Just because they are made of celulose material? Why not?
They do not work?
I am not sure if this is very scientific to judge the quality of an oil
based on how does it LOOK when cut open after usage...
Should we judge the filters based on their performance ?
Based on how do they filter crap from the oil, not how do they look like?
They do not filter as well as multidensity synthetic blend media, and
often have a lower efficiency ratio. An example is the Pureolator's
PureOne being 99.9% efficient at 20 microns vs Premium Plus at
99.7%.Some filters are 97%, 94% etc. A good explanation would be the
prior Hengst link showing 1 micron filtration paper (nano-fiber) for
Sure, looks can be deceiving. That's why I ask for SAE or ISO test
results on the Toyota (or OEM Denso) filters. But the Denso site
doesn't list them. I'm sure those Toyota filters work, as some people
swear by Fram oil filters. So it's personal preference I guess.
I primarily use Purolator PureOne, Bosch Filtech, and Motorcraft,
which are pretty much the same filter. Bosch used to have Champion
Labs-made filters before they bought Purolator.
Now, if anyone has data showing Denso even filters close to the
PureOne or Filtech, I certainly would like to know.
I also doubt if the difference between filter filtering 99% and the one
filtering 94% is worth trouble replacing the filter... If we were talking
about replacing filter filtering only 60-70% with one doing 99 - than
of course it would make sense. But 99 and 94 or 97%? Come on!
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.