Ford Ranger 2019-2021 2.3L Ecoboost Larger Filter

[ctechbob]

I suspected it would, but today confirmed that you can use the slightly longer filter on the truck. No problems and nothing anywhere near the filter.

Stock Filter is the FL910S, which I'd been using up to this point. Good filter, well built, just thought I'd try something different. Bosch Distance + D3422 in this case. Rockauto has them on closeout.

Standard Length Filters - 3.404" Long
FL910S - Motorcraft
PH3614 - Fram
51348 - Wix
3330 - Bosch

Extended Length Filters - 4.828" Long
FL400S - Motorcraft
3422 - Bosch
PH3600 - Fram
51516 - Wix

Why? Why not, choice is good, and this is BITOG, it would be boring if everyone did the same thing.....

Can't speak for the other cars that use this motor, don't know what they look like around the filter.

 

[Sayjac]

The one consideration to keep in mind, using a non spec filter will void any filter warranty. That includes a vehicle under current manufacturers' warranty. As long as you are willing to assume any risk (however small), longer filter is an option. Being fully informed, your call.

BD+ post use anecdotes posted here have looked good. I've run a D3323 two ocis on a Honda, and it looked good.

 

[Cuemark8]

I've seen threads like this in the past. I see people using larger filters on the 2.0L Ecoboost and 2 3L Ecoboost.
The FL400s will fit, it's an upsize but the pressure relief is 20psi vs 14.5psi for the FL910s.
I've seen Fram 3614 and 3600 series used interchangeably. They have a bypass rating at 12PSI.
Almost all of the newer smaller EcoBoost engines spec the FL910s.

Personally, I see no problem going bigger. I'd go for the Fram XG or TG.

Going with a larger filter seems to be a common mod on the 2 3L Ecoboost Mustang.

I've used the FRAM TG3600 with 1.0L EcoBoost.



By the time the FL400s gets to bypass pressure you could be starving an engine of oil using a non spec filter.

 

[ctechbob]

The FL400s will fit, it's an upsize but the pressure relief is 20psi vs 14.5psi for the FL910s.

Do you have a source for that bypass pressure? The few cross-references I see for it show the same bypass as the smaller filter.

Of course, the information I have at hand is not from Motorcraft, I can't seem to find that, but Wix and K&N cross reference for those filters show a lower bypass.

https://www.knfilters.com/cross-reference/motorcraft/fl400s-oil-filter (14 PSI)

https://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=76178 (8-11 PSI)

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ This is an old thread, but it shows that the Motorcraft FL500S has a bypass valve setting of 17+ PSI. The info is from Purolator who makes the Motorcraft oil filters. I would suspect many other Motorcraft filters would be in the similar range. You will never find any official information from Motorcraft what the bypass valve setting are.

MC FL500S

Read this on another message board. Seems to contradict another thread I found on here a few months ago. Would like to pick up a few for the 2012 Mustang, but posts here mentioned not to because of an 8lb. bypass. You have made a good choice in selecting the PL22500. Please be assured the...

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[ZeeOSix]

I've seen threads like this in the past. I see people using larger filters on the 2.0L Ecoboost and 2 3L Ecoboost.
The FL400s will fit, it's an upsize but the pressure relief is 20psi vs 14.5psi for the FL910s.
I've seen Fram 3614 and 3600 series used interchangeably. They have a bypass rating at 12PSI.
Almost all of the newer smaller EcoBoost engines spec the FL910s.

Personally, I see no problem going bigger. I'd go for the Fram XG or TG.

Going with a larger filter seems to be a common mod on the 2 3L Ecoboost Mustang.

I've used the FRAM TG3600 with 1.0L EcoBoost.

By the time the FL400s gets to bypass pressure you could be starving an engine of oil using a non spec filter.

Yes, as mentioned by ctechbob ... do you have an official source of the Motorcraft bypass valve settings?

 

[mpack88]

Longer filter is cool, could a FL1a fit aswell?

 

[ctechbob]

Longer filter is cool, could a FL1a fit aswell?

I'm going to go with no, although I'd have to take another look. I don't think there's a lot of room to go bigger in diameter. I can't remember if there are any hard parts in the way, but I think the heat exchanger is pretty close. It might work if you did away with the nifty little drain flume they have in there, but then you'd be making an ungodly mess every filter change.

 

[dnewton3]

This topic of "larger filter" is boring. Beaten to death more than any other topic here I suspect.

It boils down to this ...

Using any filter which is NOT an approved selection from the filter maker sets the user up for a warranty claim fight should there be an issue (admittedly a rare risk). It's not that you won't be able to get warranty coverage; it's that when you use the "wrong" filter, the filter maker is now in a much better position to deny or delay coverage. The M/M Act affect on this toipc are reasonablly interpreted this way:
- using "approved" products places the burden of proof of failure on the product maker; to deny coverage they have to prove it wasn't their product that failed
- using "non approved" products places the burden of proof of failure upon the user; to enforce coverage it's now YOUR job to prove your choice of the wrong product DIDN'T cause the failure
If you have a team of lawyers on retainer, nearly unlimited funds and laboratory tools, and oodles of excess time on your hands, then these concerns won't bother you.

So, you want to use a larger filter despite the risks above? OK - now show me that the risks have a reward. I don't mean a theory-based BITOG-enhanced infintesimally-small improvement, but a REAL WORLD, data-solid, incontravertable-evidence basis for using a non-approved filter. Show me a real-world study that shows a larger filter is going to make your engine last longer; something like X% capacity increase makes the engine last Y% longer. Many of us have seen this topic hashed to the n-th degree, and NOT ONCE, NOT EVER has a study been brought to light that DIRECTLY speaks to the topic of a larger filter having a truly tangible effect to the everyday user. There has NEVER been a study done which specifically has the goal of proving/disproving that a "larger" filter will suitably enhance the lifespan of the typical DD vehicle.

Imagine if you have an engine failure related to filtration; the filter maker and the OEM each have data to show why their enginered solutions were used. You have nothing but a bunch of home-based theorists on the 'net. What are you going to do when Fram or Wix wants to cross examine your theory-based solution? You gonna subpeona someone from BITOG to "prove" your choice was not a fault?

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea. The risks are real, albiet remote. The benefits are imagined and have never been proven.

Do as you see fit; Caveat Emptor.

 

[ctechbob]

Nowhere in my post did I say it was a better option, or make any claim that it worked better, filtered more, or that everyone should run out and do it. It was simply a post that you could fit one should you choose to do so. Perhaps someone can't get their hands on a 910 sized filter and need to do an oil change that weekend. Or prefer the longer filter because it is easier to get on and off the truck.

My personal reasons are that I happen to use the longer filter for a few other applications and I don't want to keep 3 different filters in stock, when I can keep 2. Also, yes, the longer filter is easier to get off the truck as there's more to grab on to. I'm fully aware of my decisions and the 'risks'.

I never claimed it was 'better', I was just offering an opinion on the fitment.

The whole point of a forum is for discussion, there's no need to crap on someones post because you don't agree with it, if you don't like 'bigger filter' discussions, then don't participate in them.

 

[dnewton3]

Nowhere in my post did I say it was a better option, or make any claim that it worked better, filtered more, or that everyone should run out and do it. It was simply a post that you could fit one should you choose to do so. Perhaps someone can't get their hands on a 910 sized filter and need to do an oil change that weekend. Or prefer the longer filter because it is easier to get on and off the truck.

My personal reasons are that I happen to use the longer filter for a few other applications and I don't want to keep 3 different filters in stock, when I can keep 2. Also, yes, the longer filter is easier to get off the truck as there's more to grab on to. I'm fully aware of my decisions and the 'risks'.

I never claimed it was 'better', I was just offering an opinion on the fitment.

The whole point of a forum is for discussion, there's no need to crap on someones post because you don't agree with it, if you don't like 'bigger filter' discussions, then don't participate in them.

That's not really how it came off ... Here's what you said in the OP
"Why? Why not, ...."
You said "Why not" ... well, I gave several good reasons as to why not do this. Don't get upset because you opened up the thread for people to challenge and contradict your opinion.

Also, you're sort of splitting hairs with your word choices here. You state that you didn't claim the alternate was "better", but then you state you're goig to use it because it will reduce your inventory, and it's easier to install. So how is reducing your inventory AND making installation not "better" in your world??? Are you choosing the alternate filter because it's more difficult to install? No. Are you choosing it to make for more inventory in your garage? No.

Further, I wasn't "crapping" on you, but there are newbies and visitors here that would take your post as some form of "must be a good idea because no one objected". Well, I for one (and many others) object. The inference most folks are going to take from your post is that it's somehow "OK" to do this. Generally, as already explained, it's not a good idea to do so.

Additionally, you said that you're aware of the risks; good. But you never addressed those risks in your OP. You presented only one side of a story here; you presented the benefits as you see them. You have every right to post what you want (within the rules), do what you want (it's your garage and vehicle), etc. And I have every right to challenge your post and bring to light things you never addressed.

All that said, if I offended you then I apologize; wasn't my intent to personally upset you.

 

[Sayjac]

I basically commented along a similar line to Dave just in a significantly less detailed manner. 'Imo', advising use of a specific non spec application requires noting any potential negatives (which was asked for in the OP) to using it. Not doing so would be irresponsible. Especially so on a vehicle that's possibly still under manufacturer's warranty. This from one who regularly uses 7317 in place of 6607 on Nissans. Would use 4386 in place of 4967 on Toyotas. Same specs, just slightly longer, more media.

That said, I went down a rabbit hole watching multiple yt videos on diy o&f change on topic vehicle. Ugh! I understand why OP looking at longer filters. Can't even use ramps to make the job easier because filter not reachable from engine bottom, or top. And silly scrivetes used instead which at some point do strip instead of push pin type. I think if 'I' was considering purchase, watching those videos would make it a no go. If one owns or has easy access to a lift, or likes using jack stands instead of ramps for OC then doable. I don't fit in either category.