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.

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.

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.

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!

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

Oil Filters= Napa Wicks

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

Purolator PureOne PL34631

Cost $4.99 -- Meijer
ADBV material: Silicon
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.440 sq/in (12 of 12)
Filter area: 330 sq/in; 62 pleats (10 of 12)
Total Weight: 470 grams (10 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)


Physical Rating: 31 (11 of 12)

Average pore size: 24 µm (12 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 11 µm (12 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 4.7 oz per minute (2 of 12)


Pore and Flow Rating: 28 (7-8 of 12)



Overall Rating: 59 (10 of 12)

[Pure One pictures coming soon]

This filter appears to have excellent filtration capability and much lower than average flow.



Baldwin B1428 Baldwin Filters website

Cost $4.99 -- Truck Pro
ADBV material: Nitrile
Spring type: spring
Intake area: 0.319 sq/in (4 of 12)
Filter area: 413 sq/in; 68 pleats (12 of 12)
Total Weight: 500 grams (11 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 6 oz (12 of 12)


Physical Rating: 28 (10 of 12)

Average pore size: 31 µm (9 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 14 µm (8-10 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 8.1 oz per minute (6-7 of 12)


Pore and Flow Rating: 31 (12 of 12)



Overall Rating 59 (10-11 of 12)

This filter appears to have very good filtration capability and better than average oil flow.

Baldwin filters are more difficult to locate than household name brands. However, they can be found by locating a distributor on their website.

Here is the signature end plate of a Baldwin filter. There are five equally spaced intake holes.



Instead of having a neck for the ADBV to seal against, the Baldwin filter has a separate plastic ring that seals against the canister. The ADBV is large because of the large circle of intake holes.

Like the WIX and Hastings, the Baldwin also uses a spring to hold everything in place and puts pressure on the ADBV to seal it against the canister. The start and end sections of the media are held together by a metal clip instead of adhesive.



Here you can see the dense filter material and 68 pleats along with the Hastings-like metal inside canister.



WIX 51060 WIX Filters website

Cost $4.99 -- Local auto parts store
ADBV material: Silicon
Spring type: spring
Intake area: 0.393 sq/in (8-11 of 12)
Filter area: 305 sq/in; 60 pleats (6-7 of 12)
Total Weight: 460 grams (8-9 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5 oz (5-10 of 12)


Physical Rating: 24 (9 of 12)

Average pore size: 37 µm (6 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 16 µm (6-7 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 8.1 oz per minute (6-7 of 12)


Pore and Flow Rating: 26 (5-6 of 12)



Overall Rating 50 (8 of 12)

This filter appears to have better than average filtration and flow and rates good to very good overall.

The WIX 51060 is the large brother to the WIX 51086. Other than the Fram TG5, these are the only filters with silicon ADBVs. However, the WIX ADBV is a much thicker valve than the Fram. The Fram TG5 silicon was more the thickness of the other nitrile valves.

The WIX endcaps feature eight 1/4" intake holes giving it the same intake area as the Hastings and K&N.



Here are the parts for the WIX 51060.





And the inside canister exposed:





WIX 51086 (small canister) WIX Filters website

Intake area: 0.393 sq/in (8-11 of 12)
Filter area: 185 sq/in; 56 pleats (3 of 12)
ADBV material: Silicon
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 4 oz (4 of 12)
Spring type: spring
Cost $5.99 -- Local auto parts store


Physical Rating: 17 (4 of 12)

Average pore size: 35 µm (7 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 16 µm (6-7 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 5.3 oz per minute (4 of 12)


Pore and Flow Rating: 22 (2-3 of 12)



Overall Rating 39 (4 of 12)

This filter appears to have better than average filtration and flow below average. However, regarding flow it should only be compared to the Mercruiser filter in this study because it has the same canister size.

This filter is physically similar to the larger canister WIX 51060 and is the direct replacement size for the Mercruiser 35-802885T.

Here is the baseplate:

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

Mercruiser 35-802885T

Cost $6.95 -- Local marine store
ADBV material: nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.297 sq/in (3 of 12)
Filter area: 182 sq/in; 56 pleats (1 of 12)
Total Weight: 425 grams (3-7 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 3.75 oz (3 of 12)


Physical Rating: 8 (2-3 of 12)

Average pore size: 52 µm (1 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 21 µm (2-3 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 13.1 oz per minute (10 of 12)


Pore and Flow Rating: 24 (4 of 12)



Overall Rating 32 (2 of 12)

This filter appears to have very good to excellent flow and low to below average filtration.

This filter has the same characteristics as other Champion made filters (the same as the AC Delco and STP). While it doesn't have a "1" marking on the baseplate, it has a "3" marking.

It has five equally size intake holes, a nitrile ADBV, and 182 sq/in of media. A leaf spring holds everything together.

Here is the baseplate:



Here are the internal parts:



Here is a look at the inside tube:





K&N 3002 K&N website

Cost $9.95 -- Advanced Auto
ADBV material: nitrile
Spring type: leaf
Intake area: 0.393 sq/in (8-11 of 12)
Filter area: 343 sq/in; 56 pleats (11 of 12)
Total Weight: 530 grams (12 of 12)
Filter and endcap weight: 5.5 oz (11 of 12)


Physical Rating: 32 (12 of 12)

Average pore size: 41 µm (4 of 12)
Smallest pore size: 19 µm (4 of 12)
Oil flow @ 10psi: 13.2 oz per minute (11 of 12)


Pore and Flow Rating: 30 (11 of 12)



Overall Rating 62 (12 of 12)

This filter appears to have lower than average filtration and excellent flow.

This filter is the heaviest at 530 grams. It has eight equally sized 1/4" intake holes. It has a nitrile ADBV and a leaf spring. It appears that Champion Filters also makes this filter.

This filter flows well and has is in the lower third for filtration ability.

Here is the baseplate:



The internal parts:



And the core:

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

Conclusion

One must read the complete pore and flow discussion before drawing any conclusions.

In that discourse, the point is made that the oil used for the oil flow tests was at room temperature. Hot oil will flow many times the rate over room temperature oil.

Yes, it appears that there are better alternatives to the Mercruiser oil filter in this application.

While the pore and flow tests were very accurate, there are certainly imperfections in the rating system. Filters within two or three places of each other should be considered and their raw data scores evaluated. This data is described in detail in the pore and flow discussion.

Not surprisingly, filtering ability relates inversely to flow. However, many filters with high filtering ability compensate by having higher filter area.

For example, the Baldwin rates as 9 of 12 in pore size but 6-7 of 12 regarding flow. It also has the most filter area of all filters in this study. The Baldwin, AC Delco, and WIX 51060 all appear to be a good compromise between pore size and flow.

If one is interested in flow for this application, the K&N provides the best flow with better filtration than the Mercruiser filter.

If one is considering the small canister size because of physical room in the engine compartment, the Mercruiser and WIX 51086 have about the same filter area. The WIX has a larger intake area, silicon ADBV, and a sturdy spring to keep everything together. The WIX filter media is much better, but the Mercruiser flows better – among the top three in this study even though it has less media than all.

The PureOne filter has the best filtering ability of all compared filters; however, it has the second worst flow ratings. One would have to ask, “would the PureOne flow enough in this application when the manufacturers filter is specified to flow many times more?” That is the danger of using an oil filter that is not specifically mapped to your application.

In a direct mapped application such as an auto oil filter, the PureOne, AC Delco, Baldwin, and WIX would appear to be good choices (provided their media is similar in different applications). One would have to feel comfortable with the Fram cardboard end construction of the EG and TG series and low filter media area to choose them over these four filters.

In this application, a good compromise would be to use a full flowing larger sized filter such as the Mercruiser, K&N, Hastings, SuperTech, or STP and add a by-pass filter such as an Oilguard, Amsoil, or Motor Guard.

Disclaimer and cautions

Since many filter manufacturers contract out their filters, one must be careful that future filters from these vendors are the same as what is presented here. One way to do this is to compare the outside markings of new filters to these pictures.

Just because one filter appears to be a good choice for this application, does not mean that it will be the best for other automotive applications. Other applications involve by-pass valves and other features that may or may not make that same filter the best choice.

Be sure to check your application. There is no guarantee, express or implied, that these filters will work in your application.



Additions / corrections since original publication

January 28, 2004

· Fixed error in pore and total rating system in both .xls file and main document. Raw data did not change. Some filters changed position by one ranking. Some stayed the same. One filter changed by two rankings. As mentioned in the summary, filters that are within 3 positions of each other should be considered very similar. This rating system is a rough attempt at trying to establish a ranking system by weighting different filter attributes.

January 25, 2004

o Added pore and flow data. Added link to pore and flow detail report. Added introduction regarding pore and flow data. Added ranking numbers. Removed first person narrative. Modified conclusion to account for pore and flow data.

November 20, 2003

· The can height of the two WIX filters was swapped in the merc.xls file. This has been corrected.

November 19, 2003

· The original publication had filter area half of what it should have been. This has been corrected in this document as well as the merc.xls file. The area was indicated as one pleat times the number of pleats and it should have been times two again since each pleat count has two sides to it. Since everything was half of what it should have been, it still kept the comparisons between these filters equal.

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

Additional Notes

· The Merc 35-802885T has a twin sister as the Quicksilver 35-802885Q. It should be an identical filter only with a white canister.

· The Pennzoil Z3 filter is the cross reference to the Merc 35-802885T. The outside baseplate is exactly the same as a Fram Extra Guard. If you are using the Z3 filter, expect it to be identical to the PH6606 filter (smaller version of the PH5).

· Baldwin also has a cross-reference to the Merc 35-802885T (short canister). It is the Baldwin B360. It is higher priced (about $9) than the Baldwin 1428 that is compared here.

· One source on the web for Baldwin filters is http://www.adiesel.com/. If you can’t find Baldwin filters locally, adiesel.com may be an option.

The following information is provided by the respective manufacturer technical support:
Baldwin B1428
· 6 micron

· 150 psi working pressure

· 89.35% average efficiency

· 391.1 sq. in. of media

· Flow rates:

o 2 gpm @ 3 psid

o 5 gpm @ 5 psid

o 9 gpm @10 psid

o 11.5 gpm @ 15 psid

o 12 gpm @ 16 psid

Hastings LF279
· 8 micron

· 80 psi working pressure

· 90.58% average efficiency

· 476.27 sq. in. of media (note: I have asked Hastings about this discrepancy with my data; perhaps it is a typo on their part and should be 276?)

· Flow rates:

o 2 gpm @ 3 psid

o 5 gpm @ 5 psid

o 9 gpm @10 psid

o 11.5 gpm @ 15 psid

o 12 gpm @ 16 psid

Fram PH5 EG and TG
· micron rating = PH5 and TG5 are nominal 10 micron

· flow rating = PH5 & TG5 have a flow rate of 3 GPM

· efficiency rating = PH5 (96% Single Pass Efficiency) & TG5 (98% SPE)

· filter area = Engineering design specification not for publication

AC Delco 1218
· With regards to your inquiry about ACDelco PF1218 oil filter, we are unable to locate the technical information in our records. Please contact an ACDelco Retailer, Service Center or a GM Dealer in your area for information, as they may be in a position to assist you.

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

1-2

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

More pics later, gotta go.

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

..

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

::pic

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

last 2

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

If you want the very best marine oil filtration system her ya go::

www.amsoil.com


Very easy to insall by spinning the dual system adapter to the existing oil filter aparatus and then you use 2 filters. The secondary filter not only pulls out minute particles but also water!!!
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
The AMSOIL By-Pass Oil Filter provides the best possible filtration protection against wear, oil degradation, rust and corrosion. Working in conjunction with the engine’s full-flow oil filter, the AMSOIL By-Pass Filter operates by filtering oil on a "partial-flow" basis. It draws approximately ten percent of the oil at any one time and traps the extremely small, wear-causing contaminants and water that full-flow filters can’t remove. The AMSOIL By-Pass Filter typically filters all the oil in the system several times an hour, so the engine continuously receives analytically clean oil.

Reduces Wear
Approximately 60 percent of all engine wear is caused by dirt particles in the 5 to 20 micron range. These particles can get inside the precision clearances between engine components and cause severe damage. While full-flow oil filters generally stop contaminants no smaller than 25 to 40 microns, the AMSOIL By-Pass Filter effectively stops particles smaller than one micron in size, substantially reducing engine wear.

Prevents Oil Degradation, Rust and Corrosion
Water enters motor oil as a combustion by-product or as a condensate. Water contamination of the motor oil can cause extreme engine damage. Water causes metal surface rust and corrosion, which increases friction and wear and deteriorates the close-fitting tolerances between engine components. In addition, water reacts with other oil contaminants to form corrosive acids, which also damage metal components. The AMSOIL By-Pass Filter removes water, reducing the risk of oil degradation, engine rust and corrosion.

Extends Oil Drain Intervals
Because the AMSOIL By-Pass Oil Filter removes water and particles smaller than one micron, it significantly increases the time oil can safely be left in the engine. In fact , engines using AMSOIL Synthetic Motor Oil and an AMSOIL By-Pass Oil Filter routinely show much lower rates of engine wear - even when the oil is used for significantly longer drain intervals - than engines using conventional products and conventional oil drain intervals. That saves motorists time and money and helps protect the environment by creating substantially less used oil.

Dual Remote Filter System
The AMSOIL Dual Remote Oil Filtration System converts an engine’s full-flow oil filter system into a full-flow/by-pass oil filtration system by attaching an AMSOIL Full-Flow Oil Filter and AMSOIL Spin-On By-Pass Oil Filter onto a remote mount. The Dual Remote System provides superior filtration efficiency, increased oil capacity and improved oil filtration accessibility.

If you don't want to install this "rig" then the Mobil-1 or Amsoil filters are the best rated.

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

Where's the best place to get mobil 1 filters? My parts dept couldn't locate them locally.

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

O'reilly, pep boys, autozone all carry line but do not always have stock

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

Also this may help

http://www.mobil1.com/index.jsp

Re: Oil Filter Study
 

I hope to clarify a few things from these comments. There a lot of misunderstandings.

"A 30-70 weight oil was used." I couldn't figure out where this came from, then I realized what the confusion was -- No, a non-detergent 30 grade oil was used at 70 degrees F. A non-detergent oil was used because additives in detergent 30W oil were giving inconsistent readings with the test equipment. A 30W oil was used, again, for consistency in test results.

"Oil was mixed with glycerin." No, oil was tested thru the filter media, then glycerin was tested in a separate test to insure accuracy. Glycerin is used commonly with bubble testers as a neutral benchmark fluid.

"It was a "hobiest" that did the study with a budget of $ 150.00 total." While, yes, I am a hobbyist, the media was tested by a professional in the filter industry. The $150 was for filters paid for out of my own pocket. The testing would have been prohibitively expensive had I paid for it and I think added considerably to the study. Without it, the study would been just another can opener test.

"The oil used was non-synthetic." Yes, but the oil used was the same for comparison purposes. The numbers mean nothing by themselves. Comparing the numbers gives us relative standings amongst the filters. If a filter flows twice as good as another with dino oil, it will probably do the same with synthetic. The same for 70F vs. 200F.

"Flow-rates were measured at 10 psi." Yes, but it was also tested at 20psi. Tests were done at both psi settings to make sure that "relative" trends between the filters registered consistently. 10psi was used for the final flow numbers because that test was run for twice as long as the 20psi tests. No, your boat doesn't run at 10 or 20psi, but these were the settings of the test equpment to give relative results.

I hope that clears up the confusion on some of the misconceptions about the study.

Personally, from the test I will run Hastings LF279, Purolator Premium Plus L34631, or K&N 3002. I have a Hastings LF279 lined up for my next filter change. These three filters mentioned flow as good or better than the Merc and filter better. I'm surprised to read on this site that many of you are running M1 302's as I witnessed them to flow half what the Merc filter does. I could see an argument for an Amsoil SDF24 in a boat as the flow is just about up with the Merc.

In a car, all bets are off an you can choose your favorite, but in a boat, if I am going to run anything other than OEM, I'm choosing one of the above four.

The key columns to look at in comparison are "I" and "L" that are bolded in the spreadsheet for filtration and flow. http://www.oilfilterstudy.com/Grease...er%20Study.xls

I will use the misunderstandings listed to make better explanations in the text of the study.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

I'm reading more on your forum to learn more about boat oils as I am still undecided on what I want to run.

My last UOA showed a 6% fuel dilution after 53 hours, so I am going to run shorter OCI's. With OCI's at ~25 hours, I am reluctant to go with high end oils because of the price.

Cheers,

Grease