FL-820s LONGER alternative ?

Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
23,594
Location
Upper Midwest
Unless you are regularly clogging up the media during an OCI (which implies a more serious problem) then increased filtration area isn't relevant. What is relevant is higher filtration efficiency.
 

4WD

$50 site donor 2023
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
20,615
Location
Texas via IAH
Where this went before ?

 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
5,608
Location
The land of USA-made Subies!
OK, here's my reason. I don't use the (thinner than water) 20 weight or even (thin as water) 30 weight oil manufacturers recommend. I run FULL SYN 5w40 in everything. And I'm not concerned about an extra couple ounces of capacity. I'm looking for MORE square inch's of filter material. If you think the smaller filter is adequate, good for you. I didn't come here for an opinion on weather I needed a longer filter or not. I made that decision all by my self. I simply asked if anyone knew of a longer filter for my 4.6 ford that took a 820 filter for years, and now Motorcraft has added an "s" to the filter and makes them shorter. (reducing capacity) .
And I THANK everyone that gave "HELPFUL" info. While I'm at it, I'll answer a question BEFORE it's asked. I know an old engineer from GM. He told me GM spent MILLIONS........ MILLIONS of dollars to gain 1 MPG "FLEET AVERAGE" (a big deal with EPA mandates) When GM went to "THINNER" oil, they gained 1.2 MPG across the fleet average. FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ! They would run 5 weight if the engines would live past the warranty. And listen to the CASTROL oil commercial if you can still find it. They say CASTROL gives superior protection to ANY OTHER 10W30 weight oil. Why you ask??? Because any no name 40 weight will out perform the BEST 30 weight. And look at this -> JMO.
You’re always free to do what you want… but unless you’re leaving your 820S to the point it’s completely loaded, more media won’t do anything. As a matter of fact, more media will actually pass a HIGHER amount of particles through. It’s simple math since more filter media is still only 95-99% efficient. Plus the smaller filter should begin to plug some of the smaller holes and the efficiency will rise quicker.

I get your line of thinking and I used to do it too, until I just thought about it like this now. If all you’re looking for is more media but still changing the filter at a logical time (which it seems you do since you’re researching) the bigger filter with identical media will actually increase your particle counts. ✌🏻
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,772
Location
Ontario, Canada
If you are concerned about filter media area, run a synthetic media filter like the AMSOIL EaO or the FRAM Titanium, which still uses the old XG multi-layer synthetic media.

There are significant variations in media surface area between filters for the same application, for example the PureONE has more media than other filters.
 

4WD

$50 site donor 2023
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
20,615
Location
Texas via IAH
If you are concerned about filter media area, run a synthetic media filter like the AMSOIL EaO or the FRAM Titanium, which still uses the old XG multi-layer synthetic media.

There are significant variations in media surface area between filters for the same application, for example the PureONE has more media than other filters.
And for the “pleat counters” - it has been mentioned these ^^^ and Royal Purple trap in more of a 3D manner …
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
34,986
Location
PNW
You’re always free to do what you want… but unless you’re leaving your 820S to the point it’s completely loaded, more media won’t do anything. As a matter of fact, more media will actually pass a HIGHER amount of particles through. It’s simple math since more filter media is still only 95-99% efficient. Plus the smaller filter should begin to plug some of the smaller holes and the efficiency will rise quicker.
Not true. More media area (with all other factors constant) would decrease the delta-p across the media, and that would help keep already captured particles in the media. This was seen by Purolator/M+H research, and also seen in the filters tested by Ascent Filtration Testing. Part of an oil filter's overall ISO efficiency rating is dependant on how well the oil filter retains already captured particles. If the media starts sloughing off captured partucles as the filter loads up and the delta-p increases, then it becomes less efficient as it loads up, and the overall efficiency will decrease.

... the bigger filter with identical media will actually increase your particle counts. ✌🏻
Not true, the opposite happens.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
34,986
Location
PNW
There are significant variations in media surface area between filters for the same application, for example the PureONE has more media than other filters.
Filter designers will use more media area if required to: 1) Decrease delta-p, which also helps increase efficiency, and 2) Increase holding capacity.

When the Ultra changed to the new media, they used much more media surface area to retain the same performance as the wire backed "depth filtering" media (efficiency, holding capacity, and delta-p vs flow).
 
Last edited:

4WD

$50 site donor 2023
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
20,615
Location
Texas via IAH
Well …
thinking the TS feels 5W40 needs more filter area - but 40’s a pretty common hot viscosity …
Just think how many middle of the road Baldwin filters deal with that in fleet service and for long use …
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
24,682
Location
...
OK, here's my reason. I don't use the (thinner than water) 20 weight or even (thin as water) 30 weight oil manufacturers recommend. I run FULL SYN 5w40 in everything. And I'm not concerned about an extra couple ounces of capacity. I'm looking for MORE square inch's of filter material. If you think the smaller filter is adequate, good for you. I didn't come here for an opinion on weather I needed a longer filter or not. I made that decision all by my self. I simply asked if anyone knew of a longer filter for my 4.6 ford that took a 820 filter for years, and now Motorcraft has added an "s" to the filter and makes them shorter. (reducing capacity) .
And I THANK everyone that gave "HELPFUL" info. While I'm at it, I'll answer a question BEFORE it's asked. I know an old engineer from GM. He told me GM spent MILLIONS........ MILLIONS of dollars to gain 1 MPG "FLEET AVERAGE" (a big deal with EPA mandates) When GM went to "THINNER" oil, they gained 1.2 MPG across the fleet average. FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ! They would run 5 weight if the engines would live past the warranty. And listen to the CASTROL oil commercial if you can still find it. They say CASTROL gives superior protection to ANY OTHER 10W30 weight oil. Why you ask??? Because any no name 40 weight will out perform the BEST 30 weight. And look at this -> JMO.


♻️
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
34,986
Location
PNW
If you are concerned about filter media area, run a synthetic media filter like the AMSOIL EaO or the FRAM Titanium, which still uses the old XG multi-layer synthetic media.
Most full synthetic media oil filters will have less media area, which will "throw off" most filter "analysers" because they think "more media is better" regardless of the media type. But if you simply look at the rated ISO efficiency and the holding capacity (up to milage use rating), that tells a lot more about the filter media than the total area.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,772
Location
Ontario, Canada
Filter designers will use more media area if required to: 1) Decrease delta-p, which also helps increase efficiency, and 2) Increase holding capacity.

When the Ultra changed to the new media, they used much more media surface area to retain the same performance as the wire backed "depth filtering" media (efficiency, holding capacity, and delta-p vs flow).
Yes, though we don't know how much of that performance they retained ;) The filter was clearly overkill, losing a bit on those parameters likely would be inconsequential.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,772
Location
Ontario, Canada
Most full synthetic media oil filters will have less media area, which will "throw off" most filter "analysers" because they think "more media is better" regardless of the media type. But if you simply look at the rated ISO efficiency and the holding capacity (up to milage use rating), that tells a lot more about the filter media than the total area.
Yup.

Amusingly, despite the OP's concerns, Ford doesn't spec a bigger filter for the cars that call for 5W-50... :unsure:

The XG2/FL-820S was also the original HEMI filter, and is currently spec'd on the 392/6.4L and the 6.2L Hellcat engine, both of which call for 0W-40.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
34,986
Location
PNW
Yes, though we don't know how much of that performance they retained ;) The filter was clearly overkill, losing a bit on those parameters likely would be inconsequential.
Yep, it's too bad the new Ultra design wasn't out when Ascent Filtration Testing (Andrew) did his certified ISO tests. It would have been interesting to see the OG vs new Ultra in the same filter model number tested side-by-side.

I'm pretty confident that there wouldn't have been much difference. Fram claims the efficiency actually went up on the filter model number they compared. The new Ultra is still rated at 99+% @ 20μ and rated for up to 20K miles, so the performance couldn't have changed much to retain that level of performance.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
53,772
Location
Ontario, Canada
Yep, it's too bad the new Ultra design wasn't out when Ascent Filtratiin Testing (Andrew) did his ISO tests. It would have been interesting to see the OG vs new Ultra in the same filter model number tested side-by-side.

I'm pretty confident that there wouldn't have been much difference. Fram claims the efficiency actually went up on the filter model number they compared. The new Ultra is still rated at 99+% @ 20μ and rated for up to 20K miles, so the performance couldn't have changed much to retain that level of performance.
Was thinking the same.
 
Top