L10241 from a Harley cut open pics
- Thread starter SJohnson
- Start date
- Status
I think any engine spec'd for 20/50 in this day and age is likely hard on engine oil.
Originally Posted By: SJohnson
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
He also makes another good point.
Quote:
The Purolator ML line of filters is made in China, imported, and rebranded to Purolator. That's your big clue about how much they love you and how carefully they engineer filters for your bike.
Could be that the Purolator oil filters for motorcycles are re-badged Hi-Flo filters, which is what K&N oil filters are for motorcycles. If they have full synthetic media, they aren't a cheap low tier filter.
Who cares if they are re-badged or not. I know that the L10241 is rated at 97.5 @20 microns. I know that from cutting it open, it looks good and functioned accordingly. As far as the ML16822, who knows how efficient it is. I won't hesitate using the L10241 again.
Hummm, detecting a hint of defensiveness.
Obviously, you (and anyone else on earth) can use whatever they want, but really how do you know it "functioned accordingly" just by looking at it. How do you know the bypass valve wasn't open way more than it should have been?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
He also makes another good point.
Quote:
The Purolator ML line of filters is made in China, imported, and rebranded to Purolator. That's your big clue about how much they love you and how carefully they engineer filters for your bike.
Could be that the Purolator oil filters for motorcycles are re-badged Hi-Flo filters, which is what K&N oil filters are for motorcycles. If they have full synthetic media, they aren't a cheap low tier filter.
Who cares if they are re-badged or not. I know that the L10241 is rated at 97.5 @20 microns. I know that from cutting it open, it looks good and functioned accordingly. As far as the ML16822, who knows how efficient it is. I won't hesitate using the L10241 again.
Hummm, detecting a hint of defensiveness.
Quote:
Hummm, detecting a hint of defensiveness.
Obviously, you (and anyone else on earth) can use whatever they want, but really how do you know it "functioned accordingly" just by looking at it. How do you know the bypass valve wasn't open way more than it should have been?
That filter performed just fine. The pleats are straight as an arrow, there were no tears present and it was structurally sound. The only reason you are making this ridiculous assertion is because it is a purolator. Get over it, the filter worked.
Hummm, detecting a hint of defensiveness.
That filter performed just fine. The pleats are straight as an arrow, there were no tears present and it was structurally sound. The only reason you are making this ridiculous assertion is because it is a purolator. Get over it, the filter worked.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Quote:
Hummm, detecting a hint of defensiveness.
Obviously, you (and anyone else on earth) can use whatever they want, but really how do you know it "functioned accordingly" just by looking at it. How do you know the bypass valve wasn't open way more than it should have been?
That filter performed just fine. The pleats are straight as an arrow, there were no tears present and it was structurally sound. The only reason you are making this ridiculous assertion is because it is a purolator. Get over it, the filter worked.
LOL ... wrong, I'm running Purolators right now (PL20195 and a PL14610, prone to tearing).
I'm asking how he knows the bypass valve wasn't opening too much or not. You can't by looking at the pleats.
Quote:
Hummm, detecting a hint of defensiveness.
That filter performed just fine. The pleats are straight as an arrow, there were no tears present and it was structurally sound. The only reason you are making this ridiculous assertion is because it is a purolator. Get over it, the filter worked.
LOL ... wrong, I'm running Purolators right now (PL20195 and a PL14610, prone to tearing).
I'm asking how he knows the bypass valve wasn't opening too much or not. You can't by looking at the pleats.
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: abycat
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I would think an air cooled engine would be harder on oil.
I was thinking that to. But also has way less moving parts. And less cylinders.
Big slow turning engines are easier on oil.
I'm sure they are however given that a big twin gets real hot when stuck in traffic or stopped for a short time I know for a fact they can see oil temps in excess of 300f and not just for a minute here and there.
Harley Big twins don't shear the oil in any significant way but they do cook it when there's a lot of stop and go.
Originally Posted By: abycat
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I would think an air cooled engine would be harder on oil.
I was thinking that to. But also has way less moving parts. And less cylinders.
Big slow turning engines are easier on oil.
I'm sure they are however given that a big twin gets real hot when stuck in traffic or stopped for a short time I know for a fact they can see oil temps in excess of 300f and not just for a minute here and there.
Harley Big twins don't shear the oil in any significant way but they do cook it when there's a lot of stop and go.
Originally Posted By: jk_636
...That filter performed just fine. The pleats are straight as an arrow, there were no tears present and it was structurally sound. .....
Agreed. And as posted in the link I posted member Analyzer does an excellent job in the linked post explaining the logic of using the less expensive automotive application, PL14610, for his Yamaha motorcycle. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb..._Di#Post3467393
Similarly but specific to the OP's 89 Harley FLH, using the Wix look up as it's more comprehensive, it shows the Wix 51215. And that application besides listing the bike, shows a listing for small engine Kohler, Kawasaki and Generac lawn mower applications. As anyone familiar with lawn mower applications will agree, using the less expensive automotive application is generally a better option. Nothing special about the pump or bypass psi that would preclude their use. And the ML16822 with the same specs as the L10241 crosses to the Wix 51215 with the same specs as L10241. Same as the equivalent Wix automotive application 51348 has same specs as 51215, only it has a silicone adbv. No need to pay more for lower sales mc/outdoor equipment application.
Bottom line, solid results here at a good value.
...That filter performed just fine. The pleats are straight as an arrow, there were no tears present and it was structurally sound. .....
Agreed. And as posted in the link I posted member Analyzer does an excellent job in the linked post explaining the logic of using the less expensive automotive application, PL14610, for his Yamaha motorcycle. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb..._Di#Post3467393
Similarly but specific to the OP's 89 Harley FLH, using the Wix look up as it's more comprehensive, it shows the Wix 51215. And that application besides listing the bike, shows a listing for small engine Kohler, Kawasaki and Generac lawn mower applications. As anyone familiar with lawn mower applications will agree, using the less expensive automotive application is generally a better option. Nothing special about the pump or bypass psi that would preclude their use. And the ML16822 with the same specs as the L10241 crosses to the Wix 51215 with the same specs as L10241. Same as the equivalent Wix automotive application 51348 has same specs as 51215, only it has a silicone adbv. No need to pay more for lower sales mc/outdoor equipment application.
Bottom line, solid results here at a good value.
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SJohnson
Yeah, I'm sure the color and price are the only difference. Can't see Purolator making their motorcycle filter from some magical filter material.
This is what Purolator says about using a PureOne on motorcycles. I know this is a Classic, but they make it sound like their PowerSport filters are designed differently. Also, I believe if you bought a Purolator filter that they spec for your bike, it would most likely not be made in the USA.
Purolator "PowerSport" Filters
"If you're thinking you want to install a PureONE oil filter on your bike, please think again. PureONE oil filters are designed for vehicles, not bikes. Because of PureONE's high efficiency, the motorcycle oil pump may not be able to handle the pressure. The Purolator motorcycle filter line is designed to meet the specific needs of a bike; therefore we highly recommend the use of a Purolator ML filter over a PureONE oil filter."
I like the reply from the guy who put together this cross reference page for motorcycle filters.
Quote:
I had no idea motorcycles weren't vehicles. I do wish they would inform the DMV, who keeps assessing me a motor vehicle tax and requiring me to get motor vehicle insurance.
He also makes another good point.
Quote:
The Purolator ML line of filters is made in China, imported, and rebranded to Purolator. That's your big clue about how much they love you and how carefully they engineer filters for your bike.
Just so people notice this the guy who compiled this fitment list http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/FilterXRef.html isn't aware There are differences in Harley's filtering requirements, and that using a filter for a 1980 Harley is not the correct filter to use on your 2007 Harley. Just because it screws on the spud doesn't mean it's the right filter for the job.,,
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SJohnson
Yeah, I'm sure the color and price are the only difference. Can't see Purolator making their motorcycle filter from some magical filter material.
This is what Purolator says about using a PureOne on motorcycles. I know this is a Classic, but they make it sound like their PowerSport filters are designed differently. Also, I believe if you bought a Purolator filter that they spec for your bike, it would most likely not be made in the USA.
Purolator "PowerSport" Filters
"If you're thinking you want to install a PureONE oil filter on your bike, please think again. PureONE oil filters are designed for vehicles, not bikes. Because of PureONE's high efficiency, the motorcycle oil pump may not be able to handle the pressure. The Purolator motorcycle filter line is designed to meet the specific needs of a bike; therefore we highly recommend the use of a Purolator ML filter over a PureONE oil filter."
I like the reply from the guy who put together this cross reference page for motorcycle filters.
Quote:
I had no idea motorcycles weren't vehicles. I do wish they would inform the DMV, who keeps assessing me a motor vehicle tax and requiring me to get motor vehicle insurance.
He also makes another good point.
Quote:
The Purolator ML line of filters is made in China, imported, and rebranded to Purolator. That's your big clue about how much they love you and how carefully they engineer filters for your bike.
Just so people notice this the guy who compiled this fitment list http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/FilterXRef.html isn't aware There are differences in Harley's filtering requirements, and that using a filter for a 1980 Harley is not the correct filter to use on your 2007 Harley. Just because it screws on the spud doesn't mean it's the right filter for the job.,,
For anyone who is interested, here's the UOA that goes along with this filter that I was using:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...248#Post3629266
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...248#Post3629266
^^^^^To put it mildly...not too shabby. As I said in my first post here, a solid value oil/filter change. Really solid. And looking at the filter and TBN looks as though you could get the added the 2k BSt recommended with no problem.
^^^^ Thanks. I wasn't sure how worried I should be about the oil being slightly out of grade. Also, just some FYI, the oil was in use for about a month. I'm also using a K&N air filter. I was wondering how that might effect my UOA, but it appears that isn't a problem.
- Status
