Outer Limits 4x4 Board

anyone used sakura oil & fuel filters?

anygood?

Used them and they are good. Not as good as OEM [for Toyota at least] but nor are they the same price.

We sell them at work.
No real noticable difference from Ryco.
Apparantly they are made in the same factory as a big brand of filter (maybe Donaldson? not sure though)

AlbyOne wrote:Used them and they are good. Not as good as OEM [for Toyota at least] but nor are they the same price.

so what proof have you got that there good or not as good as an oem tojo filter? every one seems an expert

ausyota wrote:We sell them at work.
No real noticable difference from Ryco.
Apparantly they are made in the same factory as a big brand of filter (maybe Donaldson? not sure though)

yep, the company that makes Sakura in Indonesia has a 'joint venture facility' with Donaldson. Most of the Donaldson filters for all your asian made vehicles, and quite a few euro trucks come out of the same factory. Build quality is a bit variable in my experience, eg. pleat spacing, gluing and ADB valves that don't hold, but then I've had expensive US made Donaldsons with ADBV's that didn't work too well either.

460cixy wrote:

AlbyOne wrote:Used them and they are good. Not as good as OEM [for Toyota at least] but nor are they the same price.

so what proof have you got that there good or not as good as an oem tojo filter? every one seems an expert

exactly. Unless you know the exact specs for each filter (nominal beta ratios, holding capacity, etc,) none of us have any idea. Filter media looks like filter media, and the number of pleats/surface area is no indication of filtration ability/capacity in a liquid filter. Case in point is Donaldson's excellent Synteq media. The filters that use this media have a very low surface area compared to a celllulose based media as it uses depth filtration. It's flow figures exceed cellulose based media, and it's filtration levels almost equal a by-pass filter (beta 2=6), exceeding most /all cellulose medias by a substantial amount and it's dirt holding caopacity is generally two-three times greater than cellulose, yet just looking at won't tell you that. Even cellulose medias can have vastly differing capacities. They can vary from sieve like (Ryco Z9, beta 2=35, ie. it catches 50% of 35 micron particles in a multi-pass test) to almost synthetic like (IIRC, the Purolator PureOne Z9 equivalent has a b2 ratio under 10)

The question was “anyone used sakura oil & fuel filters?

any good?” not “can I have a filtration engineer advise me…” So naturally it would be an opinion only. An opinion that the original poster can either consider or disregard.

Fair go you guys, no one on this board would be able to provide definitive evidence unless they work with or have access to sophisticated equipment and the need/want to test them. If you keep having a go at people who post information for the benefit of others, sooner or later many of them are no going to bother and all you will end up with are few armchair experts and a stack of whingers.

Alby

rick130 wrote:

460cixy wrote:

AlbyOne wrote:Used them and they are good. Not as good as OEM [for Toyota at least] but nor are they the same price.

so what proof have you got that there good or not as good as an oem tojo filter? every one seems an expert

exactly. Unless you know the exact specs for each filter (nominal beta ratios, holding capacity, etc,) none of us have any idea. Filter media looks like filter media, and the number of pleats/surface area is no indication of filtration ability/capacity in a liquid filter. Case in point is Donaldson's excellent Synteq media. The filters that use this media have a very low surface area compared to a celllulose based media as it uses depth filtration. It's flow figures exceed cellulose based media, and it's filtration levels almost equal a by-pass filter (beta 2=6), exceeding most /all cellulose medias by a substantial amount and it's dirt holding caopacity is generally two-three times greater than cellulose, yet just looking at won't tell you that. Even cellulose medias can have vastly differing capacities. They can vary from sieve like (Ryco Z9, beta 2=35, ie. it catches 50% of 35 micron particles in a multi-pass test) to almost synthetic like (IIRC, the Purolator PureOne Z9 equivalent has a b2 ratio under 10)

AlbyOne wrote:The question was “anyone used sakura oil & fuel filters?

any good?” not “can I have a filtration engineer advise me…” So naturally it would be an opinion only. An opinion that the original poster can either consider or disregard.

Fair go you guys, no one on this board would be able to provide definitive evidence unless they work with or have access to sophisticated equipment and the need/want to test them. If you keep having a go at people who post information for the benefit of others, sooner or later many of them are no going to bother and all you will end up with are few armchair experts and a stack of whingers.

Alby

rick130 wrote:

460cixy wrote:

AlbyOne wrote:Used them and they are good. Not as good as OEM [for Toyota at least] but nor are they the same price.

so what proof have you got that there good or not as good as an oem tojo filter? every one seems an expert

exactly. Unless you know the exact specs for each filter (nominal beta ratios, holding capacity, etc,) none of us have any idea. Filter media looks like filter media, and the number of pleats/surface area is no indication of filtration ability/capacity in a liquid filter. Case in point is Donaldson's excellent Synteq media. The filters that use this media have a very low surface area compared to a celllulose based media as it uses depth filtration. It's flow figures exceed cellulose based media, and it's filtration levels almost equal a by-pass filter (beta 2=6), exceeding most /all cellulose medias by a substantial amount and it's dirt holding caopacity is generally two-three times greater than cellulose, yet just looking at won't tell you that. Even cellulose medias can have vastly differing capacities. They can vary from sieve like (Ryco Z9, beta 2=35, ie. it catches 50% of 35 micron particles in a multi-pass test) to almost synthetic like (IIRC, the Purolator PureOne Z9 equivalent has a b2 ratio under 10)

well in that case whats the point of asking the average punter that wouldent know x filter from y filter and at the end of the day so long as you change your oil and filter when its spose to be done in the total sceam of things there will be fuck all diffrance for what ever filter you use. you can have the best filter in the world but its useless if you use the wrong grade oil and never change it. or never replace your dirty air filter. ppl here talk like there trying to ger a million k out of there shit box diesel hiluxes ect keep it real!

AlbyOne wrote:The question was “anyone used sakura oil & fuel filters?

any good?” not “can I have a filtration engineer advise me…” So naturally it would be an opinion only. An opinion that the original poster can either consider or disregard.

Fair go you guys, no one on this board would be able to provide definitive evidence unless they work with or have access to sophisticated equipment and the need/want to test them. If you keep having a go at people who post information for the benefit of others, sooner or later many of them are no going to bother and all you will end up with are few armchair experts and a stack of whingers.

Alby

rick130 wrote:

460cixy wrote:

AlbyOne wrote:Used them and they are good. Not as good as OEM [for Toyota at least] but nor are they the same price.

so what proof have you got that there good or not as good as an oem tojo filter? every one seems an expert

exactly. Unless you know the exact specs for each filter (nominal beta ratios, holding capacity, etc,) none of us have any idea. Filter media looks like filter media, and the number of pleats/surface area is no indication of filtration ability/capacity in a liquid filter. Case in point is Donaldson's excellent Synteq media. The filters that use this media have a very low surface area compared to a celllulose based media as it uses depth filtration. It's flow figures exceed cellulose based media, and it's filtration levels almost equal a by-pass filter (beta 2=6), exceeding most /all cellulose medias by a substantial amount and it's dirt holding caopacity is generally two-three times greater than cellulose, yet just looking at won't tell you that. Even cellulose medias can have vastly differing capacities. They can vary from sieve like (Ryco Z9, beta 2=35, ie. it catches 50% of 35 micron particles in a multi-pass test) to almost synthetic like (IIRC, the Purolator PureOne Z9 equivalent has a b2 ratio under 10)

Alby

You stated, quite clearly, that the sakura filters are not as good as an OEM Toyota filter. That is really a strong statement of comparative quality, and it's only reasonable for somebody to ask how you know this - how else would the original poster know whether to consider or disregard your opinion?

You didn't answer the question; instead, you complained about the question being asked. It would be nice to know how you concluded that OEM Toyota filters are better than sakura filters. I'm guessing you have some experience with both - why not share that with us?

Scott

460cixy wrote: well in that case whats the point of asking the average punter that wouldent know x filter from y filter and at the end of the day so long as you change your oil and filter when its spose to be done in the total sceam of things there will be ***** all diffrance for what ever filter you use. you can have the best filter in the world but its useless if you use the wrong grade oil and never change it. or never replace your dirty air filter. ppl here talk like there trying to ger a million k out of there shit box diesel hiluxes ect keep it real!

460cixy – you raise a good point. I know of people who will spend shiploads of funds on their engine and scrimp on lubricants and filters and as you say try to get 10-15 thousand before the change them. I have had three mates that did not change their 2.8 diesel Hilux oil religiously at 5,000 [all turbo engines running in dusty conditions]. They would drag it out to 7 then 8 then 9 and then…. You guessed it, its farked. Expensive rebuilds later or a commodore V6 replacement and they are very aware of not being a tight ass when it comes to servicing.

-Scott- wrote: Alby
You stated, quite clearly, that the sakura filters are not as good as an OEM Toyota filter. That is really a strong statement of comparative quality, and it's only reasonable for somebody to ask how you know this - how else would the original poster know whether to consider or disregard your opinion?
You didn't answer the question; instead, you complained about the question being asked. It would be nice to know how you concluded that OEM Toyota filters are better than sakura filters. I'm guessing you have some experience with both - why not share that with us?
Scott

Scott

I thought I did answer the question albeit too succinctly for some who want evidence of my statement that they are not as good as Toyota OEM. I did not complain about the question, moreso about how there is an increase in some people wanting to question [and in other instances have a go at] other posters rather than providing opinion or advice addressing the needs of the original poster.
As for evidence, my folks own a beef cattle property in NSW and have run Toyota OEM most of the time. They buy filters by the case, and have tried a couple of cases of Sakura seeing there was a shortage of OEM. The oil monitoring reports for the OEM were varied by about 2-8% better than for Sakura. Not a big difference, but when you add this up over many engines and numerous changes, it does make a difference. I am not shit canning Sakura, I am only stating that in this particular instance, under the specific conditions endured on the property, OEM performed better by a small margin.

I hope this gives you more food for thought SW1. The best advice I can give you is buy good oil [usually this equates to the best you can afford unless you are a rich bloke] and change it in line with the OEM recommendations.

Alby