Is anyone aware of a longer or otherwis larger filter option for the popular Ford FL910 (AKA FL910S). I like large filters when I can find them, and I now have 4 vehicles taking the above mentioned small filter.
longer filter option to a MC FL910
- Thread starter another Todd
- Start date
- Status
Purolators
Longers:
L20195
PL20195
PSL20195
Shorters:
L10241
PL10241
PSL10241
Bosch
3422 Longer
3330 Shorter
K&N
HP-2009 Longer
HP-1012 Shorter
FRAM
PH3600 Longer
PH3614 Shorter
All come to mind, they all fit my truck
Longer is the FL-400S
Shorter is the FL-910
Ford did it due to clearance issues and apparently issues involving scraping on ground
Longers:
L20195
PL20195
PSL20195
Shorters:
L10241
PL10241
PSL10241
Bosch
3422 Longer
3330 Shorter
K&N
HP-2009 Longer
HP-1012 Shorter
FRAM
PH3600 Longer
PH3614 Shorter
All come to mind, they all fit my truck
Longer is the FL-400S
Shorter is the FL-910
Ford did it due to clearance issues and apparently issues involving scraping on ground
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: GumbyJarvis
K&N
HP-2009 Longer
HP-1012 Shorter
My info shows that the HP-1002 is the shorter one (not the HP-1012).
Nix that
the 1012 and the 2009 are similar, the 1012 being a little longer
Originally Posted By: GumbyJarvis
K&N
HP-2009 Longer
HP-1012 Shorter
My info shows that the HP-1002 is the shorter one (not the HP-1012).
Nix that
the 1012 and the 2009 are similar, the 1012 being a little longer
dnewton3
Staff member
All of the above is true for fitment.
And it's all mostly meaningless.
Why do you want a longer filter? Do you have any proof that the current filter is not doing it's job? Do you have any idea how long the OCI limit would be with the "normal" filter? How much past the "normal" OCI can the "normal" filter go? What means are you going to use to know that your "new" selection will be "better"?
PCs can certainly show that some filters may or may not be "better". A larger filter may offer a slight increase of efficiency, but it never manifests itself into tangible data in a UOA, which is where we judge wear. The normal variance in wear data and soot/oxidation/insolubles is large enough that one cannot discover any statistically significant shift in measurables when filter selection is manipulated.
I understand you want the different filter; do you really need it and what benefits can you substantiate?
And it's all mostly meaningless.
Why do you want a longer filter? Do you have any proof that the current filter is not doing it's job? Do you have any idea how long the OCI limit would be with the "normal" filter? How much past the "normal" OCI can the "normal" filter go? What means are you going to use to know that your "new" selection will be "better"?
PCs can certainly show that some filters may or may not be "better". A larger filter may offer a slight increase of efficiency, but it never manifests itself into tangible data in a UOA, which is where we judge wear. The normal variance in wear data and soot/oxidation/insolubles is large enough that one cannot discover any statistically significant shift in measurables when filter selection is manipulated.
I understand you want the different filter; do you really need it and what benefits can you substantiate?
I use oversize filters, my truck is spec'd 3330 bosch at most places and the smaller purolator (IE walmart, AZ)
I stick with the larger ones. Idk why larger filter for same price
I stick with the larger ones. Idk why larger filter for same price
dnewton3
Staff member
There are good reasons to run a larger filter:
1) commonize stock on the shelf for reduced inventory
2) at times, larger filters can actually be less expensive, simply due to market supply-and-demand conditions affecting price-points
3)increased capacity can aid cooling, but typically it has to be MUCH larger to really affect rate of cooling (going from a Wix 51348 to a 51516 isn't going to bring down the oil temp in any percievable manner, nor any similar example)
There are good reasons to stick with OEM spec'd filters:
1) warranty (both OEM and filter maker; you go off the reservation and you're on your own)
2) cost; at times larger is more expensive
3) capacity (more oil in the filter means more oil used for each OCI - it can add up over time)
4) physical fit issues or risks such as low-hanging filters (depending upon application)
5) there is no proof that UOAs are improved by using a slightly larger filter; while PCs can show less particulate, actual wear data in UOAs shows no benefit; it just does not manifest itself into tangible wear reduction.
1) commonize stock on the shelf for reduced inventory
2) at times, larger filters can actually be less expensive, simply due to market supply-and-demand conditions affecting price-points
3)increased capacity can aid cooling, but typically it has to be MUCH larger to really affect rate of cooling (going from a Wix 51348 to a 51516 isn't going to bring down the oil temp in any percievable manner, nor any similar example)
There are good reasons to stick with OEM spec'd filters:
1) warranty (both OEM and filter maker; you go off the reservation and you're on your own)
2) cost; at times larger is more expensive
3) capacity (more oil in the filter means more oil used for each OCI - it can add up over time)
4) physical fit issues or risks such as low-hanging filters (depending upon application)
5) there is no proof that UOAs are improved by using a slightly larger filter; while PCs can show less particulate, actual wear data in UOAs shows no benefit; it just does not manifest itself into tangible wear reduction.
My kids have two Fords, one takes the 400, and the other calls for the 910. I commonize with the 400 for both cars for simplicity.
The car that calls for the 910 is actually easier to change with the 400, the longer filter is more accessable, and its mounted verticle so no ground clearance issues.
The car that calls for the 910 is actually easier to change with the 400, the longer filter is more accessable, and its mounted verticle so no ground clearance issues.
If it will fit, the Baldwin filter B2-HPG(3 11/16" X 5 13/32") is a very good filter.
http://www.adiesel.com/baldwinfilters/B2-HPG.html
ROD
http://www.adiesel.com/baldwinfilters/B2-HPG.html
ROD
Last edited:
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
My kids have two Fords, one takes the 400, and the other calls for the 910. I commonize with the 400 for both cars for simplicity.
The car that calls for the 910 is actually easier to change with the 400, the longer filter is more accessable, and its mounted verticle so no ground clearance issues.
I hear you.
My Fusion takes the 910 and I could put a 400 on it, but it would hang down too far for my comfort. Given my excellent UOA results with my stock spec'd filter, I really don't see much motivation to change.
My kids have two Fords, one takes the 400, and the other calls for the 910. I commonize with the 400 for both cars for simplicity.
The car that calls for the 910 is actually easier to change with the 400, the longer filter is more accessable, and its mounted verticle so no ground clearance issues.
I hear you.
My Fusion takes the 910 and I could put a 400 on it, but it would hang down too far for my comfort. Given my excellent UOA results with my stock spec'd filter, I really don't see much motivation to change.
The MC FL-1A will also fit.
My desire to have a larger filter is purely perception. I think with more filter area: 1. pressure differential will be less = less stress on the media 2. The bypass will open less frequently = more filtering. 3. more dirt can be held without reducing filter flow. None of these things may have any real life effect on anything, just piece of mind for me. Clearance is not an issue on any of my vehicles. FL1A--now even I am thinking that is overkill, but I use those on my motorhome so I could reduce filter numbers even more if I used them! Hmmm
Looks like FL400S is it. FL1A has different relief valve settings. I really like Pure Ones except for the relief valve at the far end of the filter. I am a believer (possibly just perception again) that with the bypass in that location the probabilty exists that when the filter is in bypass some of the previously trapped contaminates will be washed off the media and reintroduced into the engines critical parts. Can't happen with GM's bypass in the block, and not likely to happen with the bypass at the threaded end.
Originally Posted By: another Todd
Can't happen with GM's bypass in the block, and not likely to happen with the bypass at the threaded end.
All depends on filter orientation and where dislodged debris would collect. For instance, the filter on my Tacoma V6 is base down, so a bypass valve in the dome end is perfect and ensures no trapped debris in the filter would get swept through the bypass valve when opened.
Can't happen with GM's bypass in the block, and not likely to happen with the bypass at the threaded end.
All depends on filter orientation and where dislodged debris would collect. For instance, the filter on my Tacoma V6 is base down, so a bypass valve in the dome end is perfect and ensures no trapped debris in the filter would get swept through the bypass valve when opened.
ZeeOSix---That is an interesting point, but I still think having the inlet and outlet (bypass) close together rather than opposite ends, will work better as the bypassing oil does not flow sideways across the media(possibly dislodging contaminates on the way) in route to the bypass.
Originally Posted By: another Todd
ZeeOSix---That is an interesting point, but I still think having the inlet and outlet (bypass) close together rather than opposite ends, will work better as the bypassing oil does not flow sideways across the media(possibly dislodging contaminates on the way) in route to the bypass.
IMO, the location of the bypass valve inside the filer is more important during an initial cold start-up than it would be after oil flow is fully established through the media.
If there if established oil flow through the media, and if the bypass valve opens, any trapped debris should remain trapped up against the media because the oil flow force will hold it in the pleats and prevent it from moving around.
Reason that the bypass location is more important during an initial cold start is because when the engine is off and if any debris has sluffed off the media, it will collect at the low point of the filter. In the example of my Toyota Tacoma V6, that would mean debris could end up at the base of the filter (since it's mounted base down), which means a base end bypass valve would be more likely to sweep that debris into the engine than a dome end bypass valve.
Ford (Motorcraft) filters have a base end bypass valve because almost every Ford engine has the base of the filter pointing up to some degree when the filter is mounted.
ZeeOSix---That is an interesting point, but I still think having the inlet and outlet (bypass) close together rather than opposite ends, will work better as the bypassing oil does not flow sideways across the media(possibly dislodging contaminates on the way) in route to the bypass.
IMO, the location of the bypass valve inside the filer is more important during an initial cold start-up than it would be after oil flow is fully established through the media.
If there if established oil flow through the media, and if the bypass valve opens, any trapped debris should remain trapped up against the media because the oil flow force will hold it in the pleats and prevent it from moving around.
Reason that the bypass location is more important during an initial cold start is because when the engine is off and if any debris has sluffed off the media, it will collect at the low point of the filter. In the example of my Toyota Tacoma V6, that would mean debris could end up at the base of the filter (since it's mounted base down), which means a base end bypass valve would be more likely to sweep that debris into the engine than a dome end bypass valve.
Ford (Motorcraft) filters have a base end bypass valve because almost every Ford engine has the base of the filter pointing up to some degree when the filter is mounted.
- Status
