Oil Filter Study
08-28-2004, 10:03 AM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ/FL
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil Filter Study
I was cruising the web this morning and came across an interesting web site that did a study on oil filters for marine applications.
www.oilfilterstudy.com
About 75% of the way down there is a link to the "Grease Oil Filter Study Spreadsheet". This has all the data the author noted in his study....flow rates, pore size, etc., for most major brand filters.
After reading the report, and a lot of the info on this site, I think I will use either the Mobil 1 or Amsoil filter.
www.oilfilterstudy.com
About 75% of the way down there is a link to the "Grease Oil Filter Study Spreadsheet". This has all the data the author noted in his study....flow rates, pore size, etc., for most major brand filters.
After reading the report, and a lot of the info on this site, I think I will use either the Mobil 1 or Amsoil filter.
08-28-2004, 12:54 PM
#2
Gold Member
Re: Oil Filter Study
This study was reviewed on Bob's oil website. A few conclusions were drawn:
- The study used oil at a viscosity of 30W-70 mixed with glycerin at 70*F
-It was a "hobiest" that did the study with a budget of $ 150.00 total.
-The oil used was non-synthetic
-Flow-rates were measured at 10 psi.
So what are the concerns?
-Nobody uses conventional oil mixed with glycerin in an engine as the test did.
-30W-70 viscosity was used and is unheard of and not sold commercially.
-Oil flow would need to be measured at various temperatures from 50*F to 200*F for this to be realistic.
-They did not compare flow rates for synthetics vs. conventionals as synthetics flow better.
-They did this test at 10 psi which is not enough pressure to adequately demonstrate the flow-rate of the filters realistically.
So whereas their findings may be accurate there are other oil filter studies that are much more scientific.
Mobil-1 does have excellent flow and captures to 10 microns and is not much different in performance in other studies in comparison to the Amsoil, Baldwin or K&N Marine filters which are all good.
The Merc filters have been shown in 2 studies to have a large pore size and allows potentially damaging particles through at the expense of good flow. You need good capture and good flow; one is not a substitute for the other.
Bob's site is in agreement that if you have to decide where to put your $$ the first place is on a good capturing and flowing oil filter. Then into a good conventional oil or better yet a synthetic oil. Then if you want to go even further; find an oil like Mobil-1 20W-50 that has specs no other oil can refute with the ability to maintain film coating during prolonged storage and help fight dry starts. Then consider an oil filter magnet and pressurizing system. Marine oil changes can be safely retained at the recommended 50 hrs in most applications if you go this route. If your engine floods of you get blow-by from a blower you may need to go to as frequent as 10 hour drains. I personally like the idea of using Mobil-1 20W-50 with a Mobil-1 oil filter. I now change at 25-30 hours and go the season which is 50-60 hours for me with the same oil. Redline "Heavy" or Mobil-1 in the gearcase and it's a done deal.
I like using the "2,000 lb gorilla products" that cost a few bucks more and not being a slave to maintenance but knowing I am getting probably better performance than others changing frequently. It makes for good peace of mind and good boating instead of playing Mr. Mechanic all season long.
- The study used oil at a viscosity of 30W-70 mixed with glycerin at 70*F
-It was a "hobiest" that did the study with a budget of $ 150.00 total.
-The oil used was non-synthetic
-Flow-rates were measured at 10 psi.
So what are the concerns?
-Nobody uses conventional oil mixed with glycerin in an engine as the test did.
-30W-70 viscosity was used and is unheard of and not sold commercially.
-Oil flow would need to be measured at various temperatures from 50*F to 200*F for this to be realistic.
-They did not compare flow rates for synthetics vs. conventionals as synthetics flow better.
-They did this test at 10 psi which is not enough pressure to adequately demonstrate the flow-rate of the filters realistically.
So whereas their findings may be accurate there are other oil filter studies that are much more scientific.
Mobil-1 does have excellent flow and captures to 10 microns and is not much different in performance in other studies in comparison to the Amsoil, Baldwin or K&N Marine filters which are all good.
The Merc filters have been shown in 2 studies to have a large pore size and allows potentially damaging particles through at the expense of good flow. You need good capture and good flow; one is not a substitute for the other.
Bob's site is in agreement that if you have to decide where to put your $$ the first place is on a good capturing and flowing oil filter. Then into a good conventional oil or better yet a synthetic oil. Then if you want to go even further; find an oil like Mobil-1 20W-50 that has specs no other oil can refute with the ability to maintain film coating during prolonged storage and help fight dry starts. Then consider an oil filter magnet and pressurizing system. Marine oil changes can be safely retained at the recommended 50 hrs in most applications if you go this route. If your engine floods of you get blow-by from a blower you may need to go to as frequent as 10 hour drains. I personally like the idea of using Mobil-1 20W-50 with a Mobil-1 oil filter. I now change at 25-30 hours and go the season which is 50-60 hours for me with the same oil. Redline "Heavy" or Mobil-1 in the gearcase and it's a done deal.
I like using the "2,000 lb gorilla products" that cost a few bucks more and not being a slave to maintenance but knowing I am getting probably better performance than others changing frequently. It makes for good peace of mind and good boating instead of playing Mr. Mechanic all season long.
Last edited by Hydrocruiser; 08-28-2004 at 01:43 PM.
08-28-2004, 02:22 PM
#3
Registered
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ/FL
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Oil Filter Study
Hydro,
Thanks for your insight....
I have learned a lot reading the various posts, and your posts in particular on the Mobil 20w-50 thread.
I have already ordered my V-Twin Mobil 1 over the internet. Looking to order the filter, but haven't yet found a vendor. I have tried Autozone, Pep Boys, Napa, Wal-Mart, even the local motorcycle shops and nobody has the V-Twin 2w-50 or the filters.
Thanks for your insight....
I have learned a lot reading the various posts, and your posts in particular on the Mobil 20w-50 thread.
I have already ordered my V-Twin Mobil 1 over the internet. Looking to order the filter, but haven't yet found a vendor. I have tried Autozone, Pep Boys, Napa, Wal-Mart, even the local motorcycle shops and nobody has the V-Twin 2w-50 or the filters.
08-28-2004, 03:15 PM
#4
Re: Oil Filter Study
The Internet will get you just about anything!!
FYI off Bob's site:
"I think Amsoil would sell more to some degree, but not for $9-$11qt! I think the whole API issue would bug a few, like it does now, and Amsoil still isn't as widely known as Mobil 1, so in these cases, I don't see it selling as much as Mobil 1. Amsoil also could never match Mobil 1's price. Amsoil is buying additives/base stocks from other companies like EM. It's hard enough to get many people to buy Mobil 1 at $4qt so anything beyond that is a tough sell for the mass market IMO".
So Mobil makes their own base stocks and Amsoil is buying them from other companies. Interesting!
FYI off Bob's site:
"I think Amsoil would sell more to some degree, but not for $9-$11qt! I think the whole API issue would bug a few, like it does now, and Amsoil still isn't as widely known as Mobil 1, so in these cases, I don't see it selling as much as Mobil 1. Amsoil also could never match Mobil 1's price. Amsoil is buying additives/base stocks from other companies like EM. It's hard enough to get many people to buy Mobil 1 at $4qt so anything beyond that is a tough sell for the mass market IMO".
So Mobil makes their own base stocks and Amsoil is buying them from other companies. Interesting!
08-28-2004, 09:10 PM
#6
Re: Oil Filter Study
NAPA/WIX
Cost $4.99 -- Local auto parts store
ADBV material: Silicon
Spring type: coil
Baseplate hole area: 0.393 sq/in
Filter area: 305 sq/in; 60 pleats
Center tube hole area: 0.61 sq/in
Total Weight: 460 grams
Filter and endcaps weight: 5 oz
Average largest pore size: 58 µm
Smallest pore size: 19 µm
30W 70F Oil flow @ 10psi: 9.1 oz per minute
Summary
"This mid-priced filter appears to have average filtration and flow and rates. Construction is very good to excellent. One of the few in this comparison with silicon ADBV".
It's "okay"
Cost $4.99 -- Local auto parts store
ADBV material: Silicon
Spring type: coil
Baseplate hole area: 0.393 sq/in
Filter area: 305 sq/in; 60 pleats
Center tube hole area: 0.61 sq/in
Total Weight: 460 grams
Filter and endcaps weight: 5 oz
Average largest pore size: 58 µm
Smallest pore size: 19 µm
30W 70F Oil flow @ 10psi: 9.1 oz per minute
Summary
"This mid-priced filter appears to have average filtration and flow and rates. Construction is very good to excellent. One of the few in this comparison with silicon ADBV".
It's "okay"
08-29-2004, 10:11 AM
#7
Charter Member
Re: Oil Filter Study
Mercruiser Oil Filter Comparison
Current Revision 2.2; February 1, 2004
Original publication date: November 15, 2003
Update: This study has been updated to include pore size and oil flow measurements. Each filter section has raw data measurements and comparisons to the other filters. Two additional filters have been added for a total of 12 filters.
In addition to physical properties, this study now analyzes pore size and oil flow of the filter media using a professional bubble point tester.
To examine all of the detailed regarding the pore size and flow tests, click below:
Pore and flow study details
This project was started to determine the quality of Mercruiser oil filters. This application also pertains to Chevrolet V6 and V8 engines that use the AC Delco PF1218 filter. The objective is not to find out what filter is best for all applications. However, general conclusions can be made for other applications.
An automotive tail-pipe cutter was used to cut the filter housings. This allowed clean cuts without damaging the filters or internal parts. Digital calipers were used to make all measurements.
All recent model 135HP 4-cylinder, V8s, and V6s with remote oil filters use the Mercruiser filter 35-802885T. Originally, the WIX 51086 was going to be compared. Since the AC Delco PF 1218 is a longer filter that also fits this application ten additional filters that mapped to it were compared. Here are the filters (in alphabetical order):
AC Delco PF1218
Baldwin B1428
Fram Extra Guard PH5
Fram Tough Guard TG5
Hastings LF279
K&N 3002
Purolator PureOne PL34631
SuperTech ST5
STP S5
Mercruiser 35-802885T
WIX 51086
WIX 51060
The Merc and WIX 51086 were the only two that are of the original short design. All others are comparable, longer, and larger capacity.
Mercruiser V6 engines without the remote oil filter configuration, use the part numbers below:
Mercruiser 35-883702K
WIX 51036
Hastings LF393
Baldwin B35-S
K&N 2001
AC Delco PF52
All of these filters in this comparison do not have by-pass valves (BPV). The BPV allows oil to by-pass the filter if it becomes clogged. My understanding is that GM/Mercruiser engines have a BPV in the engine itself, so the oil filter specification is to not have a BPV.
These filters also have anti-drain back valves (ADBV). This is a nitrile or silicon rubber seal that stops oil from exiting the intake holes when the engine is not running.
The intent of this study is to be as objective and non-biased as possible and just present observations. The following data was collected. This is included in this MS Excel spreadsheet on the “Filter Data” worksheet.
Number of intake holes
Area of intake holes
Thickness of gasket
Width of gasket seal
Weight of entire filter
Material of ADBV
Number and location of welds
Number of pleats on filter
Area of filter in square inches
Material / design of spring
Notes, positive and negative observations
In addition, the following measurements are made on the filter media:
Average large pore size
Smallest pore size
Oil flow at 10psi and 20psi with 30W oil
This data can be found on the same spreadsheet under the “Bubble Point Testing” and “Oil Flow Test” worksheets.
The bubble point testing was performed using this bubble point tester.
These filters are presented in increasing cost order. The (x of 12) numbers are the rating and comparison to all 12 filters. Higher numbers are better. The filter weight measurements have a one-half weighting. The flow rating is weighted by two. All other measurements have a weighting of one. When two numbers are listed (x-y of 12), this indicates a tie. In this case, an average is used with these numbers for the overall rating. The oil flow numbers below are for the entire filter using the effective filter area (EFA). The EFA is multiplied by the flow of the sample media to arrive at the oil flow number of x ounces of oil per minute at 10psi. While 10psi was used for ratings in this document, 20psi was also tested and is included in the Pore and flow study details document.
Current Revision 2.2; February 1, 2004
Original publication date: November 15, 2003
Update: This study has been updated to include pore size and oil flow measurements. Each filter section has raw data measurements and comparisons to the other filters. Two additional filters have been added for a total of 12 filters.
In addition to physical properties, this study now analyzes pore size and oil flow of the filter media using a professional bubble point tester.
To examine all of the detailed regarding the pore size and flow tests, click below:
Pore and flow study details
This project was started to determine the quality of Mercruiser oil filters. This application also pertains to Chevrolet V6 and V8 engines that use the AC Delco PF1218 filter. The objective is not to find out what filter is best for all applications. However, general conclusions can be made for other applications.
An automotive tail-pipe cutter was used to cut the filter housings. This allowed clean cuts without damaging the filters or internal parts. Digital calipers were used to make all measurements.
All recent model 135HP 4-cylinder, V8s, and V6s with remote oil filters use the Mercruiser filter 35-802885T. Originally, the WIX 51086 was going to be compared. Since the AC Delco PF 1218 is a longer filter that also fits this application ten additional filters that mapped to it were compared. Here are the filters (in alphabetical order):
AC Delco PF1218
Baldwin B1428
Fram Extra Guard PH5
Fram Tough Guard TG5
Hastings LF279
K&N 3002
Purolator PureOne PL34631
SuperTech ST5
STP S5
Mercruiser 35-802885T
WIX 51086
WIX 51060
The Merc and WIX 51086 were the only two that are of the original short design. All others are comparable, longer, and larger capacity.
Mercruiser V6 engines without the remote oil filter configuration, use the part numbers below:
Mercruiser 35-883702K
WIX 51036
Hastings LF393
Baldwin B35-S
K&N 2001
AC Delco PF52
All of these filters in this comparison do not have by-pass valves (BPV). The BPV allows oil to by-pass the filter if it becomes clogged. My understanding is that GM/Mercruiser engines have a BPV in the engine itself, so the oil filter specification is to not have a BPV.
These filters also have anti-drain back valves (ADBV). This is a nitrile or silicon rubber seal that stops oil from exiting the intake holes when the engine is not running.
The intent of this study is to be as objective and non-biased as possible and just present observations. The following data was collected. This is included in this MS Excel spreadsheet on the “Filter Data” worksheet.
Number of intake holes
Area of intake holes
Thickness of gasket
Width of gasket seal
Weight of entire filter
Material of ADBV
Number and location of welds
Number of pleats on filter
Area of filter in square inches
Material / design of spring
Notes, positive and negative observations
In addition, the following measurements are made on the filter media:
Average large pore size
Smallest pore size
Oil flow at 10psi and 20psi with 30W oil
This data can be found on the same spreadsheet under the “Bubble Point Testing” and “Oil Flow Test” worksheets.
The bubble point testing was performed using this bubble point tester.
These filters are presented in increasing cost order. The (x of 12) numbers are the rating and comparison to all 12 filters. Higher numbers are better. The filter weight measurements have a one-half weighting. The flow rating is weighted by two. All other measurements have a weighting of one. When two numbers are listed (x-y of 12), this indicates a tie. In this case, an average is used with these numbers for the overall rating. The oil flow numbers below are for the entire filter using the effective filter area (EFA). The EFA is multiplied by the flow of the sample media to arrive at the oil flow number of x ounces of oil per minute at 10psi. While 10psi was used for ratings in this document, 20psi was also tested and is included in the Pore and flow study details document.
__________________
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
08-29-2004, 10:12 AM
#8
Re: Oil Filter Study
SuperTech ST5
Cost $1.97 -- WalMart
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.345 sq/in (7 of 12)
Filter area: 305 sq/in; 56 pleats (6-7 of 12)
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 20 (5-7 of 12)
Average pore size: 42.5 µm (3 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 17 µm (5 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 10.8 oz per minute (9 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 26 (5-6 of 12)
Overall Rating: 46 (6 of 12)
This filter appears to flow well and do an average job of filtration. It appears to be made by Champion and has a solid construction and very similar in physical characteristics to the AC Delco and STP filters.
[ST 5 pictures coming soon]
Fram Extra Guard PH5 Fram website
Cost $2.99 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.227 sq/in (1-2 of 12)
Filter area: 183 sq/in; 36 pleats (2 of 12)
Total Weight: 400 grams (1-2 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 2.5 oz (1 of 12)
Physical Rating: 5 (1 of 12)
Average pore size: 32.5 µm (8 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 14 µm (8-10 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 4.0 oz per minute (1 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 19 (1 of 12)
Overall Rating: 24 (1 of 12)
This filter appears to have good filtration media but flow poorly. Much of the poor flow rating is due to the small surface area of the filter media.
Note that the Fram PH6606 is the cross-reference to the Merc 35-802885T filter. It is the same size as the Merc filter. However, it was unavailable locally and required a special order for $9. Instead it is compared here to the longer filter PH5 for $3 that was readily available.
Both Frams (EG and TG) had a different design than all the others. Instead of metal ends to hold the filter material in place they had a paper material. Since the leaf spring at the bottom of the filter cannot press against paper, both ends of the filter have holes. The leaf spring has a raised circular form to plug the hole at the bottom of the paper endcap. The black nitrile ADV has a long neck on it that inserts into the hole in the top endcap. The leaf spring holds everything in place.
This filter has the smallest filter area of the large canister filters (except for smaller canister Merc and WIX). The intake holes have the smallest combined area of all filters (both Frams are the same in this regard).
Here are the internals of the PH5 showing the leaf spring that fills the hole of the bottom endcap.
This next photo shows the Fram PH5 internal canister. It has fewer holes than most filters. It has pronounced ribs for strength, although the canister gage appears less than the other filters. One positive design only on the Frams and two other filters (Baldwin and Hastings) is the metal band to crimp the start and stop pleats together. Many filters in this comparison used an adhesive.
Cost $1.97 -- WalMart
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.345 sq/in (7 of 12)
Filter area: 305 sq/in; 56 pleats (6-7 of 12)
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 20 (5-7 of 12)
Average pore size: 42.5 µm (3 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 17 µm (5 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 10.8 oz per minute (9 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 26 (5-6 of 12)
Overall Rating: 46 (6 of 12)
This filter appears to flow well and do an average job of filtration. It appears to be made by Champion and has a solid construction and very similar in physical characteristics to the AC Delco and STP filters.
[ST 5 pictures coming soon]
Fram Extra Guard PH5 Fram website
Cost $2.99 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.227 sq/in (1-2 of 12)
Filter area: 183 sq/in; 36 pleats (2 of 12)
Total Weight: 400 grams (1-2 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 2.5 oz (1 of 12)
Physical Rating: 5 (1 of 12)
Average pore size: 32.5 µm (8 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 14 µm (8-10 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 4.0 oz per minute (1 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 19 (1 of 12)
Overall Rating: 24 (1 of 12)
This filter appears to have good filtration media but flow poorly. Much of the poor flow rating is due to the small surface area of the filter media.
Note that the Fram PH6606 is the cross-reference to the Merc 35-802885T filter. It is the same size as the Merc filter. However, it was unavailable locally and required a special order for $9. Instead it is compared here to the longer filter PH5 for $3 that was readily available.
Both Frams (EG and TG) had a different design than all the others. Instead of metal ends to hold the filter material in place they had a paper material. Since the leaf spring at the bottom of the filter cannot press against paper, both ends of the filter have holes. The leaf spring has a raised circular form to plug the hole at the bottom of the paper endcap. The black nitrile ADV has a long neck on it that inserts into the hole in the top endcap. The leaf spring holds everything in place.
This filter has the smallest filter area of the large canister filters (except for smaller canister Merc and WIX). The intake holes have the smallest combined area of all filters (both Frams are the same in this regard).
Here are the internals of the PH5 showing the leaf spring that fills the hole of the bottom endcap.
This next photo shows the Fram PH5 internal canister. It has fewer holes than most filters. It has pronounced ribs for strength, although the canister gage appears less than the other filters. One positive design only on the Frams and two other filters (Baldwin and Hastings) is the metal band to crimp the start and stop pleats together. Many filters in this comparison used an adhesive.
__________________
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
08-29-2004, 10:12 AM
#9
Re: Oil Filter Study
STP S5 STP website
Cost $2.99 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.328 sq/in (5-6 of 12) (5-6 tie)
Filter area: 326 sq/in; 60 pleats (8-9 of 12)
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 20 (5-7 of 12)
Average pore size: 38 µm (5 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 23 µm (1 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 10.5 oz per minute (8 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 22 (3 of 12)
Overall Rating 42 (5 of 12)
This filter appears to flow well and have low to average filtration ability.
The STP S5 and the next filter, the AC Delco 1218 are identical filters in appearance. However, their media differs. Both filters are made by Champion filter. Note the "1" marking that is on the top of the filter.
Another comment about these two filters is that Mercury makes a "Mercury Racing" filter -- the 35-16595T. Outside appearance "signature" is the same as these two: the "1" marking, 5 intake holes with one larger than the other, eight seal pinch retainers, eight welds under the seal, and the same pattern of canister holes. Your choice is the STP at $3, the AC at $3.50, or the Mercury Racing at $11.
Here are the internal parts of the STP 5:
Here is the internal canister showing the size and pattern of holes. The ADBV has a good seal on the high lip of the top of the endcap. The filter material is very thick.
================================================== ====================================
AC Delco Duraguard PF1218 AC Delco website
Cost $3.49 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.328 sq/in (5-6 of 12)
Filter area: 326 sq/in; 60 pleats (8-9 of 12)
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 20 (5-7 of 12)
Average pore size: 27.5 µm (10 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 14 µm (8-10 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 7.6 oz per minute (5 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 29 (9-10 of 12)
Overall Rating 49 (7 of 12)
This filter appears to flow average and have very good filtration ability.
As mentioned in the STP section, this filter is identical in appearance to the STP S5 and the Mercury Racing 35-16595T. However, the filter media tests revealed that they are quite different. HosHere are photos showing top plate, assembly parts, and internal canister holes and filter.
Hastings LF279 Hastings Filters website
Cost $4.19 -- Local auto parts store
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: spring
Intake area: 0.393 sq/in (10-11 of 12)
Filter area: 264 sq/in; 44 pleats (4 of 12)
Total Weight: 460 grams (8-9 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 23 (8 of 12)
Average pore size: 46 µm (2 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 21 µm (2-3 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 16.9 oz per minute (12 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 29 (9-10 of 12)
Overall Rating 51 (9 of 12)
This filter appears to flow excellent and has lower than average filtration capability.
The Hastings filter has the second fewest pleats at 44, which gives it the least amount of filter surface area of the large canister filters. However, I believe this is a fluke manufacturing defect as Hastings technical support indicates that this filter should have 100 more sq / in of media.
It has eight intake holes in a small circle with eight welds.
Cost $2.99 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.328 sq/in (5-6 of 12) (5-6 tie)
Filter area: 326 sq/in; 60 pleats (8-9 of 12)
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 20 (5-7 of 12)
Average pore size: 38 µm (5 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 23 µm (1 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 10.5 oz per minute (8 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 22 (3 of 12)
Overall Rating 42 (5 of 12)
This filter appears to flow well and have low to average filtration ability.
The STP S5 and the next filter, the AC Delco 1218 are identical filters in appearance. However, their media differs. Both filters are made by Champion filter. Note the "1" marking that is on the top of the filter.
Another comment about these two filters is that Mercury makes a "Mercury Racing" filter -- the 35-16595T. Outside appearance "signature" is the same as these two: the "1" marking, 5 intake holes with one larger than the other, eight seal pinch retainers, eight welds under the seal, and the same pattern of canister holes. Your choice is the STP at $3, the AC at $3.50, or the Mercury Racing at $11.
Here are the internal parts of the STP 5:
Here is the internal canister showing the size and pattern of holes. The ADBV has a good seal on the high lip of the top of the endcap. The filter material is very thick.
================================================== ====================================
AC Delco Duraguard PF1218 AC Delco website
Cost $3.49 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.328 sq/in (5-6 of 12)
Filter area: 326 sq/in; 60 pleats (8-9 of 12)
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 20 (5-7 of 12)
Average pore size: 27.5 µm (10 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 14 µm (8-10 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 7.6 oz per minute (5 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 29 (9-10 of 12)
Overall Rating 49 (7 of 12)
This filter appears to flow average and have very good filtration ability.
As mentioned in the STP section, this filter is identical in appearance to the STP S5 and the Mercury Racing 35-16595T. However, the filter media tests revealed that they are quite different. HosHere are photos showing top plate, assembly parts, and internal canister holes and filter.
Hastings LF279 Hastings Filters website
Cost $4.19 -- Local auto parts store
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: spring
Intake area: 0.393 sq/in (10-11 of 12)
Filter area: 264 sq/in; 44 pleats (4 of 12)
Total Weight: 460 grams (8-9 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)
Physical Rating: 23 (8 of 12)
Average pore size: 46 µm (2 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 21 µm (2-3 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 16.9 oz per minute (12 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 29 (9-10 of 12)
Overall Rating 51 (9 of 12)
This filter appears to flow excellent and has lower than average filtration capability.
The Hastings filter has the second fewest pleats at 44, which gives it the least amount of filter surface area of the large canister filters. However, I believe this is a fluke manufacturing defect as Hastings technical support indicates that this filter should have 100 more sq / in of media.
It has eight intake holes in a small circle with eight welds.
__________________
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
08-29-2004, 10:13 AM
#10
Re: Oil Filter Study
The Hastings has a spring and nitrile ADBV. The filter pleats were not very evenly spaced.
Baldwin Filters manufacturers Hastings filters. One common feature of both of these filters is the identical canister core. Instead of round holes it has formed perforations. The start and end of the filter are held together with a metal band crimped on the inside of the filter.
Fram Tough Guard TG5 Fram website
Cost $4.95 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Silicon
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.227 sq/in (1-2 of 12)
Filter area: 274 sq/in; 46 pleats (5 of 12)
Total Weight: 400 grams (1-2 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 3 oz (2 of 12)
Physical Rating: 8 (2-3 of 12)
Average pore size: 26 µm (11 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 12 µm (11 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 5.1 oz per minute (3 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 28 (7-8 of 12)
Overall Rating 36 (3 of 12)
This filter appears to have excellent filtration capability and lower than average flow.
The Fram TG filter shares the smallest intake hole area as its brother, the Fram EG, at 0.227 sq/in. This is the only filter outside of the WIX and PureOne filters that has the silicon ADBV. Silicon is supposed to be less prone to harden after being subject to long exposure to hot oil.
The minor differences between this filter and the lower priced Fram EG is the silicon ADBV, 10 more pleats, 90 sq/in more filter area, and a slightly thicker filter material.
The other similar design the TG has with the EG is that it has cardboard or paper endcaps with an open hole on the bottom. The leaf spring plugs this hole.
Here is the leaf spring shown with the circular form to plug the bottom endcap hole.
Here is the leaf spring installed.
Here is the inside canister showing the hole size and pattern.
Baldwin Filters manufacturers Hastings filters. One common feature of both of these filters is the identical canister core. Instead of round holes it has formed perforations. The start and end of the filter are held together with a metal band crimped on the inside of the filter.
Fram Tough Guard TG5 Fram website
Cost $4.95 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: Silicon
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.227 sq/in (1-2 of 12)
Filter area: 274 sq/in; 46 pleats (5 of 12)
Total Weight: 400 grams (1-2 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 3 oz (2 of 12)
Physical Rating: 8 (2-3 of 12)
Average pore size: 26 µm (11 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 12 µm (11 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 5.1 oz per minute (3 of 12)
Pore and Flow Rating: 28 (7-8 of 12)
Overall Rating 36 (3 of 12)
This filter appears to have excellent filtration capability and lower than average flow.
The Fram TG filter shares the smallest intake hole area as its brother, the Fram EG, at 0.227 sq/in. This is the only filter outside of the WIX and PureOne filters that has the silicon ADBV. Silicon is supposed to be less prone to harden after being subject to long exposure to hot oil.
The minor differences between this filter and the lower priced Fram EG is the silicon ADBV, 10 more pleats, 90 sq/in more filter area, and a slightly thicker filter material.
The other similar design the TG has with the EG is that it has cardboard or paper endcaps with an open hole on the bottom. The leaf spring plugs this hole.
Here is the leaf spring shown with the circular form to plug the bottom endcap hole.
Here is the leaf spring installed.
Here is the inside canister showing the hole size and pattern.
__________________
[img][/img]
[img][/img]
