Bosch ST3300 Oil Filter - Fits 2016 but won't work for 2017??

Good info here, yrwei52, as always. The only reason I call the MV filter cheaper is the wrench stamping on top, it's inconsistent as hell. Been through a half dozen of these things already and sometimes the filter wrench will fit and sometimes it won't. I've cut a few open myself and the insides fit the bill. I've always used OEM, they're fairly inexpensive so I don't understand why people think they're getting a better deal with aftermarkets. And yes, having no ADBV makes sense, thing is upside down so where do people think the oil is going to go?
Yeah I don't understand the thought of avoiding SkyActiv OEM oil filters either. If they're getting "custom-made" Wix 57002 filter (or Napa 7002 made by Wix) that may make some sense but Wix/Napa filter usually is more expensive than SkyActiv OEM filters. SkyActiv-G requires "high-flow" oil filter. High-flow filter usually makes filtering efficiency suffer with higher micron ratings. But those high-flow SkyActiv filters have 15-micron media rating which are also high efficiency filters! I don't know why some here even endorse 30-micron Mobil 1 filter calling it a quality filter?

Again, I'll quote an SAE paper on oil filter efficiency from GM engineer David Staley: 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.

Between currently available 2 SkyActiv OEM oil filters, I feel 1WPE-14-302 Thai filter is better made than PE01-14-302A-MV Mexican filter. My Mazda dealer always carries both SkyActiv OEM oil filters. Thai Denso filter is available online, and Mazda dealers can always order one for you within a day with a correct part number if they don't stock it. Blame it on Mazda North American Operations who discontinued excellent Japanese Tokyo Roki filter which makes many SkyActiv owners wonder.
 
But those high-flow SkyActiv filters have 15-micron media rating which are also high efficiency filters! I don't know why some here even endorse 30-micron Mobil 1 filter calling it a quality filter?

Again, I'll quote an SAE paper on oil filter efficiency from GM engineer David Staley: 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.

You're confusing Nominal and Absolute ratings. As I've mentioned previously, the Mazda spec (if we trust Wix's figures to be the true OE spec) is a nominal rating at 15 microns. This typically means that it stops 50% of particles at 15um. The M1 rating is an absolute rating of 99+% at 30um, this means that it stops over 99% of particles down to 30um. This efficiency rating is found using ISO 4548-12, testing information can be found here.

A comparison between nominal and absolute cannot be made as they mean two very different things, more on that can be found on Baldwin's site.

All this being said, 99+% at 30um, is a pretty good rating. If I had to put money on it, I would say that the M1 filter is more efficient than a Mazda filter. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Mazda filter, but this idea that Mazda or Wix are the only options simply isn't true. If there was a genuine concern with using a "unique" filter that isn't compatible, a TSB would be released, much like they did with the CX-9 with the 2.5T.
 
You're confusing Nominal and Absolute ratings. As I've mentioned previously, the Mazda spec (if we trust Wix's figures to be the true OE spec) is a nominal rating at 15 microns. This typically means that it stops 50% of particles at 15um. The M1 rating is an absolute rating of 99+% at 30um, this means that it stops over 99% of particles down to 30um. This efficiency rating is found using ISO 4548-12, testing information can be found here.

A comparison between nominal and absolute cannot be made as they mean two very different things, more on that can be found on Baldwin's site.

All this being said, 99+% at 30um, is a pretty good rating. If I had to put money on it, I would say that the M1 filter is more efficient than a Mazda filter. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Mazda filter, but this idea that Mazda or Wix are the only options simply isn't true. If there was a genuine concern with using a "unique" filter that isn't compatible, a TSB would be released, much like they did with the CX-9 with the 2.5T.



I agree. The numbers are getting misunderstood here.
 
You're confusing Nominal and Absolute ratings. As I've mentioned previously, the Mazda spec (if we trust Wix's figures to be the true OE spec) is a nominal rating at 15 microns. This typically means that it stops 50% of particles at 15um. The M1 rating is an absolute rating of 99+% at 30um, this means that it stops over 99% of particles down to 30um. This efficiency rating is found using ISO 4548-12, testing information can be found here.

A comparison between nominal and absolute cannot be made as they mean two very different things, more on that can be found on Baldwin's site.

All this being said, 99+% at 30um, is a pretty good rating. If I had to put money on it, I would say that the M1 filter is more efficient than a Mazda filter. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Mazda filter, but this idea that Mazda or Wix are the only options simply isn't true. If there was a genuine concern with using a "unique" filter that isn't compatible, a TSB would be released, much like they did with the CX-9 with the 2.5T.

Thank you for the clarification. The Mobil1 is a high quality filter and the proof is in the details. The Mazda filter is a good filter also, but it is not the only filter that is compatible or efficient. There are other filters out there that are just as good or even better than the Mazda filter.
 
You're confusing Nominal and Absolute ratings.
Please see my post in the other thread for reply.

BTW, for easy comparison on those filters you listed with absolute micron rating, Mobil 1 filter unfortunately is still the worst among them with 30 microns! ;)
 
Please see my post in the other thread for reply.

BTW, for easy comparison on those filters you listed with absolute micron rating, Mobil 1[emoji769] filter unfortunately is still the worst among them with 30 microns! ;)


As you quote these stats please use both numbers. 30 microns is correct but the M1 website says 99% at 30 microns. Both numbers need to be stated for a clear definition.

I replied on the other thread as well. Let us agree to disagree on this topic. I’ve made my decision as others have as well.
 
We have seen Mazda North American Operations issued a warning to their US Mazda dealers stating this:

"The SKYACTIV engine oil filter (P/N PE01-14-302) is a unique high flow filter. Installing a conventional engine oil filter may store a TDC.

NOTE: The Mazda2 engine oil filter (P/N B6Y1-14-302A) looks similar; however, the internal structure is different. Do not use this oil filter on SKYACTIV vehicles."

Again, all the statement from Mazda does is tell us that it's high flow. No technical data is provided.

SkyActiv oil filters have 15 "nominal" micron rating on filtering media but Mobil 1 oil filter has 30 microns @ 99% efficiency. There's no proper way to compare? Nominal micron rating on SkyActiv filters express the ability to capture particles of 15 microns at an efficiency between 50% and 98.6%. On the other hand absolute micron rating on Mobil 1 filter shows the filter is capable of removing at least 99% of 30-micron particles.
No, there is no way to compare between a nominal rating and a rating achieved via ISO 4548-12. As you mention, a nominal rating can be an efficiency rating of anywhere from 50% to 98.6% at that given micron. However, it is kind of an industry standard to have have a nominal rating stated at a 50% efficiency.

Here is a quote from On All Cylinders:
"⋯ But generally speaking, foreign material in the range between 10 and 20 microns will potentially do the most engine damage over time. So a filter that can efficiently filter within this range would offer distinct advantages and certainly reduce engine wear."

Yes, most evidence shows that particles at the 10-20 are what causes most wear.

So the key here is we do know SkyActiv filters can filter damaging 15-micro particles up to 98.6%...

We absolutely do not know this.

So why not just use SkyActiv OEM filters to remove any doubs? :)

That's just it, I have no doubts to remove. ;)

BTW, for easy comparison on those filters you listed with absolute micron rating, Mobil 1™ filter unfortunately is still the worst among them with 30 microns! ;)

Using the comparison we can see that the Wix and MicroGard are identical. If we're to take Wix at their word that they reverse engineered the Mazda filter, that means that the OE filter is rated at 95% at 29 microns. Furthermore we see that the Purolator is rated at 96.5% at 20 microns. This would mean that the Purolator is MORE efficient than Wix/MicroGard/Mazda. Stating that the M1 filter is the worst of the bunch is factually not correct.

Wix 57002 - PSI 11-14 - Nominal Micron Rating of 15
Purolator L14612 - PSI 14-18 - 96.5% @ 20 microns
Fram XG6607 - PSI 13 - 99% >20 microns
Bosch ST3300 - PSI 8 - Micron Rating of 20 (assuming nominal)
MicroGard MGL57002 - PSI 11-14 - 95% @ 29 microns (MicroGard is made by Wix)
Mobil1 M1-108A - PSI 11-17 - 99+% @ 30 microns
 

Micro hard MGL57002​
- PSI 11-14 - 95% @ 29 microns (MicroGard is made by Wix)
Where did you find the specs on MicroGard MGL57002 oil filter?

What about the TSB on oil filter used on CX-9 2.5T?

You're right, these oil filter discussions should be under a new thread of its own.
 
Where did you find the specs on MicroGard MGL57002 oil filter?

What about the TSB on oil filter used on CX-9 2.5T?

Here's the info on the MicroGard. I cannot get a clean version of the TSB, what I have been able to find is a snippet of it from here. Below is the snippet, if someone can actually get their hands on the TSB, that would be immensely helpful.

NHTSA ID: 10092237
TSB ID: RF-16-03

The 2016 cx-9 with the skyactiv-g 2.5t engine requires a unique oil filter (py8w-14-302) which is not interchangeable with other skyactiv oil filters. the unique oil filter can be identified with two white bands as shown below.
 
Here's the info on the MicroGard. I cannot get a clean version of the TSB, what I have been able to find is a snippet of it from here. Below is the snippet, if someone can actually get their hands on the TSB, that would be immensely helpful.
Thanks for the info, but I still don't see "95% @ 29 microns" rating on MicroGard MGL57002's specs. If MicroGard MGL57002 is made by Wix, I doubt it'd have any different micron rating than Wix 57002. Usually it would just copy the original specs over.

This's the detailed description under MicroGard MGL57002 but the the rating of 95% efficient at 29 microns is based on different MicroaGard filters:

"Laboratory Test Performance per ISO 454812 13 grams dirt (MicroGard MGL51515), 95% efficient at 29 microns (Based on MicroGard MGL51356, MGL57060, MGL51515)"
 
Thanks for the info, but I still don't see "95% @ 29 microns" rating on MicroGard MGL57002's specs. If MicroGard MGL57002 is made by Wix, I doubt it'd have any different micron rating than Wix 57002. Usually it would just copy the original specs over.

This's the detailed description under MicroGard MGL57002 but the the rating of 95% efficient at 29 microns is based on different MicroaGard filters:

"Laboratory Test Performance per ISO 454812 13 grams dirt (MicroGard MGL51515), 95% efficient at 29 microns (Based on MicroGard MGL51356, MGL57060, MGL51515)"

That's exactly correct. Manufacturers don't (usually) conduct ISO 4548-12 testing for their entire lineup, if they even conduct the test at all, hence why you'll often only find a Nominal rating stated. The machine which you need to conduct the ISO test is around $250k, testing with an independent lab can run around $5k per test. It's very easy to see why a manufacturer wouldn't test every single filter. Usually a manufacturer will give you an average rating over X amount of filters (such as MicroGard) or the rating from a single filter in each "tier" (Think Purolator Classic, One & Boss). I've listed a few examples.

PureOne 14612 - 99.9% @ 40um ISO 4548-12 based on ISO testing from the 14610
EcoGard S4612 - 99.9% @ 25um ISO 4548-12
Fram TG6607 - 99% @ >20um ISO 4548-12 based on average of TG8A, 3387A, & 4967

Just as a side note, I read this article today which actually states than an oil filter can be TOO efficient and actually inhibit an oil's performance by catching certain additives.
 
Last edited:
Just as a side note, I read this article today which actually states than an oil filter can be TOO efficient and actually inhibit an oil's performance by catching certain additives.

Like Mazda Moly lubricant?

Oh no, so the Mazda oil filter actually removes Moly ! (screwy) The madness and insanity, when will it stop? I dream oil filters and see them everywhere I go (screwy)
 
When they do this testing, are they testing the filter itself or the media? Testing the media might make sense if the manufacturer plans to use it in their filter lineup rather than testing each specific filter.
 
When they do this testing, are they testing the filter itself or the media? Testing the media might make sense if the manufacturer plans to use it in their filter lineup rather than testing each specific filter.

Great question! The test is conducted with an actual filter. There aren't many visual resources on the test but I was able to find this.
 
Thanks for that. With a facility that can test multiple filters at once then it becomes efficient. More and more the filter companies are going to a smaller lineup so that one size filter fits many more applications. It also cuts down on errors.
 
Mobil1 Champlabs tech responded:

Sorry for the delay. The Mobil 1 filter is 95% efficient at 20 Micron.
 
I finally found the TSB for the 2.5T. Again this is for the 2.5T ONLY. But, it does go to show, if there was a concern about a special or "unique" oil filter being needed for a certain application, Mazda would without question issue a TSB.

CX-9 w/ 2.5T Oil Filter Application TSB
SB-10092237-6903.pdf
This "TSB" looks like a sequel to an older one also from Mazda North American Operations for original unique SkyActiv oil filter (from no white band to 1 white band to 2 white bands) ⋯ ;)

Here is one MNAO PDF to their US Mazda Dealers concerning genuine Oil Filter(s) installation and use for ALL SA Engines..
Mazda Dealers (in USA particularly) are also seeing stored DTC's (Diagnostic Trouble Codes in PCM) when they use even 'other' genuine Mazda oil filters in Skyactiv engines, see pic, they look identical, but it is what is inside.

attachment.php
 
Skyactiv engines call for these specs:

No Anti-drain back valve
11-14 PSI

OEM, WIX 57002, and probably a NAPA filter are the only ones that meet those specs. For reference look at http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?which states " Principle Application: Various Mazda (12-18), Toyota Yaris (16-18) " = Skyactiv engines only.

Pretty sure the Bosch and other filters have great quality but you are essentially putting an out of spec filter on. Will your engine blow up? nope. Will you get the stank face from your engine? You betcha :)
 
Back