, a company specializing in the Mazda rotary engine modifications and accessories, and they suggest that synthetic oil will damage a rotary engine and prematurely end its life. They base this on observations from disassembly, and say it has to do with the peculiar needs of the rotary.
These people do not realize the strength and the sealing capability of the glue, nor do the know GM Trucks and others have the door hinges glued onto the body .
Analysis shows the Fram filter to work very well for me,,people are condeming a product they know little about how it works,,therefor some have been out smarted !
http://www.minimopar.net/oilfilter-fram1.txt
It should be pointed out that the original study was almost as critical about Champion Labs filters as about Fram, citing their flimsy media. Supposedly the author backed off those comments after being threatened by Champion Labs attorneys.
Purolator has recently put cardboard ends on some of their filters. Others have complained that the telltale Purolator thread used in assembly may distort filtering media.
Fram has gotten most of the complaints on filtering because until the last few months they haven't actively defended their basic manufacturing techniques.
Ignoring the oil fanatics has certainly done no harm to their overall marketing-- they're taking more and more shelf space at Wal-Mart.
In that same letter there was a reference that was particularly telling in that it has almost been legally researched and defensible in courts of law, that it is damn near impossible to pin possible engine failure on substandard filtering media, short of a bursted cannister. So it is only logical they do "burst" testing.
The way I read his letter is that he is recommending a system commonly known as a "bypass system" for maxium filtration protection and efficiency. This would also cost a tad more up front but be cheaper in all aspects, in the long term systems approach!
The HUGE modifier is that almost ALL extended range oil manufacturer's say x miles and/OR ONCE per year between changes. Of course, the economic viability and cost recovery are the limiting real world factors.
Oil&Filter Changes every 6000 miles with Mobil 1
What type of Filter should I use?
Mobile 1
Honda OEM
Other Brand?
I hope to get 250,000 miles (10 years) out of this car.
Some believe the Mobil 1 filters are great but others have concerns over the flow rates of the Mobil 1. IMHO you can get a better value out of several other filters.
I just bought a 2003 Accord and had a 2000 Accord before that. I use Schaeffers Supreme 7000 5w-30 oil (synthetic blend with an extremely good additive package) and $1.97 WallyWorld SuperTech filter (ST-3953).
The real experts are at www.bobistheoilguy.com and you can find out more than you ever wanted to know about oil and oil filters.
I second the above post about consulting the oil gurus at Bob is the oil guy.
The contention that the amount of filter paper or media used in a filter as measured by its surface area as the sole determinant of filter capacity, is patently incorrect. The author blindly and unastutely assumes that all oil filter medias are alike and contends that the more square inches of media, the more capacity. This is simply not so and demonstrates the dangers of simple visual inspection. His overly simple visual technique is totally misleading and does not or cannot establish the ability of the media to trap and hold dirt particles. The belief that more square paper SURFACE area automatically equates to increased ability to trap dirt is ignorant at best, and most certainly without merit.
What has been overlooked in this simple analysis is the effect of media depth and cellular construction, something that was not measured or determined by the author. Some filter manufacturers will use a media with a specific structure, composition, and depth that are less able to trap smaller particles and hold less quantities of dirt to bring the overall filter capacity up to an acceptable or increased flow rate level.
The SAE HS806 filtration test is the current standard for measuring media, and thereby determining a oil filter's effectiveness at trapping dirt. This much accepted sophomoric research being referred to makes no attempt to use or even establish data that would indicate the effectiveness of this most important aspect of a motor oil filter. And yet, through assumption based on mere material visual inspection and construction techniques, none of which are ever scientifically proven to be deficient in any way, the author and many of his followers conclude that a Fram filter is "junk."
Another claim is that the Fram bypass valves are "plastic," a overly broad and simple term for a wide range of material. He also contends that the Fram valves contain molding irregularities. The fact is that the author never states that he has actually observed a molding irregularity or purports to offer evidence of any, but merely assumes that because they are "molded plastic" it is a common defect.
The fact is the author does not know what the material is, and the vast majority of us could never tell just by visual inspection. In truth the Fram bypass valves are made of glass filled Nylon, a highly durable material and widely used in high temperature applications. This material has been selected specifically for its plyability and long-term durability. In testing, they have withstood hot oil durability testing of 1,000,000 cycles at 275 degrees (F), according to the manufacturer, and are 100% inspected. It is odd that the author has chosen to conclude negatively, without any evidence to back up his claims, a design feature that is actually more reliable than a metal valve which may be prone to prolapse, tempering and rust over long term use.
Another criticism concerns the end disks used in various Fram oil filters. These disks only serve one purpose in the Fram assembly. They are used to hold the glue which keeps the pleated media formed into a rigid circular tube. The glue-to-media interface is also one of the sealing surfaces keeping dirty and filtered oil from mixing. The assumption by the author is that only metal-end disks can adequately seal and have enough strength in the hot oil environment. The problem with this conclusion is that the material doing the sealing is the adhesive, not the disk!
In this design what matters is the strength of the ADHESIVE, its proper curing, the thoroughness with which it can be applied to the disk, and its adhesion to the disk. Not the end disk. Composition end disks are used by Fram to facilitate a more viable, reliable, and long-term durable bond. The adhesive provides exceptionally strong adhesion to the fiberboard disk, something that cannot be as reliably made when trying to adhere to a metal disk.
In another pitfall of the author's simple visual inspection technique, he comes to the conclusion that the end disk material is of ordinary corrugation material or "cardboard." It is in fact made of a special fiber material and is designed to be strong and totally inert in hot oil at temperatures exceeding engine manufacturers specifications. Oddly, the claim that the current Fram filters have deviated in this design aspect and are inferior to Fram filters of old, points again to the ignorance of the author. Fram has used these fiberboard disks in oil filters for 38 years!
Despite the often proclaimed "these pages are NOT to be taken as gospel" precaution, it is interesting that the defenders of this "study" and attackers of Fram filters treat this author's work as the definitive example and "proof" of the assumed ineptness of Fram oil filters. It must be noted that the original version of this so-called study contained extreme and blatantly biased and unprofessional language, something that was later edited and removed. And despite the fact that Fram was the selected target of most of the author's disdain, it was another company who threatened litigation because of the near total ineptness of the author's methodology and ultimate conclusions that were insupportable, even by his own work! It must also be noted that a so-called example of an Allied Signal engineer admitting that Fram oil filters were "junk" is an unsigned document and from an unidentified person and from a unauthenticated source, and as such is totally lacking in credibility. In addition, the original author has long since distanced himself from his own work.
I have tried to contact this person without success. If I could, I would like to pose one question to him: Have you ever had a perceived problem with a Fram product, or a warranty claim against a Fram product that was denied by that company?
Please note that I am not now or have ever been an employee, supplier to, or customer of Allied Signal, of Honeywell, or had any connection of any type with the Fram product family.
Regards,
Dusty
I suspect the media did filter better. The design also forced them to go into bypass more than other filters. Used Fram filters always showed a lot of mechanical stress on the media.
People have complained about the cardboard and most of their comments are weak. I don't have a problem with the bonding. It is probably superior to metal. I have often seen poor bonding to metal. The outside edges of the paper caps are cut to mechanically center the filter. From observation this outside edge becomes brittle and could break. My only concern is that pieces could break off during high bypass conditions.
Took apart a Fram XG-5 and found it a superior innovative design.
At best any filter takes out very little and at worst they block flow.
If you like to comment, go over to bob the oil guy and watch them fall all over themselves as they try to do a simple flow test.
Ouch!
Please understand that I did not post #2414 because I think Fram oil filters are superior products. I've used them in the past without any problems whatsoever, but I also have to say that about Purolator, Wix, STP, AC and various store brands as well.
The statement that "Fram has used these fiberboard disks in oil filters for 38 years" is based on my inquiry to and subsequent response from Fram directly. In addition, I work for a large machine company that have a couple of people specializing in this very field. They confirm that this type of fiber board material has been around for a long time and used in engine oil filters, one stating as far back as the early 1950s. I was also told that many oil filter manufacturers used this material years ago, but that metal is actually cheaper to use and eases assembly, thus reducing manufacturing cost.
What bothers me is this so-called "study." I have done research analysis and this often referred to oil filter study doesn't even come close to providing any meaningful data. Its equivalent to saying that any oil filter that's orange on the outside is junk, and carries with it the same amount of logic and credibility.
The author, in my opinion, let his heavy bias against Fram show with the defamatory language in the original release of the "study."
What's even more depressing is the apparent loss of rational thinking in the American culture and the relative ease in which something as poorly done as this has become so easily accepted.
Best regards,
Dusty
Anyway, as I went to take the old filter off, instead of loosening, the damn thing crumpled up!! To the point that the filter wrench couldn't get a grip on it. So I took a hammer and knocked a big screwdriver through it, hoping to use that as leverage. I had this same thing happen about 6-7 years ago, on a 1979 Newport with a 318, and that did the trick.
Not so, here though. All the screwdriver did was tear through the metal, and when I tried to use it for leverage, it just tore through the metal instead of twisting the filter off!
In the end, I cut the filter apart as best I could, and used a drill to tear the base of the filter apart until it was weak enough to unscrew. What should've been a 10 minute oil change took more like 3+ hours!
Anybody ever have that happen before? Seems like the Chrysler R-body is the only car I've ever had that's done that nasty little trick with the oil filter. And it's not like I put them on that tight to begin with!
Maybe the Frams just use thinner metal on the outside, and they're easier to crumple? If nothing else, it was an interesting experience, seeing the different pieces that are inside an oil filter! I've never had to tear one open before!
I just thought it was kinda weird that the only two cars I've ever had this problem on were Chrysler R-bodies...maybe that car had some kind of trait, that they'd tighten up worse? Guess I'll find out the next time I have to change it!
One thing I did differently though this time, was put on a longer PH8A, instead of the PH43 that normally goes on. If nothing else, maybe it'll be easier to grab ahold of when it comes time to change it again.
The strength in a person's hand varies quite a bit from person-to-person. You younger fellows with strong hands are probably overtighting the filter if you're installing them as tight as you can by hand. Believe me, it's highly unlikely one will ever fall off unless it wasn't tightened at all (then it would leak). They always get tighter the longer they're on the engine.
I had a similar problem with our 305 Chevy motor and an AC filter. Had to chisel the thing off.
Regards,
Dusty
Each to his own, but the more I learn about oil filters, the more I've come to realize there are simply too many other better choices on the market for the same or less $$$ than a Fram.
The trip went fine, but when I checked the oil before returning home it was down halfway between the add and full marks. I headed home and bought a quart of oil about 75 miles down the road, and it still showed about midway on the stick. Added the oil to the full mark and went on home. Next morning oil level checked full.
I have since changed oil and filter again and after about 500 miles there has been no drop in the oil level.
It may seem strange, but all I can come up with is a stuck bypass in the filter that finally closed allowing the filter to fill. Does that seem sensible to you filter guru's?
There has never been any sign of oil on the engine or underneath the car, and the tailpipe is clean and dry. I haven't seen any even minute sign of oil smoke from it.
The filter was the same, SuperTech, which I have run for years on all my cars with no previous incident of any kind.
That low reading was a one time occurance, and has not repeated. Also, if it had been a matter of using a half quart of oil in 3000 miles I would consider that completely normal. It only happened on that one 150 mile trip, and now seems fine with about 500 miles on the last oil change, the last of which was a round trip of just under 200 miles. As I said in the original inquiry, this happened one time only. It is something I have never seen happen in close to 50 years of maintaining my own cars (about 20 of them).
Purolator Premiums are okay filters and the Pure Ones are great but have slightly reduced flow due to their heavier media content. For flow go with a K&N filter if filtering ability is what you want go with Pure Ones. IMO stay away from the QS, Fram, and oil brand filters (except Mobil 1 but flow an issue there) and go with the Pure Ones, WIX, K&N etc.
While back after I posted
results of my oil analysis we touched on the topic should the filter be
changed if you practice extended drain interval on the oil. Just want to
follow up on that and see what did your oil analysis show? Is there any
benefit in changing the filter half way( at 5k) or not.
Thanks,
ZoomZoom626
post 2373
Personally, I don't think filters make much diff in modern engines
using quality oil. I sent in a sample this past weekend 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.
Having said that, I just recently bought a (diesel) 2003 TDI Jetta. There are no real issues in keeping this engine going till its midpoint design life of 10,000 hrs, (average design parameter) (@55 mph average speed) or 550,000 miles. The OEM manufacter lists 10,000 miles between oil, oil filter changes and I will do that till the 4y/50,000 mile warranty is up, because the OEM is persnickity about engine warranty concerns. However, representative oil analysis (on other web sites) shows that 10,000 miles is rather conservative. (start TBN 12, at app 10,000 miles a measured TBN of 5.8) (if you have concerns then personal oil analysis can be done at app 18 dollars a shot if you have ANY doubts whatsoever) so I will have no issues, once the warranty is over to go 15,000 if not 20,000 miles between oil and filter changes. (This is with Mobil Delvac 1 5w-40).
I currently do app 15,000 mile oil and oil filter oil changes Mobil 1 5w-30 for the gassers in my fleet. I have over 660k on synthetic oil with absolutely NO engine, oil sludge concerns at all.
I wish I could say the same for conventional oil AND 3,000 mile oil changes!!!
As a matter of fact, Mobil Delvac 1 5w-40 is also SL and SJ compatible and I am considering going to the Delvac 1 (less products and product stocked) and going to a 20,000 mile interval. As you know the diesel oil has a better additive package, especially better and more detergents due to the soot that it must deal with.
Your question was "Hi armtdm, While back after I posted results of my oil analysis we touched on the topic should the filter be changed if you practice extended drain interval on the oil. Just want to follow up on that and see what did your oil analysis show? Is there any benefit in changing the filter half way( at 5k) or not.Thanks,
ZoomZoom626 "
Well, I ran it out to 10,000 miles on the same filter and the oil analysis actually came back a little better in terms of wear metals then the previous ones. This makes since as the engine is or was still breaking in (30-35,000 miles). However, IMO the filter does not need to be changed half way through on this Buick 3.8L V6. This engine is easy on oil and I am going to go the 12,000 mile change interval with the same filter. Now, on my other cars, no, definitely my Toyota could not go 12,000, not due to filter, it just beats up the oil in 7500 miles.
So, it really is engine, driving condition, climate dependent IMO.