Justification For Going Oversized

[Jim Allen]

I was doing some research and ran across some onfo from Jim Fitch, an engineer and CEO of the Noria Corp (look 'em up if you aren't oil-nerdy enough to know them yet). I found it in a 2010 article from Machinery Lubricationentitled, " Filter Economy- Insider Tips on Managing the Costs of Lubrication Filtration."

Regarding oversized filters, Fitch said,

"The lower the oil's flow rate relative to the maximum allowable element flow rate (catalog flow rate), the better the filter economy. This is also referred to as flow density. For instance, doubling the size of the filter may triple the dirt holding capacity (and triple the filter's service life) but may cost less than twice the price."

I know what this says to me but you can add the info to your arsenal as you see fit.

 

[dparm]

Jim,

Years ago the Honda crowd liked running the smaller "S2000" oil filters on the B-series motors because they increased oil pressure slightly which improved the VTEC system operation.

In later years, Honda back-spec'd the smaller filter to the older motors.

 

[dnewton3]

I've read that article; good info.


When upsizing can be done, in the magnitude he suggests, there is merit. But few of us (especially with today's tight engine confines) can "double" a filter size.

And none of that speaks to warranty issues. Not just car warranty, but filter maker warranty.

I see this not unlike the topic of oil for Kubota tractors. Kubota has not seen fit (at least that I'm aware of) to approve CJ-4 lubes. They kept their spec anchored to older designations. But is that because new lubes are inferior, or just because they don't want the expense and hassle of testing protocol relative to every new lube spec under the sun?

Same goes for filters, I suspect. Example:
The 51348 and 51516 Wix products. The little 51348 is just a short version of the 51516, with nearly every characteristic (other than size) being identical. (Especially after Wix has white-washed their beta data ...). But does Wix want to "test" the 51516 in every application where a 51348 goes, so that they can fully warrant that secondary, larger application? Imagine, if you will, all the BITOG variations of filter fit-ups! Would any filter maker want to test every variation of every fit-up, just because we want a "larger" filter?

And, in regard to Fitch's quote, let's not confuse "capacity" with efficiency. There is a distinction. The ability to hold a volume of contaminants is not directly the same as the efficiency of capturing a size of contaminant. I.E. - how many marbles you can hold in your hand must be defined by both the size of your hand, and the size of the marbles ...

Do larger filters offer "better" efficiency and more capacity, when all other criteria are the same? Yes. But it has to be a reasonable jump up in size to make for enough ROI (that pesky concept) worth the risk, does it not? Simply gaining 1/2" of length on a canister spin-on probably will not manifest into some tangible wear reduction that we could see. To "double" the size, you can certainly hold a lot more dirt. But to increase the size by perhaps 10%, on a filter that is probably already OEM spec'd with well more capacity than necessary for those "oops" people who run well past an OCI, probably does not make for any real, measurable difference.

In an application that is out of warranty, has low risk of damage, is not a MAJOR $$$ investment, I see no reason to not experiement and enjoy. But when it comes to high $$$ stuff that is under warranty, I'd suggest sticking to OEM and aftermarket approved stuff.

 

[tightwad]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
In an application that is out of warranty, has low risk of damage, is not a MAJOR $$$ investment, I see no reason to not experiement and enjoy. But when it comes to high $$$ stuff that is under warranty, I'd suggest sticking to OEM and aftermarket approved stuff.


Just my 2 cents worth. My old 83 El Camino gets AC PF1218 filters. They hold about 1/2 a quart more than the PF25 that is spec'd for it. A little more oil, a little more filter area. As easy as I am on this truck, it probably doesn't make a difference, but who knows?

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
Years ago the Honda crowd liked running the smaller "S2000" oil filters on the B-series motors because they increased oil pressure slightly which improved the VTEC system operation.

In later years, Honda back-spec'd the smaller filter to the older motors.

Must be referring to the S2000 motor only? Because afaik, none of the other older model Honda engines have been back spec'd to the PL14610/Fram 7317, the appplication now most commonly used in the majority of Hondas.

However, in 2001 when Honda made the change over the longer, but somewhat smaller overall 14610/7317 in most Honda engines, the dealer was still selling me the older/wider 14459 size for a then new Civic for quite some time. Ironically though, as shown here with several measured dissections, at least in the Purolator P1 and likely Classic too, the 14610 has more media than the slightly larger media than the 14459.

Jim, interesting find. As mentioned, clearance is frequently a consideration, as is warranty for those still under one. In the specific case I'm most familiar with, that of the small 14612, using the .6" longer 14610/7317 seems like a no brainer to me. That's just me though.

And there's another side to this coin, many of the commercial accounts filters (Group7, ProMotive, Proline, QS, PZ, those used by quick lubes) are downsizing and consolidating many appllications. While I'm sure there's no scientific studies that show any effect on engine life either way, I don't care for it. Again just me, but I at least want the spec'd size filter. And, some of the downsized filters are being used in many cars still under warranty. Despite the advertising, I think that most would agree the real reason for this is to save on manufacturing and shipping costs of the filters.

 

[rrounds]

The S2000 has a larger oil filter than all the other Honda's of those years(1999 to 2009).
I run a Baldwin filter that is over twice as large as the big Honda oil filter for the S2000. I change it every other oil change, works for me.
You also stay out of bypass more with a larger oil filter and I like the oil getting to my engine to go through the filter not around it.

ROD

 

[Stelth]

My 2001 GMC van with 4.3 v-6 specs the PF-47. This engine used to spec the P-52, but I guess there are some vehicles with clearance problems with the longer filter. This one's a no-brainer for me; bigger filter, same price. I don't use the AC-Delco since I don't like E-cores, but the other mfgrs. make 'em in both sizes as well.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: rrounds
The S2000 has a larger oil filter than all the other Honda's of those years(1999 to 2009).
I run a Baldwin filter that is over twice as large as the big Honda oil filter for the S2000. I change it every other oil change, works for me.
You also stay out of bypass more with a larger oil filter and I like the oil getting to my engine to go through the filter not around it.

ROD


Have never seen any real data on that. Please elaborate. Unless you are a real long ranger on the OCI the filter is rarely used to anywhere near its capacity.

 

[rrounds]

Even Fram(on video) says that a oil filter goes into bypass about 25,000 times during its(oil filter) life. If you think it doesn't thats fine, I'll go with the word of a oil filter company that tests their oil filters for around 100,000 cycles of the bypass.
My old truck(KW T2000) held 11 gal. of oil and the smallest of the three oil filters was a 4 qt. spin on, I run the largest filter that will fit and most filter down to a smaller micron and still have a lower psid.

ROD

 

[rrounds]

I'm sorry, I left off three zeros of how many times Fram test the bypass valve and spring. They test it 1,000,000 times.

ROD

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: rrounds
Even Fram(on video) says that a oil filter goes into bypass about 25,000 times during its(oil filter) life. If you think it doesn't thats fine, I'll go with the word of a oil filter company that tests their oil filters for around 100,000 cycles of the bypass.
My old truck(KW T2000) held 11 gal. of oil and the smallest of the three oil filters was a 4 qt. spin on, I run the largest filter that will fit and most filter down to a smaller micron and still have a lower psid.

ROD


The exact quote is "up to" 25,000 times in the "life" of the filter. First, you gotta remember that video is an advertisement. Second, I have clarification on that from Fram ( I recently did the Fram proving grounds tour and spoke with one of their engineers) and others outside of Fram, that put that number at the very high end.

The gist of what I was told that the bypass "events" are infrequent (when the proper viscosity is used) and relegated to a few specific scenarios, mainly cold starts. Nobody yet has given me an actual number nor indicated a study that actually made a count.

A cold start bypass "event" could be a series of bypass valve "cycles" (I call it a "flutter") which subsides quickly, An "event" could be a number of actual valve "cycles." I did a little math to see if I could come up with some scenarios and a number that made some sense in relation to the Fram info. I bought a large number of SAE papers on oil filtration recently and the frequency of bypass events is conspicuously missing in all of them. In fact, the Fram video is the only time I've encountered an actual number, and I've been researching a lot lately, so one would wonder about that particular number. I'm reserving judgement on it for when it's confirmed or not.

All that said, the info I posted would indicate that a larger filter could stall off bypass. Which makes sense.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
......Even Fram(on video) says that a oil filter goes into bypass about 25,000 times during its(oil filter) life. If you think it doesn't thats fine,....

OT I plan on talking to the Fram folks next month and ask for a clarification on that number. Listening to video number two several times, I really can't tell if that figure is over an oci or over the average life of a vehicle, or something else. It's not really clear. Just my opinion, but I don't believe the bypass opens anywhere near that number. My opinion, relatively rare and mostly at startup as Jim has previously said.

All that said, the video could mean over an average oci.

 

[KCJeep]

I thought they said over the life of the vehicle when I watched it. Obviously they test for far beyond the actual expected use and I believe that is their main point.

 

[Jim Allen]

Three viewers of the video and three different takes.

sayjac- You may see some of the same guys I did so we'll get to see how consistent they are. I have now spoken to five people in the biz recently. They are consistent in being vague about an actual number and saying something along the lines of "infrequently."

 

[harry j]

Jim,
What do you think about a K&N HP-4001 oil filter for a 1993 Honda Civic 1.5 engine?

 

[Jim Allen]

Don't know enough specifics about either to comment much. It it will screw on and has the same or similar bypass valve setting to stock, you're off to second base. After that... don't know. What are you trying to accomplish? Why do you think you need a larger filter? Two other questions to ask yourself.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Seems to me that a filter using more of the same media area would exhibit a little better efficiency when the same oil flow rate going through it. Reason being, that the flow velocity and delta P across the element would be reduced, and therefore allow particles to be more easily trapped in the media.

I'm not 100% sure about the details of the test procedures used in the ISO 4548 test method as far as if they adjust the flow rate through the filter based on the filter's size or not. Or do they use the same flow rate through the filters regardless of their size? One thing I've noticed is that when filter manufacturer reference the the ISO 4548 test, they are usually stating efficiency ratings associated with the largest filter they make (ie, Purolator references the 30001, which is huge in size).

Anyone going to the FRAM lab tour invite (ie, sayjac) might be able to find out more details on the ISO test methods, and how the test is tailored for different sized filters, etc.

 

[harry j]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Don't know enough specifics about either to comment much. It it will screw on and has the same or similar bypass valve setting to stock, you're off to second base. After that... don't know. What are you trying to accomplish? Why do you think you need a larger filter? Two other questions to ask yourself.


I am presantly using the Amsoil Eao36 oil filter. Amsoil has cancelled this filter and I am looking for a similar filter to replace it. I use 2 Filtermag CT3.2 magnetic filters that are too large for the recommended Civic filter.

 

[rrounds]

Lets say the 25,000 by-pass events is the most a filter would see in its life span, even if you cut the by-pass events by 60% that would still be 10,000 by-pass events. I would like to see "all" my oil go through the oil filter but I know there has to be a safety valve in the system to protect the oil filter from seeing to much oil pressure.
I will continue to use my over size filter on my S2000 because of the performance it has on the oil in my car and my Baldwin B7042 has well over twice the filter media that the stock filter has and the can itself is over twice as large.
If you have not seen the pic's of the size of the filters for my S2000 here are pic's of the three filters-Baldwin, Honda and Napa(Wix)
http://s949.photobucket.com/albums/ad338/rrounds/Oil Filters/
The Baldwin has over 3 1/2 times the filter media of a Napa(Wix) filter.

ROD

 

[rrounds]

You can bet that Pure Oil would have a commercial of how "some" oil filters let unfiltered oil(bad thing) get to your engine. Just like Pure Oil has for those cardboard end-caps V metal end-caps commercial, if by-pass events didn't happen and happen often.

ROD