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.