OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I think you should, I'm sure he'd laugh and it would probably never become a topic of discussion in the boardroom LOL
Motorcraft Filter Specifications
- Thread starter roushstage2
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I think you should, I'm sure he'd laugh and it would probably never become a topic of discussion in the boardroom LOL
I wouldn't bet on that (in red).
He's probably a stickler about details ... "The data will set you free" was kind of a slogan used in the 'good 'ol days' at the old company he worked for. All he's have to do is call the head of Motorcraft and tell him to get their act together.
I think you should, I'm sure he'd laugh and it would probably never become a topic of discussion in the boardroom LOL
I wouldn't bet on that (in red).
Please dont knock Ford....
Originally Posted By: roushstage2
OK. Here it is folks. These are from 2005, so they are not the most up to date, BUT, should be more than anyone has seen here to date according to responses I have seen and from what I've been told. These are the ratings for all Motorcraft filters, information circa 2005. Enjoy!!
If there would be a better place for all of these, let me know and I'll make a specific "Motorcraft Filter Spec" thread. I will still try and find 2009 spec sheets if possible for updated information, which I know there is.
Wow those efficiency ratings are really low , and I mean low. 50 percent 68 percent.
Might as well just use a fine screen
OK. Here it is folks. These are from 2005, so they are not the most up to date, BUT, should be more than anyone has seen here to date according to responses I have seen and from what I've been told. These are the ratings for all Motorcraft filters, information circa 2005. Enjoy!!
If there would be a better place for all of these, let me know and I'll make a specific "Motorcraft Filter Spec" thread. I will still try and find 2009 spec sheets if possible for updated information, which I know there is.
Wow those efficiency ratings are really low , and I mean low. 50 percent 68 percent.
Might as well just use a fine screen
You made that chart up.....
Fleetguard rates some of their filters at a lower efficiency than they actually are too. Fleetguard is a division of Cummins engines. Modern Cummins engines require bypass filtration and have a spec that engine oil filtration should be at least 98% 30 micron and 60% 10 micron. If you call Fleetguard and ask for the specs on one of their Venturi Combo filters, that is how efficient they will tell you that they are. A Venturi combo filter is made up of Stratapore filter media and stacked-disc bypass media. Stratapore media, by itself, filters 99% 30 micron, and 85% 10 micron. Stacked disc by itself filters 99% 30 micron, 98% 10 micron and 95% 5 micron. So why would they be so much lower together? They also rate them at the minimum, makes no sense to me though. I would imagine that Ford does the same thing.
I'm not liking those efficiency numbers, especially because I use the FL-910. Will a UOA show this? Also, it looks like the FL-400S is the same diameter and thread size, maybe I should use that, or a different brand?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I think you should, I'm sure he'd laugh and it would probably never become a topic of discussion in the boardroom LOL
I wouldn't bet on that (in red).
He's probably a stickler about details ... "The data will set you free" was kind of a slogan used in the 'good 'ol days' at the old company he worked for. All he's have to do is call the head of Motorcraft and tell him to get their act together.
That sounds more like a topic for a phone call though, LOL!
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I think you should, I'm sure he'd laugh and it would probably never become a topic of discussion in the boardroom LOL
I wouldn't bet on that (in red).
That sounds more like a topic for a phone call though, LOL!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: rszappa1
You made that chart up.....
It was originally posted by roushstage2 on the FIRST page of this thread. Did you not notice the massive QUOTE BOX?
If you spent as much time actually reading and digesting as you do stirring the pot, you might actually learn something.
You made that chart up.....
It was originally posted by roushstage2 on the FIRST page of this thread. Did you not notice the massive QUOTE BOX?
If you spent as much time actually reading and digesting as you do stirring the pot, you might actually learn something.
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Yes, that all makes sense ... but the fact still remains that Ford/Motorcraft could do much better in the spec department. That is the focus. It would be like GM saying: "We designed this ZR1, and made it to do at least 90 MPH and pull at least 0.35 G in the corners." But they never come out and say just how good it really is. Maybe Ford will do that for their new Shelby Mustang.
It's a significant shortcoming ... they could do much better. Nobody should have to go to Purolator for the answer ... it's Motorcraft's filter. Besides, probably not many, except BITOG nuts would even know Purolator makes their filters.
The thing is, car manufacturers have fudged the data on their vehicles for decades, and continue to do so. Remember how the 426 Hemi was rated for 425 hp? Few will dispute that they actually had significantly more power than that. Every high performance JDM car in the 1990s had exactly 276 hp. Who believes that? Porsche routinely lowballs its performance figures. Ford did the same with the SVT Lightning.
Specifications are important, and I wish Motorcraft published the actual specifications. For whatever reason, they've chosen not to do that. Perhaps Motorcraft considers it not worth the effort to regularly update publications and websites with actual specifications of such things. Perhaps the people that use the Motorcraft website are more interested in obtaining cross reference information, filter dimensions, thread information, and application data.
That being said, how accurate is the data provided by other manufacturers? If their filters are 97%, could they be better? Is that their minimum? Their average? If one really wants to be picky about specifications, any mathematician or physicist will tell you that the data point (i.e. the efficiency) is useless without the error bar. Is it 97% +/- 1% (which would fit with significant figures reported)? Is it 97% +/- 10%, 20%, 30%, or what? You and I know perfectly well that a figure of 97% does not mean exactly 97%, nor does it mean 97% all the time, in every filter off the assembly line.
Can we trust the specification? Company X says their filter is however efficient at so many microns. Can they show me? Can they show me how reproducible it is?
I use Motorcraft filters with confidence. One needs to just apply a little common sense.
Motorcraft filters are made by Purolator. I trust Purolator filters, so I have no reason to mistrust Motorcraft filters. I trust Wix filters, so if they manufactured Motorcraft filters, the same would apply. I (rightly or wrongly) don't trust Fram filters, so if they started making Motorcraft filters, I'd steer away from them.
As others have pointed out, I sincerely doubt that Purolator would manufacture an 80% efficiency medium just to put in Motorcraft filters, and then use vastly different media for their Classics. It wouldn't make economic sense to have three or more (because of the ratings in the 50% and 60% range shown, too) types of filter media manufactured, when two (Classic and PureOne) would do.
Yes, that all makes sense ... but the fact still remains that Ford/Motorcraft could do much better in the spec department. That is the focus. It would be like GM saying: "We designed this ZR1, and made it to do at least 90 MPH and pull at least 0.35 G in the corners." But they never come out and say just how good it really is. Maybe Ford will do that for their new Shelby Mustang.
It's a significant shortcoming ... they could do much better. Nobody should have to go to Purolator for the answer ... it's Motorcraft's filter. Besides, probably not many, except BITOG nuts would even know Purolator makes their filters.
The thing is, car manufacturers have fudged the data on their vehicles for decades, and continue to do so. Remember how the 426 Hemi was rated for 425 hp? Few will dispute that they actually had significantly more power than that. Every high performance JDM car in the 1990s had exactly 276 hp. Who believes that? Porsche routinely lowballs its performance figures. Ford did the same with the SVT Lightning.
Specifications are important, and I wish Motorcraft published the actual specifications. For whatever reason, they've chosen not to do that. Perhaps Motorcraft considers it not worth the effort to regularly update publications and websites with actual specifications of such things. Perhaps the people that use the Motorcraft website are more interested in obtaining cross reference information, filter dimensions, thread information, and application data.
That being said, how accurate is the data provided by other manufacturers? If their filters are 97%, could they be better? Is that their minimum? Their average? If one really wants to be picky about specifications, any mathematician or physicist will tell you that the data point (i.e. the efficiency) is useless without the error bar. Is it 97% +/- 1% (which would fit with significant figures reported)? Is it 97% +/- 10%, 20%, 30%, or what? You and I know perfectly well that a figure of 97% does not mean exactly 97%, nor does it mean 97% all the time, in every filter off the assembly line.
Can we trust the specification? Company X says their filter is however efficient at so many microns. Can they show me? Can they show me how reproducible it is?
I use Motorcraft filters with confidence. One needs to just apply a little common sense.
Motorcraft filters are made by Purolator. I trust Purolator filters, so I have no reason to mistrust Motorcraft filters. I trust Wix filters, so if they manufactured Motorcraft filters, the same would apply. I (rightly or wrongly) don't trust Fram filters, so if they started making Motorcraft filters, I'd steer away from them.
As others have pointed out, I sincerely doubt that Purolator would manufacture an 80% efficiency medium just to put in Motorcraft filters, and then use vastly different media for their Classics. It wouldn't make economic sense to have three or more (because of the ratings in the 50% and 60% range shown, too) types of filter media manufactured, when two (Classic and PureOne) would do.
Id be better off with one of those toilet paper filters on my car.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Yawn. There's nothing to see here. Move along ...move along.
MC filters are just fine. Millions of Blue Ovals can't be wrong.
MC filters are just fine. Millions of Blue Ovals can't be wrong.
The media in the FL-820s is thicker than the media used in the pure one and purolator classic. I researched this topic a while back and found Purolator has several filter media (micronic) patents. There is enough volume in the Motorcraft filter line to justify production of a different media that meets Ford's specifications.
Originally Posted By: modularv8
The media in the FL-820s is thicker than the media used in the pure one and purolator classic. I researched this topic a while back and found Purolator has several filter media (micronic) patents. There is enough volume in the Motorcraft filter line to justify production of a different media that meets Ford's specifications.
Well, that's pretty interesting. What we still don't know is whether the Motorcrafts are at the 80% figure or if that's their minimum. Someone a few years ago took apart an FL1A and found the media to be PureOne media, with other aspects of the construction the same as a Purolator Classic. Apparently, that was for FL1As only, and not across the Motorcraft line.
I would like to find out myself, but having a PureOne to cut open and compare side by side up here, well, I might as well be asking for the Holy Grail.
The media in the FL-820s is thicker than the media used in the pure one and purolator classic. I researched this topic a while back and found Purolator has several filter media (micronic) patents. There is enough volume in the Motorcraft filter line to justify production of a different media that meets Ford's specifications.
Well, that's pretty interesting. What we still don't know is whether the Motorcrafts are at the 80% figure or if that's their minimum. Someone a few years ago took apart an FL1A and found the media to be PureOne media, with other aspects of the construction the same as a Purolator Classic. Apparently, that was for FL1As only, and not across the Motorcraft line.
I would like to find out myself, but having a PureOne to cut open and compare side by side up here, well, I might as well be asking for the Holy Grail.
Originally Posted By: modularv8
The media in the FL-820s is thicker than the media used in the pure one and purolator classic. I researched this topic a while back and found Purolator has several filter media (micronic) patents. There is enough volume in the Motorcraft filter line to justify production of a different media that meets Ford's specifications.
Humm ... "special media" to meet the Ford spec of "80% efficient at 20 microns". Humm ...
The media in the FL-820s is thicker than the media used in the pure one and purolator classic. I researched this topic a while back and found Purolator has several filter media (micronic) patents. There is enough volume in the Motorcraft filter line to justify production of a different media that meets Ford's specifications.
Humm ... "special media" to meet the Ford spec of "80% efficient at 20 microns". Humm ...
special that it does the #1 most important protect the bottom line. It's all about the bottom line. All this specifications are mute point cause 99% of us consumers have no lab or money to test the filter to verify. I just bought a Fram for the first time in more years than I remember for V-twin John Deere always used Purolator L14476. Becuase I'm not going to drive clear across the county just went to Wally world only 5 miles away out here in farm county.
Now I got the better Fram line 6x Tough guard Supposedly 99% of what dirt???? Oh here in very fine print >20 microns under ISO 4548-12, However thats only for fram TG8a,3387a and 6607 so my TG4967 who knows right???? I imagine somewhere on these forums the ISO test has been posted. Anyhow back to my thought bottom-line/bean-counter engineering/accounting. All is made to look good by the masters of Ole snake-oil-marketing team!!!! I guess like always keep close eye on dipstick and what it looks like, it don't have time and money to test the filter or oil or the replacement part. Use to be the more you knew about a product the longer your equipment would last by buying that trusted NAME. Seems now the learn Ahh well try to learn the marketing con-artists are playing apples and oranges just buy buy TRUST US!!!!. Yeah right!!!
Now I got the better Fram line 6x Tough guard Supposedly 99% of what dirt???? Oh here in very fine print >20 microns under ISO 4548-12, However thats only for fram TG8a,3387a and 6607 so my TG4967 who knows right???? I imagine somewhere on these forums the ISO test has been posted. Anyhow back to my thought bottom-line/bean-counter engineering/accounting. All is made to look good by the masters of Ole snake-oil-marketing team!!!! I guess like always keep close eye on dipstick and what it looks like, it don't have time and money to test the filter or oil or the replacement part. Use to be the more you knew about a product the longer your equipment would last by buying that trusted NAME. Seems now the learn Ahh well try to learn the marketing con-artists are playing apples and oranges just buy buy TRUST US!!!!. Yeah right!!!
Is anything new?
- Status
Similar threads
