Oil Filters, whose is best, and Why?

arcticman · April 2003

90915-20004 is the factory installed filter that has more filter media than the YZZB5 model. It also a bypass valve whereas the cheaper YZZ doesn't. Yes, the dealer will sell you the cheaper one all day long. But if you're considering longer OCI the 20004 might be a better choice.

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/

sequoiasoon · May 2003

Does anybody know what the filter material is on the Toyota 90915-20004 and YZZB5? It appears to be fiberglass sprayed onto a plastic cage? How does the filtering ability compare to a PUREONE or M1 filter? The 20004 definitely appears better than the YZZB5 as arcticman pointed out, has a bypass and 3 more "pleats" of whatever the material is. I switched to a PUREONE and Pennzoil 5w-30 at 600 miles on the '03 Sequoia based on posts here at Edmunds. Next change will be at about 1500 miles to Mobil 1 5w-30 but not sure if I should stick with PUREONE, try M1, or go back to Toyota 90915-20004 which was original. (side note 3 local dealers use the YZZB5 when they change oil for the Sequoia. It's half the price, less pleats, and no bypass?

bigorange30 · May 2003

I use the M1 filter and have been very happy with it. I also use M1 synthetic oil with it.

vidtech · May 2003

why would someone perform their second oil and filter change at 1500 miles?sounds like a waste of a natural resource.

fleetwoodsimca · May 2003

Apparently, sequoiasoon has opted to switch to synthetic oil at that point in his vehicle's life. Not a problem! I'll assume the used oil will be added to a vat at some collection station, and will be "recycled" in some way. He will have hopefully collected up all the tiny particulates and spicules of metal that inevitably are generated in the oil flow of a brand new engine, no matter how few they may be. Any lubricant segment from the cracking process that refiners don't consume for engine oil, or other lube, is very often dumped as waste into "dead" wells.

sequoiasoon · May 2003

Fleetwood is correct, using that time to switch to synthetic. At $40K I want to make the Sequoia last as long as possible. All fluid and filters do go to local shop for recycling (and heating the shop) I opened the first filter when I changed it (pried base plate off not hack saw) There were MANY metal particles that I could see easily in the filter media from break in. Also strained the 600 mile oil through cheesecloth same thing A LOT of metal. If there is still a lot of particles at this change I'll probably wait until about 2500 to go synthetic. Once Synthetic I plan for 7500 max (less if oil analysis shows breakdown)

bigorange30 · May 2003

7500 will not be an issue. I am pushing mine to 9k on this change and probably 10 eventually if supported be analysis. My 7k looked wonderful but was not very indicative I am told because it was before engine breakin was complete (~20k). It had some wear metals in it that I was told was normal at the 10k I tested it at.

sequoiasoon · June 2003

Did anybody ever have an answer on my post #2388? Wondering what the filter material is in those "stock" Toyota factory filters 20004 and YZZB5 and how it compares to the PUREONE and M1?

tfuzz · June 2003

I have been using the AC Delco Ultraguard Gold filter (with Mobil 1 5W30 and 7,000 miles between changes) for the past several years, first on my Highlander and now on my 03 4Runner. It seems to be an ideal filter with both excellent filtration and high flow. Apparently, however, this filter is being discontinued for some reason. Anyone know why? I am debating whether to buy up as many as I can from my source ($8/ea) before they run out, if they haven't already (their website says "limited supply") or switch to some other filter. I am leaving for vacation Saturday and probably need to order them pronto if I am going to.

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.

joatmon · June 2003

Yes, they quit making them except for, I believe, one size that fits the Corvette. It was about a year ago that they stopped. Reason, poorer than anticipated sales. Buy all you can, this is a great filter. I just sold 16 UDF-53s (for a 4Runner) on Bob's site. They were snapped up in no time.

Happy motoring,

Jack

tfuzz · June 2003

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.

Mr_Shiftright · June 2003

Some time ago, someone asked (I think bigorange) if there was any documented case of synthetic oil damaging an engine.

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.

vtec200 · June 2003

I have been using Fram oil filters for last 5 years or so with very little problems. However, most people here are very negative about its performance. I am thinking about changing brands of oil filters and WIX brand is the brand that keeps popping up along with Wally's brand. Where I live in Canada, in our local Walmart, they stock only Fram and AC Delco brand, and Canadian Tire stocks Quaker state brand, along with their own house brand. Any idea who makes Quaker state brand and how it performs relative to...say Fram? I still use dino oil since I change it every 5000km or 3000 miles at home. I haven't had urge to change to synthetic yet. If you know of any other decent oil filters that I can buy in Canada, please let me know.

vidtech · June 2003

i believe quaker state filters are made by fram.

csandste · June 2003

You couldn't do worse than Fram.

vtec200 · June 2003

How bad is Fram? I have used it for last 5 years and didn't seem to have any problems thus far. No engine check light, no burning oil in the engine due to excessive dirt in the oil, etc. Does it have bad filter media? Or lack there of? If it is the absolute worst, then it wouldn't say meets or exceeds OEM, right?

ethomas4 · June 2003

Fram is a very good oil filter that is smarter than some consumers that are starting this myth in that it has cardboard end caps istead of steel. The glue that holds the end caps together is as strong as a light gauge steel that would be used in place of the glue. The media is fine and the glue is very strong and impervious to the oil.

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 !

csandste · June 2003

There were a number of other complaints about Fram in the original MiniMopar study and subsequent studies-- including low filtering media capacity and bad anti-drainback and bypass valves. Perhaps the most damning comments were from an ex-Fram engineer.

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.

ruking1 · June 2003

I read the link that you provided and it was interesting that the "engineer" mentioned he was open to being quoted "anytime" yet was signed (name withheld) anonomous. While I am certain he speaks the truth, it would seem that he would tend to gain if Fram were to sue and he countersues and wins!!?

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!

csandste · June 2003

For all I know, he was fired for drinking on the job and was trying to find a new life by becoming a Franz toilet paper filter representative. Somewhere, there is supposed to be a Consumers Report issue on oil filters which was favorable to Fram. I did see the issue which stated that all motor oil was pretty much the same--so maybe all of these sites whether Edmunds or Bobistheoilguy are nothing but the compulsiveness of the posters.

ruking1 · June 2003

So that I am unambiguous, the best system would be 1. bypass oil filtration system 2. plus a good quality oil like Mobil One, Delvac, Redline, Amsoil, and run it for extended mile and time ranges.3. oil analysis.(to confirm, deny, spot trends, adjust as needed) It does not take a rocket scientist to see that it is far cheaper to change oil at 20k,25,30,35,40,45,50k as opposed to the normal 3-5k as currently practiced.(I currently do 15k intervals)

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.

opera_house_wk · June 2003

about the problems with the old FRAM PH8A filter. Is was actually designed to restrict cold flow. Every PH series filter I ever saw punctured the filter media through the center tube. Cardboard never bothered me! I'd seen enough steel end caps with the glue separated. But, for over a year now Fram has had a new design that makes them like everyone else. People who quote the old studies just don't know any better.

edwardn1 · June 2003

is the FEB 87 issue. They compared oil filters and oils in three grades. Hope this helps. ethomas, based on the above consumer reports I used Fram only up until I read this thread in its entirety and others like it, then I started cutting open old filters. The Fram is a real disappointment. Has to be the best marketed worst made product. The anti drainback valve seals against paper and if you have a large filter like a ph8a in a vertical position it can empty overnight and cause oil starvation worse than usual every morning. It can also cause you to under service the oil because all the oil is out of the filter, or at least most of it, and it shows high on the stick, causing low levels. The paper end caps are just the beginning. The center tube has very few holes, the pleat fold is not even, and the rubber gasket is usually cheap cut rubber and uneven. Both the toyota filter and the supertech for my camry have O ring for the seal against the mount. And the filter media on the walmart supertech is semi synthetic just like a Mobil 1, but not as restrictive. Cut open a few filters and see for yourself just how cheaply the fram is really made.

aggie1995 · June 2003

Here is what I am planning on doing with my car.

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.

outlawtitan · June 2003

The OEM filters are good filters IF it is the "Filtech" filter. If it is not a Filtech (it will say Filtech on the side of the filter) then it is a Fram filter which the public loves but many enthusiasts believe they suck.

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.

lounger · June 2003

I had a New Beetle which I sold. It was a nice car for me. I used both Mobil 1 oil filters and Mann brand OEM filters. When changing the oil and installing the OEM filter, the oil pressure light would turn off almost immediately, which was much faster than when changing with the Mobil 1 filter. My experience.

I second the above post about consulting the oil gurus at Bob is the oil guy.

vtec200 · June 2003

I wish supertech brand was carried in our walmart in canada. Or do I need to drive south to US to buy whole bunch each time I go there? Give me some other brands Filtech manufacturs? I am willing to give other brands a try since they can't be any worse than FRAM.

dustyk · July 2003

The so-called "study" being referred to is most certainly not science. It contends to prove that certain oil filters are deficient or "junk" by a rather subjective and cursory inspection of materials and construction techniques, neither of which alone or together are empirically proven to establish the actual effect on suitability, effectiveness or reliability of any oil filter. In fact, there are no empirical findings in this "study," and there are a few totally false conclusions regarding several of the materials used.

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

opera_house_wk · July 2003

I have followed this for a while and have never seen this statement in a post anywhere "the claim that the current Fram filters have deviated in this design aspect and are inferior to Fram filters of old". Could you reference this?

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.

bobistheoilguy · July 2003

"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!

dustyk · July 2003

opera_house_wk,

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

andre1969 · July 2003

with a Fram oil filter yesterday. I changed the oil in my 1979 New Yorker, which has a 360. The oil filter is mounted, perpendicular to the block, pointing down toward the ground at a 45 degree angle. In smaller applications (Darts, Diplomats, etc), the LA engine uses a different design where the filter points out toward the back of the car.

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!

vidtech · July 2003

frams canisters are no thinner than most.bet you overtightened it or did not prep the gasket on installation.

andre1969 · July 2003

I didn't do anything different than what I normally do...wet the rubber gasket with oil and then put it on as tight as I could by hand. I know they sometimes tighten themselves up as you drive, but this was ridiculous!

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.

dustyk · July 2003

You say you tightened the filter "as tight as I could by hand."

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

ruking1 · July 2003

While it has been common knowledge that you tighten the oil filter app 3/4 turn past when the seals have started to seat/touch, may I suggest you consider putting the manufacturer's torque specification on your oil filter. (normally between 20-25 ft #'s) The reason for that is as the above posters comment about different feelings and values of what is correct. When you put a specific torque value, it is a value certain and takes a lot of the guess work and variation out of the equation. While you have experienced a "tightening," I have experienced a "loosening". Since I have done literally, hundreds of oil changes, I am VERY sure I did it correctly. However the proof is in the results, and for this particular car, I will ALWAYS put the manufacturer's torque value of 22 ft #'s. I would hate to experience a loss of oil and/or oil filter due to loosening, and having missile projection at XXX digit speed.

knapp3 · July 2003

When I used to use Fram filters, I had 2 occasions where they collapsed as I was trying to remove them. Ended up going into an oil change shop to finish the job. Not surprised considering how thin their canister is and the cardboard endcaps inside.

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.

fwatson · July 2003

I had a curious occurance. About 3000 miles after changing the oil and filter on my '01 Mazda Millenia P, I took a 150 mile trip. Before leaving, as usual I checked the oil level and all was fine.

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.

sequoiasoon · July 2003

Are most of your "normal" trips short around town. Experience and many posts here at edmunds lead to the following. Moisture and fuel build up on the short trips because the motor does not get hot long enough to burn them off. The first "longer" trip heats it all up, burns off and all of a sudden you are low on oil. If that is the case not a whole lot you can change unless you start driving at least a 1/2 hour on a more regular basis. Just keep checking the oil and keep a quart in the trunk so when have it when you need to top off. Be happy it is only 1/2 a quart, Jetta owners are complaing because they are burning 1 qt per 1,000 miles on a brand new motor!

fwatson · July 2003

No to the all short trips. The car seldom moves that it does not get driven at least 15 miles, and fully warmed up. There is no water in the oil from short trip condensation. Also on that same oil change I had just finished a trip of about 2600 miles with no oil usage during the entire trip, and the level on the dipstick was never low.

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).

vtec200 · July 2003

I emailed quaker state and they said that their brand is made by Purolater. I just finished changing oil and filter with Quaker state brand. I need more positive feedback on Fram brand before I will switch back to them. Earlier CU report that someone mentioned which gave Fram top mark was from 1987, I think. In 16 years, a lot of things could have happened to any products. Fram might have been good before, but now? Also, any feedback on Purolater filters would be greatly appreciated.

armtdm · July 2003

Don't assume that because QS are made by Purolater that they are the same fitler or quality. Most likely not.

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.

vidtech · July 2003

always used purolator premiums but my oil analysis indicated "marginal"filtering.so i decided to try supertech and then i will get the oil checked once more and compare the readings.

zoomzoom626 · July 2003

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

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.

zoomzoom626 · July 2003

What are the pros and cons of doing this if I run Mobil 1 for a 10K intervals?

ruking1 · July 2003

There is a fair amount of push and pull when it comes to oil filters. The best, which runs between 100-200 dollars are bypass systems and if you want the longest engine life, pre oilers(100-400), with at least a group 3 (better group 4) synthetic oil.

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.

zoomzoom626 · July 2003

I was more thinking of just putting a bigger filter since the OEM filter is rather small(Purolator PL14620) and I run extended drain interval. So if I cross reference a bigger Purolator filter that would fit to my car would that have any drawbacks? Would I benefit in terms of better filter capacity and oil flow?

uga91 · July 2003

I have a question involving an oil change. My wife's car is hard for me to get in for maintenance because she is gone from about 7 AM to 7PM all week and I work Saturdays. She is home tomorrow, so I made an appointment to get her oil changed. Well, it's only been about 2000 miles since her last change. I figured she would have had more miles than that, that's why I made the appointment. My question is, should I go ahead and get the oil changed even though it does not need changing--but the car will be here and that is hard to do during the week, and I have a $14.95 coupon from our dealer that expires next week. Or, should I wait until the change is due and hope to find time to get it done then? Thanks.

jocko9 · July 2003

if your plan was to change every 3000 miles. If so, how many miles does your wife put on the car per week? Knowing that you can kind of figure out about the time it hits 3000. If you don't think you will be able to bring it in until well past that point (the approximated 3000 mile mark) then you probably should just go ahead and get it done now while you have the car, the time and the coupon from the dealer.

armtdm · July 2003

Sorry, been away.
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.

Oil Filters, whose is best, and Why?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles