|
General Oil Filter Info
authored by Russ W. Knize
UPDATE: Almost 9 years
have passed since this project started. I have finally made some
additions and in the process reorganized this article to make the
information easier to find. The biggest change was to move the
filter-specific information to a separate page and show the
breakdown of the current U.S. filter manufacturers on this page. I
also dated the information as best I could. My apologies and thanks
go to those that sent filters to me all those years ago. It has
taken a lot longer than I ever thought it would, but the information
is finally posted.
Description
One weekend in early February
of 1999, I set out to every auto parts store in my area and bought
every brand of oil filter I could find. The reference filter that I
chose is a common filter used on many Chrysler/Ford engines, which
also fits various Jeep, Mazda, and Toyota applications. The reason
is that this is a popular filter used in many applications, it is
large so that it will unveil any fake miniature internal components,
and it works with the Chrysler 2.2L and 2.5L engines. Design-wise
it is fully compatible with the 2.2L/2.5L oil systems and is an
excellent replacement for the tiny "teacup" filter that was
originally designed for these engines. I was able to find over 30
different filters spanning several brand names. Several smaller
studies were done on a few other filter types as well. Please don't
ask for a study for your application, as I can't afford the time or
money (mostly the time) to take requests. Sorry!
-
Reference Filter
- original, most complete reference for the common Chrysler/Ford
filter.
-
HP1 Filter
- for racing applications of the above engine types.
-
Mopar Choices
- filters of varying dimensions that are also compatible with
the Chrysler 2.2L/2.5L engines
-
German Filter
- a common filter for German vehicles in order to get a look at
some unique brands.
-
Toyota Filter
- a filter for many L4, V6, and V8 Toyota engines.
Manufacturers
It quickly became obvious that
there are only a few actual filter manufacturers selling filters in
the USA and the branding is often a ploy to charge more for
"premium" brands. In some cases the manufacturers do seem to be
making the filters to different specifications between brands, but
in other cases there was no apparent difference at all. For
generic, in-house brands, there is a trend to randomly switch
manufacturers over time.
Although all filters have to
undergo SAE tests
to make it to the market, there is no control over how low the bar
is set by a vehicle manufacturer. There is also the issue of
quality control. Thousands of filters are manufactured at a time
and even this small sample size revealed defects. For something
that only costs a few dollars, one is left to wonder how much effort
is put into quality control and consistency (watch episode 41 of "How
It's Made"). Since premium brands
are made at the same plants as cheap brands, is any more effort is
spent on quality control on a filter that costs 2-5 times as much?
If the internals are the same (with the possible exception of the
filter media), what are you paying for?
The table below lists the
filters grouped by their manufacturers. Click on the manufacturer
to be taken to the relevant section of the
main article.
Also shown is the exploded view of an example of each manufacturer
as well as an image of the backplate for in-store identification.
Click the backplate image for a more detailed view.
|
Manufacturer |
Vintage |
Backplate |
Exploded View |
Brands |
|
AC Delco |
1999 |
|
 |
AC Delco Duraguard
(now made by Champion Labs) |
|
Baldwin/Hastings |
1999-2008 |
 |
 |
Baldwin, Hastings |
|
Champion Labs |
1999 |
 |
 |
Bosch, Car and Driver,
Champ, Deutsch |
|
2008 Ecore |
 |
 |
AC Delco, Car and
Driver, Champ, Deutsch, STP |
|
1999-2008 Performance |
 |
 |
K&N, Mobil 1 |
|
Dana/WIX |
1999-2008 |
 |
 |
Carquest, NAPA, WIX |
|
Donaldson |
1999-2000 |
|
 |
Donaldson, Hard Driver
(discontinued) |
|
Honeywell |
1999-2008 |
 |
 |
Fram Extra Guard, Fram
Tough Guard, Fram Double Guard, Fram High Mileage, Pennzoil,
Quaker State |
|
Purolator |
1999-2008 |
 |
 |
Bosch, Motorcraft,
PowerFlo, ProLine, Purolator Premium Plus, Purolator Pure
One, Quaker State |
Applications
The descriptions and analyses
are grouped by filter application for comparison. The Mopar article
actually covers filters for different applications that are also
compatible with the 2.2/2.5L engines. This allows selection of the
largest filter possible when filter clearance is an issue.
|
Article |
Engine Applications |
Example Vehicle
Applications |
|
Main Comparison |
1958-1974 Chrysler L6
and V8
1957-2001 Ford 5.0L L4, V6 and V8
1963-1965 Jeep L6
1991-2001 Mazda L4 and V6
1967-1996 Toyota L4, L6, V6 |
1972 Chrysler Imperial
440ci V8
1995 Ford Mustang 5.0L V8
1965 Jeep Wagoneer 3.8L L6
2001 Mazda B4000 Pickup 4.0L V6
1996 Toyota Land Cruiser 4.5L V6 |
|
Mopar Choices |
1982-2003 Chrysler
1.6/1.7/2.0/2.2/2.4/2.5L L4 and 3.0/3.3/3.9L V6
1991-2007 2.2/2.4/2.5L L4, 2.5/2.7/3.0/3.3/3.5L V6, and
4.7/5.7/6.1L V8
1972-1990 225ci L6 and 318/360/400/440ci V8 |
1990 Chrysler LeBaron
2.5L L4
2007 Chrysler 300M 4.7L V8
1983 Chrysler Imperial 318ci V8 |
|
German Filters |
1970-2006 Audi L4, L5,
V6, and V8
1982-1994 BMW L6
1971-1975 Lotus L4
1989-1993 Mercedes-Benz L4 and L6
1977-1982 Porsche L4
1974-2008 Volkswagen L4 |
2006 Audi TT 1.8L L4
1994 BMW 325i 2.5L L6
1975 Lotus Seven 1.6L L4
1993 Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L L4
1982 Porsche 924 2.0L L4
2006 Volkswagen Golf 2.0L L4 |
|
HP1 |
Racing |
Racing |
|
Toyota |
1990-2008 Lexus L6,
V6, and V8
1990-2008 Toyota L4, L6, V6, and V8 |
2008 Lexus GX470 4.7L
V8
2006 Toyota Camry 3.0L V6 |
Disassembly and Measurements
Basically, I cut open each
filter on a lathe and took measurements of many of their
attributes. Simply cutting them open revealed some very interesting
(and disturbing) information.

The sections below detail each
of the filters I tested. A summary of the measurements I took can
be found in a table for each. I noticed that other filter part
numbers for the same brand were designed a bit differently. This is
probably because of the shape of the can and the requirements for
that engine. Here is a description of each table entry:
|
Average Retail Price |
The average of all the
retail prices I found for this filter (to the nearest $0.50) |
|
Cartridge Length |
The length of the
filter cartridge, including end caps |
|
Cartridge Outside
Diameter |
The outside diameter
of the filter cartridge element pleats |
|
Cartridge Inside
Diameter |
The inside diameter of
the filter cartridge inside support tube |
|
Cartridge Pleats |
The number of pleats
(or folds) in the element while in the cartridge |
|
Cartridge End Cap Type |
The type of material
used to construct the end caps |
|
Anti-Drainback Valve
Type |
The valve design and
construction material |
|
Bypass Valve Type |
The valve design and
construction material |
|
Element Type |
The type of material
used to construct the filter element and the seam seal |
|
Element Length |
The overall length of
the element when removed from the cartridge and stretched
out |
|
Element Width |
The width of the
stretched-out element |
|
Element Surface Area |
The calculated surface
area of the cartridge using the above two values |
|
Shell Thickness |
The thickness of the
metal used to construct the filter's shell |
|
Backplate Thickness |
The thickness of the
metal used to construct the filter's backplate |
|
Gasket Type |
The type of material
used to construct the backplate sealing gasket (O-ring) |
|
Hydrostatic Burst
Pressure |
Since I cannot test
this myself, I have removed this data. |
|
SAE J806 Filtration
Efficiency |
Since I cannot test
this myself, I have removed this data. |
|
SAE J1858 Filtration
Efficiency |
Since I cannot test
this myself, I have removed this data. |
The construction of the anti-drainback
and bypass valves is an important feature. Many are made of nitrile
rubber. As long as they have good sealing surfaces, they generally
work fine. However, nitrile rubber diaphragms gets stiff in extreme
cold and may fail to seal in those conditions. Silicone rubber
seals or steel valves are not prone to this. Many bypass valves are
spring-loaded steel and work well. Some are spring-loaded plastic
and are often not molded well enough to make a decent seal, allowing
oil to leak passed them.
Probably the most important
value here is the element surface area. This helps determine the
amount of filter media that is available to trap particles.
Cellulose media (basically paper) can trap fewer particles and can
flow less oil per square inch because there are fewer passages
through it. Synthetic media has more passages and can trap more
particles and flow more oil than cellulose per square inch. For the
same type of media, the smaller the area, the sooner the filter will
become plugged and will end up bypassing much of the oil instead of
filtering it. Some filters use a cellulose/synthetic blend, so a
direct comparison is not possible. More pleats in the element does
not necessarily mean more surface area (as you will soon see). In
fact, too many pleats can end up restricting the flow too much
because there is not enough space between them to allow oil to
flow. Most of the cheaper filters use a mix that is mostly
cellulose and/or cotton. Some of the better filters use synthetics
or synthetic blends. There is no way of usefully-identifying the
media types by visual inspection.

The shell and backplate
thickness are only relevant if your engine's oil system operates at
unusually high pressures. Occasionally a seemingly strong filter
can still leak due to a failure at the crimp between the can and
backplate. If this happens to you, I would send it back to the
manufacturer so that they can solve the problem. Even the cheapest
filters have to be strong enough for stock oiling systems, or they
will fail SAE tests.
I have removed SAE filtration
efficiency and all other data that came from the manufacturers,
since these are often biased towards that particular manufacturer.
Other measurements and values
are debatable and I will allow you to draw your own conclusions from
them.
SAE Tests
All filters have to undergo
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) tests to verify that they meet
the vehicle manufacturer's specifications. There are two tests
available for automobile engine oil filters. All filters must be
tested with the J806 test, but the new J1858 is much more
meaningful. Currently the J1858 test is optional. Usually, the
high-end filter manufacturers will display these numbers to show off
their great filters.
The SAE J806 test uses a
single-pass test, checking for contaminant holding capacity, size of
contaminant particles trapped, and ability to maintain clean oil.
As an amendment of the J806 test, the multi-pass test also looks for
filter life in hours, contaminant capacity in grams, and efficiency
based on weight. The efficiency of the filter is determined only by
weight through gravimetric measurement of the filtered test liquid.
Typical numbers for paper filter elements are 85% (single pass) and
80% (multi-pass).
The SAE J1858 test provides
both particle counting and gravimetric measurement to measure filter
capacity and efficiency. Actual counts of contaminant particles by
size are obtained every 10 minutes, both upstream (before the
filter) and downstream (after the filter), for evaluation. From
this data filtration ratio and efficiency for each contaminant
particle size can be determined as well as dust capacity and
pressure loss as a function of time. Typical numbers for paper
element filters are 40% at 10 microns, 60% at 20 microns, 93% at 30
microns, and 97% at 40 microns.
NOTICE: Since all of the SAE
data I have is from the manufacturers, it cannot be trusted to be
unbiased. Therefore all SAE data has been removed.
Warning!
These pages are NOT to be
taken as gospel. The primary motivation behind this study was to
provide information about what oil filter brands are made by which
manufacturers. The secondary motivation was to uncover some of the
obvious internal construction issues of these manufacturers. This
"study" is not a "test". The SAE J806 and J1858 tests were designed
to test the filtration capability of these filters, but
unfortunately they have several short comings. These include issues
such as anti-drain-back valve functionality (valve train noise,
etc.), filter element containment capability (how long before it
blocks and bypasses--related to surface area), and many testimonials
that appear to point in the direction of certain manufacturers. It
has been my hope to shed some light in the direction of these
issues. While my perhaps unpopular "two eyes and common sense"
approach may not be the most scientific, it is the best I could do
considering there was little personal return on the investment of
time and money I put into it.
The primary shortcoming of
this study is the small sampling size. Some brand names use
different manufacturers for different applications. Another
shortcoming is the lack of testing of the filter element media
itself. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor resources to do
this.
I invite anyone with the means
to take a larger sampling size and conduct a more complete study,
which may include private SAE tests. I also invite anyone to repeat
a study similar to this one on other model filters. It's really not
that difficult. Just cut them open, take measurements and pictures,
and be methodical.
With all of that said, please
make your own judgments. Use this study only as a source of some
information that may give you a better idea about which filter
brands to steer clear from. It should be obvious that some
manufacturers are not being honest about their product. The next
time you buy a filter for your car, buy two and cut one open to see
what is inside. My intent was to provide some information and alert
you to some little-known issues, not to tell you what to think.
Thank you again Russ for the great
information
Reprinted with Russ W. Knize
permission
BACK to Tech Menu |