2007 Zx-10

it's not hearsay....the M1 has synthetic media, the PCX does not

it's been proven the synthetic media traps more fine particulate...end of story

cutting open a filter proves not a damn thing....slightly greater filter media area may extend the service life of the filter, but won't make it perform better

ahrmike

oops. thanks, edited.

ahrmike

Thats what Im wondering.

Does the M1 media outperform the Filtech on a 3-5K mile oil change?

Its kind of hard to quantify how well a filter performs by chopping it open. Ill try get a UOA running on both filters since this is starting to interest me...

Maybe update in a year, when I have 12K miles on my car...+ 2 filters each, take the average.

So far though, I have to say...(unbiasedly, i swear..).. The PCX LOOKS to be the better filter...I didnt say IS the better filter..The construction, etc etc, looks better...by a lot. The only thing that matters now is which filter media works better...which like I said earlier, I can't show/find unless I get UOA's.

2007 Zx-10

until I see a thread like this one for the PCX, the M1 and K&N (as well as Amsoil) are better filters than any cellulose filter

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbth...1189112&fpart=3

the topic here was supposed to be the K&N and M1 anyway, not the usual PCX arm waving

"build quality" is subjective...I've read several reviews on the M1 which indicate it's excellent, the filter has a great reputation on BITOG (and they are generally down on M1 products, so there is no bias there), and I've run them on several bikes and cars and never had any issues whatsoever

happy motoring, my $10 is going to the better filter

ahrmike

^After reading that, theres more questions. He states 'maybe the amsoil was built for longer drain intervals, thats why the particle count is higher....sacrificing filtering ability for drain interval.'

So basically, ANY analysis is moot unless...you do the same exact intervals as the tester.

I usually do 3-5K drain intervals, so I guess I should state that for a person doing 3-5K drain intervals, running fully synth oil...they should use ___xxxx____oil filter.


Heres to hoping one filter>other.



(btw,im interested in this cuz I used to run M1/KN on my SS camaro...drain intervals 3K. by the time I drained my M1 oil, the oil would still be CLEAN.) Never used OEM filter, never owned honda before this S so I'd like to know which one is REALLY better.

no doubt both are very good filters (compared to the generic fram, etc).

by the way. interesting thing i noticed...

Walmart branded filter looked like it was better constructed then a Fram filter. <food for thought

2007 Zx-10

[quote name='ikeyballz' date='Jan 6 2009, 02:32 PM']After reading that, theres more questions.

slalom44

Great work, Ikeyballz. And thanks for your comments. I know it's a little late, but I have opened up dozens of filters with a standard can opener with the gears between the blade and the rotor. It takes a few extra passes and a lot more force but it does a good job. You have to position the opener sideways on the filter, as if you are opening up the can from the side.

I agree that the Walmart filters are better than the Fram, now that they use their new Ecore design. Their older design was flawed with their "clicker" bypass valve. The SuperTech endcaps are a felt-like fabric (not metal), but it is well constructed to be reliably functional.

I wouldn't give much merit to the media's ability to resist tearing. FIlters media isn't designed to fail that way. Besides - cellulose doesn't lose its strength in oil. The media is supported by the inner core tube at the inner pleats, so the bypass valve would have to fail for the media to tear.

The UOAs with particle count that you are considering will be great information, but consider this: If the flow through an aftermarket filter media is less than the PCX, it will likely go into bypass during VTEC. I know that 2007 Zx-10 believes that Mobil 1 flows better through the entire filter without bypassing due to its synthetic media, but I'm not convinced (and of course, he has no proof). Since you don't get a UOA immediately after VTEC, any particles that go through the bypass will get picked up again the next time through the filter. Therefore the wear metal count is really your best measure of how well the filter is doing its job.

Here's an old thread showing the different backpressures of various filters. As you can see, the Mobil 1 filter has almost twice the backpressure compared to the Amsoil (SDF, not the new EaO) the K&N and the Fram. This is an old test and the manufacturers have since changed their filters, but in the absence of new data I'm still suspicious.

Bobistheoilguy Filter Tests

2007 Zx-10

[quote name='slalom44' date='Jan 6 2009, 03:34 PM'] I agree that the Walmart filters are better than the Fram, now that they use their new Ecore design.

INDYMAC

Thanks for all your dedicated effort on this thread ikeyballz.

For a UOA and/or particle counts, I recommend using Balckstone labs. You will not need to send in a filter. A $22.50 UOA will give an insoluble count (small stuff in the oil). For a more accurate analysis of all size particles in the oil, a particle count can be done for $22.00. Here's their link:

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/tests_price_list.html

Also, here's an interesting filter analysis that might even be better for the purose of this thread:

http://www.testoil.com/pdf/tlt_filter%20de...rticle_2-08.pdf

Even though I spent 24 years as a Naval Aviator, I wasn't aware that we were doing this testing. Maybe it was limited to the Prowler, which I didn't fly.

Good luck on your mission, and we look forward to hearing back from you in about a year.

INDYMAC

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if you took your marbles and went home. I don't usually get involved personally with any poster, but after reading your contributions to this site, I can honestly conclude that you're a disrespectful punk.