Magnefine Info

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 20, 2003
Messages
2,318
Location
ottawa
According to Magnefine tech I spoke to, an acceptable time for replacement can be up to 3 years/ 30,000miles - if the transmission is maintained and driven under normal conditions - no overheating- no overload towing- and fluid changes according to manufacture spec.

I have had mine on for almost 2 years and inspect it every 6 months just to be on the safe side.

FYI- you can unscrew a magnefine filter for inspection and reinstall- no need to cut with a saw.
After 20,000miles I cleaned the magnet- the filter element looks like new.
 
Originally Posted By: nicholas
According to Magnefine tech I spoke to, an acceptable time for replacement can be up to 3 years/ 30,000miles - if the transmission is maintained and driven under normal conditions - no overheating- no overload towing- and fluid changes according to manufacture spec.

I have had mine on for almost 2 years and inspect it every 6 months just to be on the safe side.

FYI- you can unscrew a magnefine filter for inspection and reinstall- no need to cut with a saw.
After 20,000miles I cleaned the magnet- the filter element looks like new.


I posted a pic of mine a few weeks back. I think it was 40K or 45K miles. The magnet looked like it had some neverseeze on it and the filter media was clean with a few dots of something.
 
Magnefine has also stated that the cartridges are NOT reusable. Once you open or unscrew the unit to view the internals all warranty on the magnefine product is void. It is a one time use thing.

I've also heard of guys on this board that run them 30,000 miles and up, but they change out their fluids and clean out the magnet on the pan.

Considering the cost is like $25 from Napa or $16 + shipping online, I'd just replace it every 10-20,000 miles depending on when or if you want to do a drain and fill.

Of course that is assuming that you have already dropped the pan and cleaned it out before installing it. If you are running one from day one on a new car I would probably change it out after the first 5,000 miles, then 10,000 miles, and work my way up to 30,000 mile changes in 10,000 mile increments.
It would be nice to have a filter like Magnefine on a new car and not void any warrenty... if only I could win the lottery too.
 
Two engineers (Eleftherakis and Khalil, aka E&K) who have done a great deal of testing on filtration for the OEs as it relates to automatic transmissions. You can buy some of their white papers on the SAE website. They have done oil analysis and testing on thousands of transmissions since the '80s have some interesting statistics.

-On average, 75 percent of the lifetime contaminants generated by an automatic transmission come within the first 5,000 miles of operation. That's from break-in, normal wear and the built in contamination from manufacturing (or RE-manufacturing, as the case may be).

-In the mix of contaminants, some 51 percent is ferrous. The particles range in size from 5 to 80 microns, about 82 percent of them larger than 5 microns. Because the MF has a magnet, it will be more effective than it's 35u absolute rating and reportedly it will catch some 99 percent of the ferrous stuff (of all sizes), which is the most harmful material as, a) it can be attracted to the electromagnetic valves in an electronic trans, and b) it readily damages aluminum.


I think I calculated a while back according to E&K's data, the average automatic generates about 0.043 mg/mile of contaminants of all types but that number is calculated from an average of total contaminants generated in 70K miles and it would likely not be linear (being heavier at first then tapering off). You also have to reduce that number by the actual amount of material the filter media can catch (you wouldn't count the magnet), so you reduce that 0.043 by about 60% to 0.025 mg/mile.

I don't have the actual filter capacity of the MF (e.g. how much contamination in MG it can hold before the bypass opens) but I came up with a ballpark by comparing the filter media size with another whose capacity I know. From that, I estimate (and I will endeavor to find the actual capacity of the MF) it's capacity is 2.7 grams, or 2700 mg. Divide that by 0.025 and you get a calculate interval of
108,000 miles (2700/0.025=108,000). Even using the full 0.043 mg/mile it's a 62,000 mile interval. Bear in mind these are rough calculations.

There is little to worry about in running the MF to the recommended limit (or even a bit longer). If it does plug up, the bypass opens. The magnet will still be catching that 51 percent of the ferrous stuff so it's still filtering some.

I don't think you'd have to worry about warranty issue just by having a Magnefine installed but if a guy did a lousy job of installing it and a leak ensued, you'd be on the hook for that obviously.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Two engineers (Eleftherakis and Khalil, aka E&K) who have done a great deal of testing on filtration for the OEs as it relates to automatic transmissions. You can buy some of their white papers on the SAE website. They have done oil analysis and testing on thousands of transmissions since the '80s have some interesting statistics.

-On average, 75 percent of the lifetime contaminants generated by an automatic transmission come within the first 5,000 miles of operation. That's from break-in, normal wear and the built in contamination from manufacturing (or RE-manufacturing, as the case may be).

-In the mix of contaminants, some 51 percent is ferrous. The particles range in size from 5 to 80 microns, about 82 percent of them larger than 5 microns. Because the MF has a magnet, it will be more effective than it's 35u absolute rating and reportedly it will catch some 99 percent of the ferrous stuff (of all sizes), which is the most harmful material as, a) it can be attracted to the electromagnetic valves in an electronic trans, and b) it readily damages aluminum.


I think I calculated a while back according to E&K's data, the average automatic generates about 0.043 mg/mile of contaminants of all types but that number is calculated from an average of total contaminants generated in 70K miles and it would likely not be linear (being heavier at first then tapering off). You also have to reduce that number by the actual amount of material the filter media can catch (you wouldn't count the magnet), so you reduce that 0.043 by about 60% to 0.025 mg/mile.

I don't have the actual filter capacity of the MF (e.g. how much contamination in MG it can hold before the bypass opens) but I came up with a ballpark by comparing the filter media size with another whose capacity I know. From that, I estimate (and I will endeavor to find the actual capacity of the MF) it's capacity is 2.7 grams, or 2700 mg. Divide that by 0.025 and you get a calculate interval of
108,000 miles (2700/0.025=108,000). Even using the full 0.043 mg/mile it's a 62,000 mile interval. Bear in mind these are rough calculations.

There is little to worry about in running the MF to the recommended limit (or even a bit longer). If it does plug up, the bypass opens. The magnet will still be catching that 51 percent of the ferrous stuff so it's still filtering some.

I don't think you'd have to worry about warranty issue just by having a Magnefine installed but if a guy did a lousy job of installing it and a leak ensued, you'd be on the hook for that obviously.


Good observations Jim. But the Magnefine's media is just one piece of the pie. There is also the magnet in the Magnefine, the magnet in the pan and the felt filter in the transmission (if there is one).

As I said, I ran the Magnefine in my Jeep for 40K plus and the media only had a few dots of something in it.

In my Camry, with around 200K, the Magnefine did not do anything to reduce the somewhat elevated level of Al. I did a used oil analysis before and after installing a Magnefine (with several thousand miles in between).
 
Originally Posted By: Donald

In my Camry, with around 200K, the Magnefine did not do anything to reduce the somewhat elevated level of Al. I did a used oil analysis before and after installing a Magnefine (with several thousand miles in between).


But you didn't do actual particle counts on that car, only the normal used oil analysis spectrographic methods that can "see" particles around 5u or smaller. Spectrographic analysis is not useful for analyzing filtration because next to no filter is fine enough to take those 3-5u particles out. Also aluminum is the least harmful of the metallic stuff and about 11 percent of the total. The spectrographic analysis is somewhat useful in analyzing wear... in this case possibly showing you have high wear on something aluminum... but it told you nothing about filtration.

Maybe you had some particle counts done later that I haven't seen (but would like to).
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: Donald

In my Camry, with around 200K, the Magnefine did not do anything to reduce the somewhat elevated level of Al. I did a used oil analysis before and after installing a Magnefine (with several thousand miles in between).


But you didn't do actual particle counts on that car, only the normal used oil analysis spectrographic methods that can "see" particles around 5u or smaller. Spectrographic analysis is not useful for analyzing filtration because next to no filter is fine enough to take those 3-5u particles out. Also aluminum is the least harmful of the metallic stuff and about 11 percent of the total. The spectrographic analysis is somewhat useful in analyzing wear... in this case possibly showing you have high wear on something aluminum... but it told you nothing about filtration.

Maybe you had some particle counts done later that I haven't seen (but would like to).


I was toying with the idea, but it was an extra $75 to do the particle counts. The guy said they almost never do it for anything automotive, but do it mainly for industrial gear boxes.
 
Then I respectfully suggest you stop using that inadequate test to try and make a point about filtration issues.

Yep, those tests aren't cheap but they are the only game if you want to measure filtration. For a bit less, you can get a pore blockage particle count test done (Blackstone uses that method). More technically it should be called "contamination analysis" versus a "particle count" but I suppose either is correct. It's a fair bit less expensive but not quite as accurate as an optical count and it will give you both an ISO cleanliness code and a computer generated estimate of the particle counts and sizes. For the kind of stuff we do, it's perfectly adequate. I can attest that any filter added to the trans will reduce particle counts significantly and in a relatively short time.

The Magnefine reduced the ISO cleanliness code of the oil in the trans of my '05 F150HD from a already clean 15/14/12 (it was a fairly fresh change right after I bought it with 7K miles) to 13/12/9. That's an 81 percent reduction in 2200 miles. I installed a Racor LFS spin-on filter kit in my old '86 Ford diesel, which has a 10 micron (absolute) filter and it dropped from a 16/15/13 (again fairly fresh oil) to a 15/14/11 in only 274 miles, a 66 percent reduction.
 
Last edited:
Jim - the tests did tell me that the particles were probably smaller than 30 microns since not a lot changed in the UOA after adding the Magnefine.

Had I known other labs did cheaper particle counts (or a similar test) than OAI I might have tried one of them.

I am still a fan of the Magnefine. That and Amsoil ATF.
 
Last edited:
^Definitely hearing good things about Amsoil's ATF. Only have experience with their MTF, and so far so good. Please very much so!
thumbsup2.gif


As regards ATF in-line filters...don't they need to be best on flow anyway whilst removing contaminants within reason? Wouldn't you not want to restrict flow much(if the system isn't setup for an external filter in the first place), could that strain the flow to the A/T or even affect life of the fluid pump?
 
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
^Definitely hearing good things about Amsoil's ATF. Only have experience with their MTF, and so far so good. Please very much so!
thumbsup2.gif


As regards ATF in-line filters...don't they need to be best on flow anyway whilst removing contaminants within reason? Wouldn't you not want to restrict flow much(if the system isn't setup for an external filter in the first place), could that strain the flow to the A/T or even affect life of the fluid pump?


The fluid is on its way back to the trans pan having just been cooled. I think things are a little less critical at this point in the flow.
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
^Definitely hearing good things about Amsoil's ATF. Only have experience with their MTF, and so far so good. Please very much so!
thumbsup2.gif


As regards ATF in-line filters...don't they need to be best on flow anyway whilst removing contaminants within reason? Wouldn't you not want to restrict flow much(if the system isn't setup for an external filter in the first place), could that strain the flow to the A/T or even affect life of the fluid pump?


The fluid is on its way back to the trans pan having just been cooled. I think things are a little less critical at this point in the flow.


You could say that my supposition was on whether or not there was 'any' real world potential for fluid starvation upon return to the trans or more possibly...would the transmission pump have to work harder to push the fluid post cooling or is there some sort of induction helping to 'pull' the fluid back towards the transmission case/housing/pan?
 
Cooler flow is merely about 10-15 percent of total pump flow (typically) within an automatic and is bled out of the converter circuit. The pump itself is a very high capacity unit. The return flow commonly used for lubricating hard part. Typically, the trans doesn't need it to operate but without lubricant, hard parts like planetary gears fail in short order. Filters, any filter, offers minimal restriction to flow (you could say virtually none) and a bypass valve eliminates that as a real world possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom