Looking for the oversize,anyone know and does it have the same by pass spec?
2010 Ford Fusion 2.5
2010 Ford Fusion 2.5
FL-910S oversize?
- Thread starter daman
- Start date
- Status
That would be the FL-400s, and yes it has the same specs other than being longer. I have one waiting to go on my Fusion. Some places actually sell it for cheaper than the 910.
The FL400s is the "big" version of the FL910s, and has proven to be a solid, reliable filter.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
Originally Posted By: tig1
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
The way I see it, since I run 7,500 miles per filter and live in a dry, dusty environment (Phoenix), it can only help to have extra filtering capacity.
... Plus I've found that the Fl400s is frequently actually cheaper than the smaller FL910s. Go figure.
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
The way I see it, since I run 7,500 miles per filter and live in a dry, dusty environment (Phoenix), it can only help to have extra filtering capacity.
... Plus I've found that the Fl400s is frequently actually cheaper than the smaller FL910s. Go figure.
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: tig1
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
If you really want to split hairs...... yes.
A partially dirty filter is far more efficient as a filter than a new filter.
A filter with more media would take longer to be more efficient.
Real world, probably makes no difference either way... do what makes you happy.
Originally Posted By: tig1
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
If you really want to split hairs...... yes.
A partially dirty filter is far more efficient as a filter than a new filter.
A filter with more media would take longer to be more efficient.
Real world, probably makes no difference either way... do what makes you happy.
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: tig1
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
If you really want to split hairs...... yes.
A partially dirty filter is far more efficient as a filter than a new filter.
A filter with more media would take longer to be more efficient.
Real world, probably makes no difference either way... do what makes you happy.
Well.. if this chart here is to be believed (and I believe it is)..
..then we're already starting with 93.7% efficiency. Seems to me that's pretty good to start, and I doubt that the extra 3/4 of an inch of filter length is going to cause the media to load up that much slower. Yes, I know, you said 'splitting hairs' but since you brought it up
Having said that, the same 'oversize filter' logic applies to other brands/models of filters.. the Fram Ultra for example. Considering that the efficiency of both the FU XG3614 (FL910s equivalent) and XG3600 (FL400s equivalent) is already >99% for 20 micron, I don't think we'd see much improvement on that from filter loading.
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: tig1
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
If you really want to split hairs...... yes.
A partially dirty filter is far more efficient as a filter than a new filter.
A filter with more media would take longer to be more efficient.
Real world, probably makes no difference either way... do what makes you happy.
Well.. if this chart here is to be believed (and I believe it is)..
..then we're already starting with 93.7% efficiency. Seems to me that's pretty good to start, and I doubt that the extra 3/4 of an inch of filter length is going to cause the media to load up that much slower. Yes, I know, you said 'splitting hairs' but since you brought it up
Having said that, the same 'oversize filter' logic applies to other brands/models of filters.. the Fram Ultra for example. Considering that the efficiency of both the FU XG3614 (FL910s equivalent) and XG3600 (FL400s equivalent) is already >99% for 20 micron, I don't think we'd see much improvement on that from filter loading.
I have a couple of engines that spec the 910s, I had bought Menards out of the 400s when they had them on clearance for $1.50 each. I will continue to use the 400s until they're gone and there is no harm using it in your application, I don't know if there is any benefit other than pricing.
Ford must figure the 910s is more than sufficient for 10,000 mi. OCI in their newer engines so I wouldn't fret one way or the other.
Ford must figure the 910s is more than sufficient for 10,000 mi. OCI in their newer engines so I wouldn't fret one way or the other.
Instead of going oversize on the filter, why not switch to a 100% synthetic media filter (there are several good ones).
Given the same efficiency rating, a synthetic media filter will have a much greater pore density per given unit of filter media (for example per square inch) than a cellulose media filter. This increased pore density provides two performance increases. For one, the particle holding capacity is greatly increased so the same sized filter can hold a much greater amount of contaminant particles. Second, because the pore density is so much higher, flow is increased across the media. This will prevent the filter from going into bypass mode as often.
Here is a very basic diagram for a visual. On the left is a synthetic media and on the right is a cellulose media. Given a specific area, you can see how many more pores are how much more particle capacity there is in a synthetic media vs a cellulose media.
Given the same efficiency rating, a synthetic media filter will have a much greater pore density per given unit of filter media (for example per square inch) than a cellulose media filter. This increased pore density provides two performance increases. For one, the particle holding capacity is greatly increased so the same sized filter can hold a much greater amount of contaminant particles. Second, because the pore density is so much higher, flow is increased across the media. This will prevent the filter from going into bypass mode as often.
Here is a very basic diagram for a visual. On the left is a synthetic media and on the right is a cellulose media. Given a specific area, you can see how many more pores are how much more particle capacity there is in a synthetic media vs a cellulose media.
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
Instead of going oversize on the filter, why not switch to a 100% synthetic media filter (there are several good ones).
Given the same efficiency rating, a synthetic media filter will have a much greater pore density per given unit of filter media (for example per square inch) than a cellulose media filter. This increased pore density provides two performance increases. For one, the particle holding capacity is greatly increased so the same sized filter can hold a much greater amount of contaminant particles. Second, because the pore density is so much higher, flow is increased across the media. This will prevent the filter from going into bypass mode as often.
Here is a very basic diagram for a visual. On the left is a synthetic media and on the right is a cellulose media. Given a specific area, you can see how many more pores are how much more particle capacity there is in a synthetic media vs a cellulose media.
Thanks guys for the info, I'm doing 10k on this engine with M1 and I am currently using a Puro synthetic just wanted to know the over size also.
Instead of going oversize on the filter, why not switch to a 100% synthetic media filter (there are several good ones).
Given the same efficiency rating, a synthetic media filter will have a much greater pore density per given unit of filter media (for example per square inch) than a cellulose media filter. This increased pore density provides two performance increases. For one, the particle holding capacity is greatly increased so the same sized filter can hold a much greater amount of contaminant particles. Second, because the pore density is so much higher, flow is increased across the media. This will prevent the filter from going into bypass mode as often.
Here is a very basic diagram for a visual. On the left is a synthetic media and on the right is a cellulose media. Given a specific area, you can see how many more pores are how much more particle capacity there is in a synthetic media vs a cellulose media.
Thanks guys for the info, I'm doing 10k on this engine with M1 and I am currently using a Puro synthetic just wanted to know the over size also.
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
The FL400s is the "big" version of the FL910s, and has proven to be a solid, reliable filter.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
Cool can I ask how the car has been for you? my GF is nervous because here's has 107,000 I told her that's nothing.
The FL400s is the "big" version of the FL910s, and has proven to be a solid, reliable filter.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
Cool can I ask how the car has been for you? my GF is nervous because here's has 107,000 I told her that's nothing.
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: tig1
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
If you really want to split hairs...... yes.
A partially dirty filter is far more efficient as a filter than a new filter.
A filter with more media would take longer to be more efficient.
Real world, probably makes no difference either way... do what makes you happy.
Well.. if this chart here is to be believed (and I believe it is)..
Yes, I know, you said 'splitting hairs' but since you brought it up
Fun discussion.
Two things
Chart does not specify if that is unused or toward the end of life.
Not the same filter... I wouldn't no if they are using the same media in all their filters or not.
That brings up a new angle though, does the 910 and the 400 use the same media?
Still spitting hairs here.
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: tig1
There is no need to use the FL 400 on a Duratech engine.
Perhaps, or perhaps not, but since the Fl400s has more media and thus more surface area than the FL910s, can it hurt?
If you really want to split hairs...... yes.
A partially dirty filter is far more efficient as a filter than a new filter.
A filter with more media would take longer to be more efficient.
Real world, probably makes no difference either way... do what makes you happy.
Well.. if this chart here is to be believed (and I believe it is)..
Yes, I know, you said 'splitting hairs' but since you brought it up
Fun discussion.
Two things
Chart does not specify if that is unused or toward the end of life.
Not the same filter... I wouldn't no if they are using the same media in all their filters or not.
That brings up a new angle though, does the 910 and the 400 use the same media?
Still spitting hairs here.
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Chart does not specify if that is unused or toward the end of life.
Doesn't matter, because the numbers are a result of the same ISO 4548-12 test spec referenced. So it really is an apples-to-apples comparison of those specific filters.
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Not the same filter... I wouldn't no if they are using the same media in all their filters or not.
Most likely they use the same media in all the filters of the same model line.
Chart does not specify if that is unused or toward the end of life.
Doesn't matter, because the numbers are a result of the same ISO 4548-12 test spec referenced. So it really is an apples-to-apples comparison of those specific filters.
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Not the same filter... I wouldn't no if they are using the same media in all their filters or not.
Most likely they use the same media in all the filters of the same model line.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: daman
Looking for the oversize,anyone know and does it have the same by pass spec?
2010 Ford Fusion 2.5
I had one of those; traded it for my MGM. I looked into this topic when I had the Fusion.
You can upsize if you want. And that's what this is about; wanting. Not needing.
The FL400S is the next size up. However, there is more than one reason to NOT do it. I'll forego the banter about efficiency, capacity, etc, and focus (pardon the brand relative pun) on the one key issue ... A "bigger" filter is going to most likely be longer (taller in can height) and it will therefore stick down lower. And that makes it a risk of striking road debris or a curb or parking stop a little easier. Actually a lot easier. The FL910 is short and stays up under the structure much more than when the FL400 hangs below the protection. It's a real risk.
Up to you ... You can upsize if you want. But be careful because the risk of damage is very real, and you will, in essence, get absolutely nothing in terms of real wear rate changes with the bigger filter, all other things being equal.
Looking for the oversize,anyone know and does it have the same by pass spec?
2010 Ford Fusion 2.5
I had one of those; traded it for my MGM. I looked into this topic when I had the Fusion.
You can upsize if you want. And that's what this is about; wanting. Not needing.
The FL400S is the next size up. However, there is more than one reason to NOT do it. I'll forego the banter about efficiency, capacity, etc, and focus (pardon the brand relative pun) on the one key issue ... A "bigger" filter is going to most likely be longer (taller in can height) and it will therefore stick down lower. And that makes it a risk of striking road debris or a curb or parking stop a little easier. Actually a lot easier. The FL910 is short and stays up under the structure much more than when the FL400 hangs below the protection. It's a real risk.
Up to you ... You can upsize if you want. But be careful because the risk of damage is very real, and you will, in essence, get absolutely nothing in terms of real wear rate changes with the bigger filter, all other things being equal.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: daman
Looking for the oversize,anyone know and does it have the same by pass spec?
2010 Ford Fusion 2.5
I had one of those; traded it for my MGM. I looked into this topic when I had the Fusion.
You can upsize if you want. And that's what this is about; wanting. Not needing.
The FL400S is the next size up. However, there is more than one reason to NOT do it. I'll forego the banter about efficiency, capacity, etc, and focus (pardon the brand relative pun) on the one key issue ... A "bigger" filter is going to most likely be longer (taller in can height) and it will therefore stick down lower. And that makes it a risk of striking road debris or a curb or parking stop a little easier. Actually a lot easier. The FL910 is short and stays up under the structure much more than when the FL400 hangs below the protection. It's a real risk.
Up to you ... You can upsize if you want. But be careful because the risk of damage is very real, and you will, in essence, get absolutely nothing in terms of real wear rate changes with the bigger filter, all other things being equal.
Understood and thanks your opinion on this issue is always known here, the 400 will clear by miles no issue there I'm doing long intervals on this 2.5 so I want the extra media/dirt holding capacity with minimum by pass openings
Originally Posted By: daman
Looking for the oversize,anyone know and does it have the same by pass spec?
2010 Ford Fusion 2.5
I had one of those; traded it for my MGM. I looked into this topic when I had the Fusion.
You can upsize if you want. And that's what this is about; wanting. Not needing.
The FL400S is the next size up. However, there is more than one reason to NOT do it. I'll forego the banter about efficiency, capacity, etc, and focus (pardon the brand relative pun) on the one key issue ... A "bigger" filter is going to most likely be longer (taller in can height) and it will therefore stick down lower. And that makes it a risk of striking road debris or a curb or parking stop a little easier. Actually a lot easier. The FL910 is short and stays up under the structure much more than when the FL400 hangs below the protection. It's a real risk.
Up to you ... You can upsize if you want. But be careful because the risk of damage is very real, and you will, in essence, get absolutely nothing in terms of real wear rate changes with the bigger filter, all other things being equal.
Understood and thanks your opinion on this issue is always known here, the 400 will clear by miles no issue there I'm doing long intervals on this 2.5 so I want the extra media/dirt holding capacity with minimum by pass openings
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
The FL400s is the "big" version of the FL910s, and has proven to be a solid, reliable filter.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
Cool can I ask how the car has been for you? my GF is nervous because here's has 107,000 I told her that's nothing.
LOL - She's worried about 107k? On a 2010 Fusion 2.5, that's nothing.. 20 years ago, when a car hit 100k, it was old. Nowadays, 100k is just wearing in. The only caveat I'd add is that maintenance is the key. Take care of the car, and it should last.
My Fusion has been terrific. Great runner with very few problems, and easy to drive. One thing about the 2010-2012 fusions with the 2.5 is the belt tensioner wears out and starts to make noise that sounds like a bad alternator or trans. Truth is, it's a very easy fix - I replaced it myself and it only cost me $45 for the part and about 90 minutes of labor. Aside from having to replace the tensioner, all I've had to do is standard scheduled maintenance - Oil, tires, brakes, etc..
The 1.5 gen Fusions really are great cars. Tell your GF she's worried for nothing.
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
The FL400s is the "big" version of the FL910s, and has proven to be a solid, reliable filter.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
Cool can I ask how the car has been for you? my GF is nervous because here's has 107,000 I told her that's nothing.
LOL - She's worried about 107k? On a 2010 Fusion 2.5, that's nothing.. 20 years ago, when a car hit 100k, it was old. Nowadays, 100k is just wearing in. The only caveat I'd add is that maintenance is the key. Take care of the car, and it should last.
My Fusion has been terrific. Great runner with very few problems, and easy to drive. One thing about the 2010-2012 fusions with the 2.5 is the belt tensioner wears out and starts to make noise that sounds like a bad alternator or trans. Truth is, it's a very easy fix - I replaced it myself and it only cost me $45 for the part and about 90 minutes of labor. Aside from having to replace the tensioner, all I've had to do is standard scheduled maintenance - Oil, tires, brakes, etc..
The 1.5 gen Fusions really are great cars. Tell your GF she's worried for nothing.
Originally Posted By: KJSmith
Fun discussion.
Two things
Chart does not specify if that is unused or toward the end of life.
Not the same filter... I wouldn't no if they are using the same media in all their filters or not.
That brings up a new angle though, does the 910 and the 400 use the same media?
Still spitting hairs here.
Well, this is by no means a 'scientific' answer, but I've had FL820s, FL910s and FL400s filters all opened, side-by-side, and they look and feel like the same media material inside. Aside from dimensions, they all seem to be the same stuff, which from what I've read is pretty good stuff:
Quote:
The PureOne and Motorcraft media are cellulose based media with synthetic
and resin reinforcement. The properties of Motorcraft is different from that
of PureOne due to difference in composition/amount of cellulose and
synthetic fiber contents.
Fun discussion.
Two things
Chart does not specify if that is unused or toward the end of life.
Not the same filter... I wouldn't no if they are using the same media in all their filters or not.
That brings up a new angle though, does the 910 and the 400 use the same media?
Still spitting hairs here.
Well, this is by no means a 'scientific' answer, but I've had FL820s, FL910s and FL400s filters all opened, side-by-side, and they look and feel like the same media material inside. Aside from dimensions, they all seem to be the same stuff, which from what I've read is pretty good stuff:
Quote:
The PureOne and Motorcraft media are cellulose based media with synthetic
and resin reinforcement. The properties of Motorcraft is different from that
of PureOne due to difference in composition/amount of cellulose and
synthetic fiber contents.
Ahhhh, another oversize filter thread.
These threads never cease to amaze me. There is no documented proof that using a slightly larger oil filter has any bearing on engine life.
The few extra ounces of oil and additional filter media only make the owner "feel" better.
Don't you think the filter manufacturer would use the FL-400 in place of the FL-910S if they are indeed the same filter?
Put an oversize filter on if you want, there will be no effect on engine life, it might give you a warm fuzzy.
These threads never cease to amaze me. There is no documented proof that using a slightly larger oil filter has any bearing on engine life.
The few extra ounces of oil and additional filter media only make the owner "feel" better.
Don't you think the filter manufacturer would use the FL-400 in place of the FL-910S if they are indeed the same filter?
Put an oversize filter on if you want, there will be no effect on engine life, it might give you a warm fuzzy.
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
The FL400s is the "big" version of the FL910s, and has proven to be a solid, reliable filter.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
Cool can I ask how the car has been for you? my GF is nervous because here's has 107,000 I told her that's nothing.
LOL - She's worried about 107k? On a 2010 Fusion 2.5, that's nothing.. 20 years ago, when a car hit 100k, it was old. Nowadays, 100k is just wearing in. The only caveat I'd add is that maintenance is the key. Take care of the car, and it should last.
My Fusion has been terrific. Great runner with very few problems, and easy to drive. One thing about the 2010-2012 fusions with the 2.5 is the belt tensioner wears out and starts to make noise that sounds like a bad alternator or trans. Truth is, it's a very easy fix - I replaced it myself and it only cost me $45 for the part and about 90 minutes of labor. Aside from having to replace the tensioner, all I've had to do is standard scheduled maintenance - Oil, tires, brakes, etc..
The 1.5 gen Fusions really are great cars. Tell your GF she's worried for nothing.
Thanks
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
The FL400s is the "big" version of the FL910s, and has proven to be a solid, reliable filter.
I also have a 2010 Fusion with the 2.5 engine and I have used the FL400s filters for 7,500 mile OCIs, with good results. Putting another one on tonight, as the car will just be rolling past 207,500 miles when I get home from work.
Cool can I ask how the car has been for you? my GF is nervous because here's has 107,000 I told her that's nothing.
LOL - She's worried about 107k? On a 2010 Fusion 2.5, that's nothing.. 20 years ago, when a car hit 100k, it was old. Nowadays, 100k is just wearing in. The only caveat I'd add is that maintenance is the key. Take care of the car, and it should last.
My Fusion has been terrific. Great runner with very few problems, and easy to drive. One thing about the 2010-2012 fusions with the 2.5 is the belt tensioner wears out and starts to make noise that sounds like a bad alternator or trans. Truth is, it's a very easy fix - I replaced it myself and it only cost me $45 for the part and about 90 minutes of labor. Aside from having to replace the tensioner, all I've had to do is standard scheduled maintenance - Oil, tires, brakes, etc..
The 1.5 gen Fusions really are great cars. Tell your GF she's worried for nothing.
Thanks
- Status
