I buy AC Delco filters for our fleet all the time. I pay about 1/3 the amount a GM dealer sells them across the counter for. Same filter, the money goes to the dealers bottom line, as GM sets the price, the dealer shops and buys at the lowest price he can, yet sells them at a price GM determined would give him a reasonable mark up if he bought them directly from GM, as intended. Now, Yamaha isn't GM, and I am unaware of any competition in the marketplace for oem Yami filters. But, unless that cannister contains unobtanium (and I've had them apart and looked, they don't), there's just no way that price can be arrived at except through pure and simple excessive mark up.
The Yamaha oem filter
The Purolator
I use the Pure 1 because it's a better filter, an all around better filter. Better construction, better relief valve construction (at 17 psi I might add, I believe but cannot confirm the Yam is 18 psi), the Yam used paper end caps, ala Fram, generally acknowledged to be a piece of **** by motorheads everywhere, the Pure does not. The Genny Yam filter uses a 25 cent piece of stamped steel as a relief valve, not unlike those found in $1.99 generic junk filters, the Pure 1 a coil spring. Tell me how accurate do you think that stamping is at maintaining 18 psi exactly? Which one, if all other conditions were eliminated, would you rather have on your hi-perf favorite toy? Note the above photo isn't even the Pure 1, built to a yet higher standard, yet still half the price of that Yami junk. Now I buy and believe in oem parts for a lot of reasons, but it isn't a hard and fast rule. One must research what one uses-and make decisions based on facts and not marketing or claims, as has been said. The informed consumer is a dangerous animal, marketing types tremble in fear the world over when people start making informed purchasing decisions.
Edit-the Yam filter is designed to-get this-relieve at 17.19 to 26.01 lbs, near as I can calculate. Now, thats precision.
First, let me get it clear that I do not think that any oil filter caused the clutch problems that started this thread. Seems like a poor move on the dealer/Yamaha's part to immediately hide behind the "aftermarket filter" and stop there. The clutch failure needs to be analyzed further to determine the true root cause because just putting new plates in it is not going to cure the real problem that is yet to be determined from what I've read.
Second, even crummy aftermarket oil filters can perform fine and do yoemans duty under normal conditions. Heck, under "normal" conditions the oil filter is doing precious little anyway. Cut your filters open and see how much debris is really floating around in the oil for the filter to trap. Not much. This creates a bit of a problem, however, as it becomes impossible to really evaluate a filter's performance simply by putting it on the motor and successfully riding around for awhile with no leaks and no noise from the engine. Under duress the filter might fail even though it works fine under most normal conditions.
Third, both the purolator and the Yam filer look like reasonable parts on the surface....but.../..you cannot "tell by looking". Until someone actually flows the filters on an oil flow bench and quantifies flow rate, pressure drop, blow off pressure, etc. the jury is still out and no-one can state which of the filters is better, worse, or merely adequate.
Couple of observations and questions about the Purolator filter and the Yamaha filter in the picture.
The oil enters the filter from the engine thru the series of holes in the perimeter of the mounting plate. Looks like more holes of the same size in the Yamaha filter...??? Hard to tell exactly from the photos so this is partially in the form of a question to rad..... Are there more holes in the yam filter base and how do the hole diameters compare between the two filters? Obvious end to this question is how does the entry area (total hole area for flow) compare between the Yam and the Purolator filter. My "tell by looking" at the pictures conclusion is that there is a good bit less entry flow area in the Purolator filter. That could be detrimental to filter performance if there is a restriction in the inlet flow path. I have seen overly restrictive filter designs in the past with this exact same situation. Too few/too small holes in the inlet flow. It costs money to punch holes so less holes is cheaper. A restriction at the filter inlet is obviously before any bypass provisions inside the filter so the filter would just restrict oil flow to the engine under high flow demands without you knowing it. Just something to consider/analyze further in the quest for the truth. There may be "plenty" of inlet flow area with the purolator filter end plate but it appears directionally incorrect in that attribute.
The filter media look to be totally different between the two?? I'll have to cut up one of the Purolator filters and a Yam filter myself to look closer but it seems premature to me to state that the Purolator filter has more flow area from what I see.
The comment about paper "end caps" on the yam filter...??? Please explain. Looks like the filter media construction is totally diffferent and that the Yam filter does not have an "end cap" per se. Looks plenty robust to me from the photo.
The filter media area looks to be much less on the purolator filter. The accordian style filter media with the large diameter metal end caps is pretty old school. Very low surface area in comparison to the high density filter media design the Yamaha filter appears to have.
The preload spring in the Yamaha filter is an excellent design from my experience. I would, in no way, prefer the coil spring type spring in the Purolator filter based simply on "looking at it". The spring rate of a flat steel spring like that is everybit as controllable as a coil spring. The flat spring takes up less space thus allowing for more filter media. It looks like to me that the purolator filter media width is much less than the filter media in the Yamaha filter.
My honest assessment of the two from what I see in the photos leads me to feel much better about having the Yamaha OEM filter on my FJR. It appears to me that the OEM filter is the more robust and more desireable of the two. Just my opinion.
There is more that I can come back to later. Please understand, I have no axe to grind one way or the other as to which filter is better or whether there an aftermarket filter out there that is superior to the OEM filter. It is just an interesting discussion for all to have. All we really know is that Yamaha likely did extensive dyno testing of the engine , running it to the limits of performance, temperature, endurance, etc. and that they likely used the OEM filters to do that. That gives us some assurance that the OEM filter works well regardless of whether Yamaha publishes flow specs or any of their test data. We can also assume with some certainty that Yamaha did NOT do any testing with any of the aftermarket oil filters so they are an unknown. We also know that Purolator likely did not do any testing at all using the FJR engine with their filter. At them most they may have screwed it onto an FJR to see if it leaked and fit.....and that would be only IF they listed the FJR as an application for that filter. I would also caution you, once again, that you
absolutely cannot "tell by looking" whether any filter is better or worse than another. Some things in construction, hole diameter, flow area, filter size, etc. can obviously be measured and compared and determined whether to be directionally correct or not. The more important attributes like actual flow performance, pressure drop, filter media micron capability, etc. MUST be determined experimentally, not just by looking.
