Amsoil v. Fleetguard

[Cooker]

John, thanks for the unbiased information. It's too bad Amsoil couldn't give you a spec on particle size, 94% of all particles is not an measure accurate enough to make an "apples to apples" comparison IMO. I have been wanting some factual information on this questions myself. Thanks for taking the time to do the researh. It appears the Amsoil may possibly filter a little better, but if so, it is not far behind the Stratapore.

Thanks again,
Ryan

 

[John Berger]

Sounds like a court case doesn't it? #ad
I talked to tech reps from Fleetguard and Amsoil this morning. If some of this information is redundant, sorry. According to the tech at Fleetguard the LF3894 will filter 30 microns or bigger 100% of the time and 10 microns or bigger 60% of the time. The Amsoil tech stated that the SDF-80 filter filters all particles at 94% efficiency, but stated that figure wasn't using particle size measurement as a designator for filter efficiency. The LF3894 is 8. 75 at Geno's and the SDF-80 is 13. 75 (dealer cost). I'm using the LF3894 but have been considering the Amsoil filter or the BMK-15 remote bypass system. Both techs were very helpful. In all of the test graphs Amsoil has shown in their advertisements I have never seen a head to head comparison with the Fleetguard filters. There are some good arguments for either one, but most likely will be settled on oil change intervals/cost factor. If you change your oil every 4-6K miles, the Stratapore is probably the way to go. On extended drain intervals, the SDF-80 may be the way to go.

John

------------------
1999 Dodge Ram 3500 Quad Cab 5 spd; 4:10 LSD rear; Mag-Hytec diff. cover; US Gear EGT and Boost gauges. Amsoil foam air filter and synthetics from nose to tail.
Cummins Power, don't leave home without it

[This message has been edited by John Berger (edited 03-02-2001). ]

 

[John]

My Amsoil BE-100 bypass filter, filters down to something like 1 micron at 98% efficiency. I can't remember the exact data (and can't look it up right now), but I know I'm close. That's hard to beat. The larger contaminents are removed with my Amsoil SDF-26 full flow filter. The Amsoil bypass system keeps my oil really clean. #ad


------------------
John Treibel
'98. 5 2500 QC 4x4 Sport, Glasstite Vision II, 285 BFG A/Ts on M/T Challengers, Warn 4X Boards, Mopar fender flares & tow hooks, NW Custom s/s-rubber mud flaps and accs. , Mag-Hytec diff. cover & trans. pan, Edelbrock IAS shocks, Reese Titan V hitch, SPA gauges (3), Dynamat, '00 Sport grille and headlights/PIAA Super White bulbs, PIAA Dual Sport 900 aux. lights, BD exh. brake, Amsoil Dual Remote Bypass, Optima Yellow Tops, DD3s and DD TTPM, Aeroquip AQP braided s/s fuel hoses, Banks High-Ram intake manifold and 14 cm2 turbine housing w/Big Head wastegate actuator, ATS 3-piece exh. man. , Banks 4" dia. s/s exh. sys. , DTT 93% TC, DTT custom tuned VB, BD modified trans. front pump (enhanced by DTT), Air Bulldog induction hood (with NACA ducts), plus MANY other trick modifications

NRA Life (Patron) member

 

[kollmer]

John,
I looked it up for you, the BY-Pass filter from Amsoil, filters out particles down 1/10th of a micron and can remove up to one pint of water. I have had my Dual Remote System on my truck for 10,000 mi. no problem and no worries. I know that I am protecting my investment the best that it can be protected. (with Amsoil HD 15w-40)

------------------
2001 2500 ETH/DEE all Black short bed, Rhino lined, Mag-Hytec rear cover, Amsoil throughout including Amsoil Dual Remote Filter System using RemoteBracket mounting system. Everthing else but leather.
http://sites.netscape.net/remotebracket/homepage

 

[amsoilman]

According to the (SAE) Society Of Automotive Engineers paper 881825, AC Spark Plug and Detroit Diesel Corp. performed a joint study of the relationship between the level of engine oil filtration and Engine wear rates, and found finer filtration reduced the rate of Engine wear.

Diesel and Gasoline Engine wear rates were established by building a Diesel and Gasoline Engine with fully inspected wear components and inspecting them after the test. In both Engines, the upper and lower main bearings, oil rings and compression rings were nspected. In the Diesel Engine, the cam lobe profile and cylinders were also inspected, while the piston pin bushings, piston pins and cylinder liners of the Gasoline engine were inspected.

The total test duration was eight hours. To accelerate wear, 50 grams of AC Fine Test Dust was added, in slurry form, to the crank case every hour.

Diesel Engine wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes: 40 Microns, 8. 5 Microns and 7 Microns.

Gasoline Engines wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes of the following sizes: 40 Microns, 30 Microns and 15 Microns.

ANALYSIS

The researchers found clearances in the Diesel and Gasoline Engines varied between 2 and 22 Microns during engine operations. That means particles in the 2 to 22 Micron size range are most likely to damage Engine parts. Particles smaller than 2 Microns will slip through the clearances without damaging bearing surfaces.

CONLUSIONS

The researchers drew the following conclusions:

Abrasive Engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in single pass efficiency. Compared to a 40-Micron filter, Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30-Micron filtration. Likewise, wear was reduced by 70 percent with 15-Micron filtration.

Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the range of 2 to 22 Microns in the lube oil is necessary for controlling Engine wear, and "The Micron rating of a filter as established in a single pass efficiency type test, does an excellent job indicating the filter's ability to remove abrasive particles in the Engine lube oil system.

The smallest particles most popular "full Flow" filters capture with high efficiency are sized 25 to 40 Microns, depending on the filter brand.

I'm here to tell you the Amsoil brand by-pass" oil filter achieves high efficiency. For particles of 3 Microns and greater, they are 98. 6 %! At 1 Micron, they are 71. 2 %! Their "Full flow" oil filter achieves high efficiency for particles of 20 Microns and greater. In fact, its efficiency for 10-Micron particles is 65 percent and its efficiency for 20-Micron particles is 98 percent! The tests I am referring to is the SAE J806 and SAE J1858. Together, the "By-pass" and the "full-flow" filters offer significantly greater protection than that of a conventional filter system.

Wayne

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

UNFORTUNATELY, what NONE of the above info addresses, is what PERCENTAGES of standard "wear particles" fall into various size categories! In "standard" engine wear, are MOST particles in the sub- 1 micron range, or larger? *I* have yet to obtain ANY clear definition of the size span of wear particles, and it seems pretty clear to ME that if only 5% (for example) of actual wear particles fall below 1 micron, getting all excited about filtering them out is pretty much a waste of time and money!

ON the OTHER hand, if *70%* of wear particles fall into the sub-1 micron size, THEN greater filtration of those sizes DOES seem beneficial. UNTIL someone comes up with general specs on PERCENTAGES of various sizes of wear particles generated by our engines, tossing around various particles sizes is rather vague and meaningless - other than as used for advertising hype by various filter salesmen!

Another case in point is oil analysis of wear particles, and the effect of bypass filtration upon the reliability of such analysis IF the bypass filters slew the readings of Iron and other cantiminants due to filtering out those traces, rendering analysis flawed as to ACTUAL wear taking place - causing owners to THINK there's not much wear when there actually IS, it's just being trapped by the bypass filter and not being revealed by oil analysis!

Tell me, SHOW me, the actual percentage SPREAD of various sized wear particles generated in a normal Cummins diesel, THEN we can actually GET somewhere! Until then tossing around random particles sizes is just a meaningless numbers game to impress the gullible and unwary!

------------------
http://community. webshots.com/user/davison71 Early '91 250, 727 AT, 307 rear... Banks Stinger exhaust, intercooler... US Gear OD... MORE than a match for every new PS Ford encountered so far...

[This message has been edited by Gary - KJ6Q (edited 03-13-2001). ]

 

[Bob Riley]

Gary,
I think I know what your getting at. I'll give you an example. First off, lets state a few baslines so we get it all in perspective. All oils are pre-filtered to 20 microns(Amsoil is filtered to 5). The best filters(full flow type) are about 15 microns at the very best. Now, you have soot production which is very small, even sub micron in size, but... it attracts one another and starts to coagulate becoming like a snowball rolling down a hill. As it gets larger, it becomes a threat to components as it gets large enough to scrape bearings and such in it's path thru the engine. Now eventually, it becomes large enough that the filter removes it before it is large enough to starve oil passages by blocking a port. That is the main purpose of an oil filter, to remove particales that would cause severe damage, not to stop wear. Now, there are particles in the air that may pass thru a filter which can be be any size. There are many things that can contaminte oil and the sizes vary tremendously. This was the purpose of the Detroit study. I read that report when it came out. It stated that the engine wear was caused by particles in the 2-22micron size. That being said, it proves the standard oil filter does not stop engine wear particles, it only stops catastrophic failure from particles that are too large to pass between oil passageways.
Bob

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

BOB sez:

". It stated that the engine wear was caused by particles in the 2-22micron size. "

But what it DOESN'T say, is what PERCENTAGE of those wear particles typically can be found in engine oil with a few thousand miles on it!

Again, if only a couple of PERCENT of wear particles fall within that range, what are we getting excited about? And WHY spend extra time, money and effort in trying to filter them out?

UNTIL we can be provided with a FULL SPREAD of typical particle sizes in well used engine oil, quoting various filtration specifications is MEANINGLESS!

If some "SUPER Jim-Dandy" brand filter claims the ability to filter particles down to a tenth of a micron - but the TYPICAL engine only generates 1% down in that range, what's the POINT? BUT, if typical wear particles can be shown to fall in at 5 microns or less, at a concentration of 60% of measureable particles, NOW we have something tangible to base claims of effectiveness and improved filtration "need" upon!

OTHERWISE, we may just be buying one of those products that provides a "warm and fuzzy feeling", but is rather pointless in terms of actual measurable benefit...

Personal opinion and well intended speculation are fine around a campfire - but if we're looking for REAL GENUINE and needed engine protection, I think we're in need of more actual documented statistics before we can make any intelligent decisions. Before *I* start a campaign to filter out a specific range of particles and contaminants, it would SEEM smart to determine HOW MANY of them there were to BE filtered out!

THEN, when it comes to oil analysis, I *also* need to know how seriously my test results are slewed by the fact that POSSIBLY, the reason my wear particle percentages are LOW, is NOT because my engine has no wear, but because the particles that would REVEAL that wear are now trapped inside a bypass filter - making oil analysis WORTHLESS as a wear tracking tool!

------------------
http://community. webshots.com/user/davison71 Early '91 250, 727 AT, 307 rear... Banks Stinger exhaust, intercooler... US Gear OD... MORE than a match for every new PS Ford encountered so far...

 

[JConley]

Here is another one for ya. Small soft carbon particles in the oil can actually increase the lubrication properties. Graphite anyone?


------------------
98 QC 2500 2WD 12 Valve Automatic, 3. 54 Mag-Hytec transmission pan. DTT Valve Body. Wrap around black Grill Guard (BIG solid steel one. AFC controller adjusted, Mopar mud flaps, Camper package, 2001 Tow mirrors, Cat ran away, No Muff
My Mustang
My Ram
The Wrecking Crew web site for Junkyard Wars
Go Aggies!!!

 

[madams]

Im with Gary.

And I guess I should just keep my mouth shut . . but I won't.

I have family in the oil blending business. He's done these pure base stock low sulpher oils with synthetic additive packages for greater than 15 years. Has enough sample data to prove the extended drain concept. That's easy to do! It's a concept that's provable!

Back to the point . . I've personally viewed hundreds of sample print-outs from all type of in-service diesel equipment. And I can say without a doubt . . it would be physically impossable to benchmark 2 engines to the point where you can claim one filter is better than another.

The most consistant data is from generators where the load is constant and they both run at the same rpm's and for the same duration. This would be the best real world operating environment I can think of that would cause the engines to consistantly produce the same partical size. Then once you've proven that 2 identical engines produce the same partical size then do the filter comparison.

Has anyone done this type of comparison?

If I did 5000 miles a month and didn't have anyone I could trust to change the oil . . then I'd invesitgate a way to extend the interval by deploying a bypass high performance filteration system. Other than that . . It's my opinion that it would take a long time for one to realize a payback from that investment.

It's just too darn simple on my Y2k to spin off the filter . . fill the new one up with makeup oil . . and spin it back on . . what less than 10 mins?

I just got past the point where I feel the engine is broke in 22k. I just went to my brother in laws oil and plan to extend the drain interval to 8k from 5k. Not that I don't trust my brother-in-law . . but I'll put on a new fleetguard at 4k. He claims longer . . but I won't. Hey I need to check those rear brakes at a decent interval right? #ad


He runs a delivery fleet of 5-3500 CTD's . . where they do a 10-12k change intervals without changing the fleetguard . . and nothing out of the ordinary with the sample results. One truck with 340k miles, three over 160k and the 2 newest Y2k's are over 70k miles.

I'd agree that if you do a side by side comparison of that fleet's results with one that has a bypass system and fancy filters, that you'd see a difference in the sample results. But can anyone prove that he would have got 100 or even 1000 miles more out of the engine if a better filter system was used? I doubt it.

My brother in law would more than likely realize a payback with his fleet by extending the drain interval even longer with a bypass system . . but his oil is free. I can say his fleet's samples are noticably better than 5k Rotella samples in simular equipment at the intervals he's running. Imagine how much better the results would be if he did a 5k fresh filter. Yeah the particulates need to come out . . but most of your protection is in the oil guys.

Sorry guy's I just don't see it for a regular duty CTD. I get the deep down feeling it addresses the "warm & fuzzy" emotion . . kinda like sending in that Ed McMann entry to increase your odds of winning.

Let me clarify, I'm not knocking that product. I've seen a few, they are a very high quality add-on. But is it needed? I dunno. Cudo's to those who have'em . . nice!

Im finished . . let the blasting begin.
Michael

[This message has been edited by madams (edited 03-14-2001). ]

 

[DocStressor]

I posted a question regarding wear particle size on the Noria oil analysis board.
http://www.noria.com/boards/thread3. cfm?threadid=305&messages=22

If you follow the thread down aways, Bob K. answers the question. Basically, he filtered used diesel oil in the lab using analytical filters with decreasing absolute particle size limits. He found that he removed some silicon (dirt) and aluminum (wear) using a 3 micron filter. But he did not remove any iron until he used a 0. 4 micron filter. He found that 20% of the iron containing wear particles were able to pass through a 0. 2 micron filter. What these data tell us is that:

1. Some potentially abrasive silicon and aluminum particle accumulate with full flow filtration.

2. The iron containing wear particles are less than 3 microns and most are less than 0. 4 microns. Since ring and bearing clearances are generally at least 3 microns, these particles would not be considered to harmful. This is why most oil analysis labs allows iron to accumulate to 100 ppm before recommending replacing the oil.

Bob also indicates that ABNORMAL iron wear particles that accumulate in a damaged engine are larger than 5 microns. These would be removed by bypass filtration, but wouldn’t be detected efficiently by spectometry anyway. You would need to pay for a ferrographic analysis to detect these abnormal iron containing wear particles in order to diagnose engine damage.

So bypass filtration should extend engine life by removing dirt and potentially abrasive wear particles in the range of 2-20 microns that would not be removed by a full-flow filter. However, the real question is how fast do particle of this size accumulate during operation? Terry Dyson, a lube consultant and one of the more respected oil gurus on the Noria board, does not generally recommend bypass filtration for his fleet customers who use synthetic oils even with moderately extended drain intervals. He likes Amsoil for diesels, but recommends just changing the full flow filters at 5-7 K intervals and adding a quart each time until oil analysis indicates a change is needed. He claims that the wear rates are not significantly different from those seen with bypass filtration. So this suggests that accumulation of abrasive particles in the range between 2-20 microns must be rather slow. Terry says that the oil goes out of specs before significant abrasive particles in the above size range accumulate. I tend to give more weight to information provided by guys that actually do oil testing than from people selling oil.

I’ll stick my neck out and say that if you use synthetic and change both the oil and filter at 7500 mile or maybe even 15000 mile intervals, bypass filtration provides little or no benefit other than that warm and fuzzy feeling we get from knowing that we are giving our engines tender loving care. If you go longer intervals, a bypass filter would provide better protection than full-flow filtration alone. Geeze, this is sort of what Amsoil says, isn’t it?



------------------
1999 Quad cab 2500, SB, SLT, 4X4, 5-speed, 3. 54, tow and camper package, Lance 820 camper, Lance cabover stabilizers, Rancho 9000s, Airlift airbags

 

[Bob Riley]

Gary,
Now I understand. You beleive that oil filter companies are tricking you into beleiving that small wear particles are in your oil to filter out? Right?

If you noticed who did the study, it was Detroit Diesel to study engine wear. They do not make or sell filters. Whay would they do this test to prove better filtration provided less wear if they were just selling filters for somone else? That doesn't make sence.


I'll give you another fact that will show you what is in the oil to start out with, not even after a few thousand miles. If you work around industrial hydraulic equipment you know that you must prefilter the oil thru 5 micron filters before you can use it. This is on brand new oil right out of the bottle! The high pressure combined with the small suspended particles will score the pistons causing short damage.
Bob

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

BOB sez:

"Gary,
Now I understand. You beleive that oil filter companies are tricking you into beleiving that small wear particles are in your oil to filter out? Right?"


WRONG - and that ridicule was ENTIRELY uncalled for! I never made ANY such claim or allusion, and if you find yourself unable to properly reply to my clearly stated and unabusive opinions and questions, it would be better to keep quiet!

*I* am interested in this subject because I recently installed a Frantz bypass filter myself, and am deeply interested in its effectiveness in reducing contaminents beyond what the OEM filter will, and also what compromises it MIGHT impose upon conventional oil analysis as a wear measuring tool.

LEE WEBER - AT LAST!

Some actual TEST results and DOCUMENTATION related DIRECTLY to verified particle percentages! NOW we have something SOLID to go on, rather than well-intended, but half-baked ASSUMPTIONS based on flawed or misleading info. The part about a SUBSTANTIAL percentage of "normal" iron wear particles falling in the . 4 micron or lower range are MOST revealing, and parallel a suspicion of mine that even WITH bypass filtration of the class many of us might employ, there would STILL REMAIN enough percentage of SMALL iron particles to give reasonable evidence of actual cylinder/ring wear taking place - and perhaps even the silicon and aluminum MIGHT NOT be seriously slewed.

An interesting sidenote included in the forum you pointed to was this:

"At 0. 2um I didn't affect the concentration of additives Zn,P,Mg in new oils but started to see changes in the additives (~20% removal)in used oils. Other than blinding wear analysis, possibly overcome by backflushing filter,the only concern I would have would be that fine filtration might remove the submicron particles produced by ZDDP (and other suspended additives) that are reported to be responsible for the antiwear capabilities of used oils. "

In other words, there MAY BE some ADVERSE circumstances if bypass filtration is TOO effective, since NEEDED additives provided by oil suppliers might be removed along with unwanted contaminents. Interesting...

Thanks for the HELPFUL info and pointer!

------------------
http://community. webshots.com/user/davison71 Early '91 250, 727 AT, 307 rear... Banks Stinger exhaust, intercooler... US Gear OD... MORE than a match for every new PS Ford encountered so far...

[This message has been edited by Gary - KJ6Q (edited 03-14-2001). ]

[This message has been edited by Gary - KJ6Q (edited 03-14-2001). ]

 

[Bob Riley]

Gary,
Sorry for the punch. I tried to answer your question first and you came back and made a comment like I ignored your question.
Quote; "Again, if only a couple of PERCENT of wear particles fall within that range, what are we getting excited about? And WHY spend extra time, money and effort in trying to filter them out?"

I was tryin again to show you that indeed these particles did exist in your oil, even in a new bottle off the shelf. You made two references to the fact that you wanted proof that they existed. You came back very strong after my initial response, that was why I responded as I did. Again, sorry. If you bought a filter, why do you seem to be trying to proove they are only for a warm and fuzzy feeling as you say?
Bob

 

[Sled Puller]

Bob,
I didn't read that like you being abusive. I think you made sense both times.

I think someone needs a nap.

Frantz? Isn't that the toilet-paper filter?

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"You came back very strong after my initial response, that was why I responded as I did. Again, sorry. If you bought a filter, why do you seem to be trying to proove they are only for a warm and fuzzy feeling as you say?"

Because I had hoped that I would be able to see reduced contamination and resulting engine wear after I installed the bypass filter, only to be told that oil analysis results were no longer reliable due to the percentage of wear particles being caught by that filter - pretty frustrating! Since that suggestion, I have been trying to obtain SOME sort of actual proof as to the SIZES of normal wear particles in order to determine if they really ARE being filtered out enough to affect the reliability of oil analysis... SO FAR, the jury is still out, altho' it would SEEM that the percentage of smaller particles remain in high enough numbers to still provide a reasonably reliable indicator of engine wear... maybe... #ad


AHhh - don't worry about the ruffled feathers - it's always easy to assume the other guy is being a pain, when it's actually just the way we arbitrarily interpret what was written - and I have the characteristic to write in what appears to be an excessively aggressive manner, when I really don't intend it that way - sorry!

To MGM, yup - it's the toilet paper filter, and as a point of interest, there are now SEVERAL makers of bypass filters using everything from paper towels to common string spools for bypass filters... #ad



------------------
http://community. webshots.com/user/davison71 Early '91 250, 727 AT, 307 rear... Banks Stinger exhaust, intercooler... US Gear OD... MORE than a match for every new PS Ford encountered so far...

 

[Bob Riley]

Originally posted by Gary - KJ6Q:
[B
Because I had hoped that I would be able to see reduced contamination and resulting engine wear after I installed the bypass filter, only to be told that oil analysis results were no longer reliable due to the percentage of wear particles being caught by that filter - pretty frustrating! Since that suggestion, I have been trying to obtain SOME sort of actual proof as to the SIZES of normal wear particles in order to determine if they really ARE being filtered out enough to affect the reliability of oil analysis... SO FAR, the jury is still out, altho' it would SEEM that the percentage of smaller particles remain in high enough numbers to still provide a reasonably reliable indicator of engine wear... maybe... #ad


[/B]

Actually, what you need to do is take a sample of an interval without the filter, then one with it. You may be misunderstanding. Wear metals are not filterable. They are sub-micron. What oil analysis shows you with bypass filtration is less wear metals BECAUSE of less contaminates causing wear. Your filter is not removing the wear metals, it's removing the contaminates that caused the wear. So if you are seeing less wear metals, you already have the proof you seek. #ad

Bob

 

[DocStressor]

Bob -- Doesn't Amsoil claim that their bypass filter removes particle below 1 micron? If so, the system will remove some of the normal wear particles and give the impression of reduced wear relative to just full flow filtration. Wear trends can still be followed by oil analysis but the absolute rates of wear cannot be directly compared with data obtained with the full flow system. The bypass filter should also remove a substantial portion of the soot particles which average about 1 micron. Soot particles also contain some of the wear metal. I'm not implying that removing some soot and wear metal in a bad thing.

------------------
1999 Quad cab 2500, SB, SLT, 4X4, 5-speed, 3. 54, tow and camper package, Lance 820 camper, Lance cabover stabilizers, Rancho 9000s, Airlift airbags

 

[Bob Riley]

Originally posted by Lee Weber:
Bob -- Doesn't Amsoil claim that their bypass filter removes particle below 1 micron? If so, the system will remove some of the normal wear particles and give the impression of reduced wear relative to just full flow filtration. Wear trends can still be followed by oil analysis but the absolute rates of wear cannot be directly compared with data obtained with the full flow system. The bypass filter should also remove a substantial portion of the soot particles which average about 1 micron. Soot particles also contain some of the wear metal. I'm not implying that removing some soot and wear metal in a bad thing.

Actually the bypass filter has an efficency rating of like 90% at 3 microns and 80% at 1 micron. They claim to remove some particles as small as 1/10 of a micron. The wear metals are microscopic. If they were large particles, imagine how short lived an engine would be if you didn't have a bypass filter? Chunks of metal floating around grinding at the engine? Wear metals are soo small, they are harmless in a normal filtered system. If any of you do trend analysis, you'll see what I mean. The wear metals will actually accumulate from one oil sample to the next. They don't get out of the system unless you change the oil. Even Amsoil doesn't claim to remove the wear metals.
There was also the misconception at one time that bypass filters would remove the additive package. This is not true either.
Bob

 

[Pete Peterson]

This is a great thread!! It has convinced me that the LF-3935's that I use will filter 100% of everthing that is bad out of my motor with my 3000 mile drain routine!! New oil and new filter every 3 grand and my motor will last forever!!!! #ad
#ad
#ad
Pete

Oh yeah, $5. 95 for a world class filter is good too... .....