Looking for the most experienced oil filter expert (or moderator) to answer one question.

[Mewbs]

My Dakota can’t fit the XG-8A as hits frame

I wish they made a longer version of the LF16011 to cover the FRAM 3600 size filters. I just stocked up on a bunch of Fleetguards yesterday. Louvers this time are in great shape if a bit too punched deep compared to the last batch I had which is desirable.

There isn't much good full synthetic media options in the market today and Fleetguard / Donaldson are in their own market bubble outside the Passenger Car / Light truck space.

 

[Bob69]

FWIW I was trying to get the micron rating from Purolator on the new Gold 20000 oil filter that is now being sold at Walmart.
They did not provide that data. On youtube there's a few videos produced by Purolator and others who attended the official
roll-out of the new 20000 filter line, but nowhere in those videos of the Purolator marketing "conference" does anyone state or list the micron rating of that Gold 20000 filter.

I may be repeating myself but I also asked Purolator what the current micron rating of the BOSS filters was, specifically the PBL30001, and if that had changed since it was first introduced (25 to 46 or ??back to 25). They would not/did not answer that question.

Part of the reason for asking was to see if the BOSS filter had changed over time (ie: before and after MH bought the company), but also because most BOSS filters were updated (at least on the box) from 15,000 miles to 20,000 miles lifespan.

So was that just a marketing gimmick ie: no actual change to the BOSS filter itself or??

Also, FWIW, the PBL30001 still says "15,000" miles on the actual box (if you see any marketing images it may say 20,000 miles, but that specific filter still is rated for 15,000 miles), but again, no micron rating is revealed.

Point is, I've tried to get clarification from Purolator multiple times and their response was only "It's on the website", and I replied that the specific information is not on the website, and they replied "check the website", and so I double/triple/quadruple checked, etc,etc and then they stopped responding, never answered any questions about micron ratings. Seemed to me either the person that was responding was either lazy, didn't care, or was being evasive on purpose to avoid answering the question. IDK which.

 

[Glenda W.]

FWIW I was trying to get the micron rating from Purolator on the new Gold 20000 oil filter that is now being sold at Walmart.
They did not provide that data. On youtube there's a few videos produced by Purolator and others who attended the official
roll-out of the new 20000 filter line, but nowhere in those videos of the Purolator marketing "conference" does anyone state or list the micron rating of that Gold 20000 filter.

I may be repeating myself but I also asked Purolator what the current micron rating of the BOSS filters was, specifically the PBL30001, and if that had changed since it was first introduced (25 to 46 or ??back to 25). They would not/did not answer that question.

Part of the reason for asking was to see if the BOSS filter had changed over time (ie: before and after MH bought the company), but also because most BOSS filters were updated (at least on the box) from 15,000 miles to 20,000 miles lifespan.

So was that just a marketing gimmick ie: no actual change to the BOSS filter itself or??

Also, FWIW, the PBL30001 still says "15,000" miles on the actual box (if you see any marketing images it may say 20,000 miles, but that specific filter still is rated for 15,000 miles), but again, no micron rating is revealed.

Point is, I've tried to get clarification from Purolator multiple times and their response was only "It's on the website", and I replied that the specific information is not on the website, and they replied "check the website", and so I double/triple/quadruple checked, etc,etc and then they stopped responding, never answered any questions about micron ratings. Seemed to me either the person that was responding was either lazy, didn't care, or was being evasive on purpose to avoid answering the question. IDK which.

This tends to happen when you get caught advertising inflated efficiency numbers and the company president gets involved. I’m sure they’ve been instructed not to provide efficiency data. Especially to us

 

[Fair enough]

This tends to happen when you get caught advertising inflated efficiency numbers and the company president gets involved. I’m sure they’ve been instructed not to provide efficiency data. Especially to us

No one was caught doing anything. The website was different than what they had on file. Too bad they sent it out, other companies don’t. You or anyone else don’t know for sure which numbers are correct. It’s opinion you present as fact. If I did that it is ww3 on me. I preface with “I think” or something, and still it ww3 if something is said that differs from the main players here.
So, you think someone sending you the spec sheets knows about the website specs? They didn’t have a clue what I was asking about when I said the website is different.

 

[kschachn]

No one was caught doing anything. The website was different than what they had on file. Too bad they sent it out, other companies don’t. You or anyone else don’t know for sure which numbers are correct. It’s opinion you present as fact. If I did that it is ww3 on me. I preface with “I think” or something, and still it ww3 if something is said that differs from the main players here.
So, you think someone sending you the spec sheets knows about the website specs? They didn’t have a clue what I was asking about when I said the website is different.

I have no idea what you’re trying to show here. Maybe someone else can interpret it for me.

 

[NashNative]

Finally had the time to catch up on reading this thread from the start...a couple of notes that came to mind.

Be wary of purchasing filters online...we are seeing unprecedented amounts of counterfeit filters being sold to end-user customers (like yourselves) through Amazon. We are seeing these come to our business as submitted warranty claims for engine damage or even catastrophic failure. Once we figure out that the filters are fakes and not made by us, regrettably for the customer, those claims are denied. It has come to our attention most recently, in the last few weeks, that this is now happening with Wal-Mart as well. Everyone here should be highly suspect of buying engine parts from these online retailers...you might get legitimate products, but you might not. And the fakes look really good in many cases...you may not know without deeper inspection or until it's too late. Your best bet is to purchase your filters from authorized retailers as indicated by the filter manufacturers directly...they can tell you where they sell their parts through as an official channel.

Good example of what I'm talking about, but also happens with the regular spin-on metal filters as well:

 

[Fair enough]

Good example of what I'm talking about, but also happens with the regular spin-on metal filters as well:

I avoid Walmart third party sellers just like I try to do at Amazon. Walmart is trying to compete, like all the other big retailers, with Amazon. Walmart retail still sources from the manufacturer. Amazon is really the force behind all this cheating imo.

 

[Fair enough]

On 1/8/25 I had a lengthy conversation with Angela at Purolator. The spec sheets are 100% correct and automatically updated when production changes occur. So I do know….

View attachment 275388

As long as you think you know by talking to Angela, good for you. I think everyone realizes what people say is not knowing something, it’s hearsay. In any case making it they did something intentional is not right. When I asked them they were clueless about the website. I stick to not knowing but you folks go right ahead and “know.” It is a free country to speak our views.

 

[Urshurak776]

Which oil filters have a problem with flow?

Yes, this right here.

I would be the worst ADMIN ever at BITOG. I would delete anyones account that said filter X FLOWS better than Filter Y.............also accounts with posts that clearly have no clue how a PD pump works. Yes, those things are synonymous I'm sure....

 

[Fair enough]

Yes, this right here.

I would be the worst ADMIN ever at BITOG. I would delete anyones account that said filter X FLOWS better than Filter Y.............also accounts with posts that clearly have no clue how a PD pump works. Yes, those things are synonymous I'm sure....

Filters with low capacity can have flow problems sooner than a large capacity. So all filters can have flow problems. Bypassing is defined as a problem. Brand new filters are another thing. But I understand your meaning.

 

[Urshurak776]

Filters with low capacity can have flow problems sooner than a large capacity. So all filters can have flow problems. Bypassing is defined as a problem. Brand new filters are another thing. But I understand your meaning.

Fair enough.

Pun not intended.....

 

[MVAR]

I just emailed Fleetguard about the accuracy of the LF16002 flow rate on their website.

These rated flow rates are all over the place. Motorcraft rates the FL820S as 11-13gpm but the FL1A (MUCH larger) at 7-9gpm.

Hopefully I'll hear something back.

I had emailed Fleetguard about the LF16002 being listed as the cross-reference for the FL820S as used on my 2014 F150 6.2 & the difference in flow rates between the two filters.

Here's the response from Fleetguard:

Hello xxxxxx!

We escalated this to our lube filtration engineers, please see their response below:

According to my internet search, the oil pump on the 2011-2014 6.2L V8 engine has a flow rate of no more than 5.5 gpm.

That is in line with our filter, so I see no reason why our filter would not be a safe cross reference. I believe that the motorcraft filter is just over rated.


Thank you,

Miranda Bradshaw
Filtration Subject Matter Expert
Filtration Technical Support
Atmus Filtration Technologies | Fleetguard®

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ 5.5 GPM max isn't a lot of pump/oiling system flow compared to some engines.

 

[MVAR]

^^^ 5.5 GPM max isn't a lot of pump/oiling system flow compared to some engines.

Agreed. Not sure where they found the oil pump flow rate for the Ford 6.2 either. The AI response is the same as they stated but it's actually for a GM LS based engine. I don't know for sure what the 6.2 oil pump flow rate actually is. I'd just like to avoid the filters operating in bypass regularly.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Agreed. Not sure where they found the oil pump flow rate for the Ford 6.2 either. The AI response is the same as they stated but it's actually for a GM LS based engine. I don't know for sure what the 6.2 oil pump flow rate actually is. I'd just like to avoid the filters operating in bypass regularly.

Any main brand filter specifiec for that engine is going to have the bypass valve set high enough where the filter won't go into bypass with hot oil. Pretty much any filter could be made to go into bypass with thick cold oil and enough engine revs. On any engine, keep the revs down pretty good until the oil warm up and that will ensure the filter stays out of bypass as much as possible.

 

[MVAR]

Any main brand filter specifiec for that engine is going to have the bypass valve set high enough where the filter won't go into bypass with hot oil. Pretty much any filter could be made to go into bypass with thick cold oil and enough engine revs. On any engine, keep the revs down pretty good until the oil warm up and that will ensure the filter stays out of bypass as much as possible.

Yeah, I already do this. If going by, what the Fleetguard engineer was referencing about flow rate that was a GM LS, that engine exceeded the filters flow rate at 1k rpm, and was 1.3gpm higher by 2k rpm. Would be hard to avoid in those conditions

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yeah, I already do this. If going by, what the Fleetguard engineer was referencing about flow rate that was a GM LS, that engine exceeded the filters flow rate at 1k rpm, and was 1.3gpm higher by 2k rpm. Would be hard to avoid in those conditions

That doesn't sound right. The stock LS oil pump only puts out about 10-12 GPM at max engine RPM. It starts going into pressure relief around 2800 RPM with hot oil (10-11 cSt viscosity). At 1000 RPM, it's only putting out about 3.5 GPM.

 

[MVAR]

That doesn't sound right. The stock LS oil pump only puts out about 10-12 GPM at max engine RPM. It starts going into pressure relief around 2800 RPM with hot oil (10-11 cSt viscosity). At 1000 RPM, it's only putting out about 3.5 GPM.

Ok. The AI explanation from Google had stated 5.5gpm at 1k rpm and 6.5gpm by 2k rpm. That's what I figured he was referencing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Ok. The AI explanation from Google had stated 5.5gpm at 1k rpm and 6.5gpm by 2k rpm. That's what I figured he was referencing.

"AI" isn't always "Intelligent" ... it's only as intelligent as the internet, lol. I find it making erroneous summary information quite often. Here's some Flow vs RPM graphs from Melling for their model 10295 LS oil pump. The Melling 10295 has the same physical swept volume per rev as the OEM LS pump, but has a higher pressure relief valve (PRV) setting (ie, a stiffer PRV spring). The red line would be about where an OEM LS pump would be on the graph with the stock lower PRV setting. The OEM pump would start going into pressure relief around 2200-2300 RPM, where the output volume would be a little over 8 GPM.

Note that at 2000 RPM, it does match the 6.5 GPM from your search result. But at 1000 RPM, the output is 3.5 GPM (not 5.5 GPM). Once the pump starts going into pressure relief, then it can't built much more output flow as the RPM increases.

 

[MVAR]

"AI" isn't always "Intelligent" ... it's only as intelligent as the internet, lol. I find it making erroneous summary information quite often. Here's some Flow vs RPM graphs from Melling for their model 10295 LS oil pump. The Melling 10295 has the same physical swept volume per rev as the OEM LS pump, but has a higher pressure relief valve (PRV) setting (ie, a stiffer PRV spring). The red line would be about where an OEM LS pump would be on the graph with the stock lower PRV setting. The OEM pump would start going into pressure relief shortly after 2000 RPM, where the output volume would be a little over 8 GPM.

Note that at 2000 RPM, it does match the 6.5 GPM from your search result. But at 1000 RPM, the output is 3.5 GPM (not 5.5 GPM). Once the pump starts going into pressure relief, then it can't built much more output flow as the RPM increases.

View attachment 276208

That’s why I had stated earlier that I couldn’t find the flow rate of the Ford 6.2. Everything online referred to the GM with flow rates that matched closely with what the Fleetguard engineer was stating. All of which are above the Fleetguard LF16001 rated flow of 5.3gpm before going into bypass.

With the Motorcraft FL820S likely being overrated at 11-13gom & the 8A sized FL1A only rated at 7-9gpm it became suspicious. The Fleetguard LF3487 (8A size) is rated at about 15gpm.

Without being able to locate accurate oil pump flow rates for the engine, it makes sense to find something that would likely give a bit of leeway