I'm not quite sure what you mean here. 

If the "car filter" you're referring to is the cyclone design used in cheap, low efficiency cyclone cleaners, then yes I agree that they're awful cleaners. However, they're not Dysons. As much as I have my issues with Dysons, I cannot fault the cyclone design - it's the most efficient and well designed cyclone on the market. The only reason the low efficiency cyclone machines exist is because they're cheap to make and because Dyson slapped so many patents all over the original dual cyclone, that nobody else could use it. 

However, since this patent has expired, Dyson have moved onto making root cyclone cleaners and now Vax, Hoover, Electrolux and Morphy Richards (although the latter are rebadged US Shark's) have all started manufacturing machines with higher efficiency, dust separation cyclones similar to those used in the DC01 and DC04. Although not as efficient or effective as Dyson's designs, they're a huge step up from the dreadful low efficiency, direct filter cyclones used on so many cheap, bagless vacuums. 

The Vax Mach range do use a proper cyclone. The Mach Air range have been particularly popular due to them being incredibly lightweight but still very powerful and they come with a full 6 year guarantee. I actually quite like the Mach Air's and would highly recommend them to anyone needing a lightweight but high performing machine. 

Here, here Chris - well responded! When I read "car filters," I immediately assumed those paper pleated cone filters. If you have the patience you can get a good use out of them provided you maintain the filters after each clean, or dependent on the amount of dust you suck up with these kinds of filters. Over the older Hoover Dustmanager split box idea with the HEPA filters at the top though, I'd sooner pick the pleated cone filters if I was after a cheap upright vacuum. However, as Chris rightly notes, Vax et al's recent update to multi-cyclonic design prevents short term filter cleaning, prolonging the need to clean the filters after each use, and more longevity - unless of course your home is really dirty and suction gets cut by two or three uses.

The only downside to the Vax Mach Air is the bin capacity where the Air Force upright is concerned. The Air Force upright has twice the capacity at 3 litres, but it doesn't seem to get favourable reviews on Amazon UK, if the ones I've just read are anything to go by. 

The problem I find with Vax and many other TTI Dirt Devil models that use the control height adjustment manual knob is that for a lot of people, these kinds of uprights are hard to push - yet if you remove the rubber squeegee strip before or after the brush roll, gliding steadily improves as the rubber no longer builds up a sweeping resistance on carpets and other materials. The problem also occurs on models that don't necessarily have a height control adjuster. This was another issue I found with Bissell's Easy Vac upright - difficult to push - unless the squeegee strip is removed.

OMG that's horrific and shame on Vax for disguising the front lift off section - it looks like the same from my Vax Mach Air until you take off the top. I wasn't expecting to see such a thin material filter at the top. 

NO wonder Vax didn't use the Mach Air name - shame on them for ripping consumers off. One could assume that model uses the same tech if a buyer/owner required a much bigger bin capacity.