Motorcraft FL-400S

[Falcon_LS]

After reading the thread about the FL-910, I got put off and am considering swapping them out for something else on both the ES (1MZ-FE) and the Camry (5S-FE).

The FL-400S seems to be a fit, albeit a taller filter. Does anybody here happen to use it in either of the above mentioned engines?

Thanks!

 

[stranger706]

The new version FL400S is shorter now. Its just barely longer than the FL910. Should be no problem. Make sure the box says new version.

 

[wiswind]

I am running the longer filter on my 2003 Sienna with the 1MZFE motor.
I have a WIX 51516 on there right now......which is listed on the WIX site as the cross from the FL400 series.

The WIX filter listed for my Sienna is the 51348......and the 51516 is identical in all dimentions and bypass valve pressure.......even the gasket is exactly identical.
PLENTY of room to use this filter.

The longer filters that are a direct fit.

WIX 51516
Motorcraft FL400 (also with A or S)
Purolator Pure 1 PL20195
FRAM XG3600 (I would stay with the XG series in FRAM)

 

[panthermike]

Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
After reading the thread about the FL-910, I got put off and am considering swapping them out for something else on both the ES (1MZ-FE) and the Camry (5S-FE).

The FL-400S seems to be a fit, albeit a taller filter. Does anybody here happen to use it in either of the above mentioned engines?

Thanks!


That was my thread

I'm actually not going to use the FL-910 either. The 400S is a direct fit, and as someone mentioned, only slightly longer than the FL-910. I'm actually just going to start using the Purolator Pureone equivalent to the 910, which is PL10241. The FL-400S would be good too.

 

[Falcon_LS]

Thanks a lot for all the info!

FL-400S it is, with a silicone ADB valve to boot.

 

[FL-400S]

I've been using one on my 3.4L V6 tundra for a few years with no problems. I also put the FL-400s on Tercel and Corolla if it will fit. Much bigger than the tiny 4967. The new shorter version should work on a 2000 corolla in which the old FL-400s was touching a transmission cooling line.

 

[JMJNet]

Can this be use in the Camry 5S-FE?

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: JMJNet
Can this be use in the Camry 5S-FE?


I don't know, but the FL-400S works great on the 3.4L 5VZ-FE. Better than the OEM or OEM cross ref filters.

 

[L_Sludger]

How about trying for a PH8A cross reference (FL1?) filter? They are big. Arr arr arr (tim the tool man)

 

[38sho]

i know one with one on a 4.7 tundra

which uses the wix 1348 number stock.....

right now he got a wix 1515, before was a M1 301?(FL1A equivalent)

 

[38sho]

the FL400S is a good filter.... was

don't know if the shorter one is any different, I would suspect it is....

I can get old long style ones for 4.11 at a local distributor

the 400s runs the silicone drainkback valve and pureone filter media..... its almost the same as a pure one filter.... good price and a good filter if u can fit it to your engine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 38sho

the 400s runs the silicone drainkback valve and pureone filter media..... its almost the same as a pure one filter.... good price and a good filter if u can fit it to your engine.


I'm not too sure if the Motorcraft filters runs the same filtering media as the PureOne. If so, why does Ford advertise their Motorcraft filter performance at 80% @ 20 microns? That's a far cry from PureOne at 99.9% @ 20 microns.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Quote:
If so, why does Ford advertise their Motorcraft filter performance at 80% @ 20 microns? That's a far cry from PureOne at 99.9% @ 20 microns.


That's been discussed here before. It is hard to imagine why Ford would spec. a filter that has lower filtration than many other inexpensive filters. Nobody has ever come up with an explanation.

Other than that, Motorcrafts have good construction. Even the ones without a silicone ADBV have held oil for months after I pulled them from the car and stored them drain side down. If you cut one open they are quite robust.

 

[RF Overlord]

Originally Posted By: 38sho
the FL400S is a good filter.... was

don't know if the shorter one is any different, I would suspect it is....
A member here, I believe it was "fordiesel", cut open one of the new shorter FL820S filters and determined that the slight decrease in length was made up for by an increase in media and that everything else was identical with the longer ones. I would be comfortable assuming it's the same way with the new shorter FL400S.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm not too sure if the Motorcraft filters runs the same filtering media as the PureOne. If so, why does Ford advertise their Motorcraft filter performance at 80% @ 20 microns? That's a far cry from PureOne at 99.9% @ 20 microns.


I speculated on that once before. Others believe it to be a "minimum" standard, and that makes sense. When you look at the Motorcraft parts site, it's far more tailored to finding dimensions and cross referencing than it is to actually finding out every little marketing detail about each part.

On the other hand, a place like the Wix website shows different efficiency ratings for different filters (beta ratios, actually).

 

[AuthorEditor]

Here's a link to the long thread discussing this odd Motorcraft rating of only 80% at 20 microns. IMHO no definitive conclusion was drawn as to what it means. Motorcraft filter thread

 

[Gary Allan]

There's no reason to think that a $7 filter is $3.50 just because it has a MotorCraft label. The cheapest filter has to meet or exceed OEM spec's and I really don't think that the floor is too high on the filtering efficiency. The holding capacity would be a mandated minimum, imo, but the efficiency should be pretty common. That's not to say that it's a bad thing.

 

[AuthorEditor]

Gary, aren't most people saying that the Motorcraft appears to basically be a Purolator Classic with a silicone ADBV? The Classics and MC filters both sell in that $3.50 range, so seems to make sense. The internals of both look very similar. Ford may have required the silicone ADBV in order to fight a start up rattle problem on a particular model, but a lot of the Motorcraft filters have the more ordinary nitrile one. But, as I have said before here, I think the only thing the auto mfg. really cares about is getting the engine to the end of the warranty, and probably any old filter would do that as long as it kept working mechanically. In other words, the level of filtration is probably low on the totem pole of things Ford is worried about.

 

[Sayjac]

Quote:
.....aren't most people saying that the Motorcraft appears to basically be a Purolator Classic with a silicone ADBV?
I think many have assumed that for all the reasons you mentioned, I don't believe that. I think the MC is below the Classic in filtration efficiency. I have an 820-S here cut open, the amount of media appears to be sustantially less than a Classic. As soon as I get a used Classic I am going to post it next to the 820-S. And, there's no way IMO, it's close to P1's rating, as some have recently asserted.

Not saying the MC is not a good filter, it's all my son used in his Explorer before he traded it. I think they are well made with silicone adbv and thread end bypass, and work well especially in FoMoCo products. Just don't think the filtration is at the Classic 97.5% level. As long as MC specs 80% at 20mu, only speculation can say that it is higher at some unknown level.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Gary, aren't most people saying that the Motorcraft appears to basically be a Purolator Classic with a silicone ADBV?


I dunno. It would be a Ford OEM aftermarket spec filter with a silicon ADBV. A Puro-Classic might be a FL400S minus the silicon and paint.

Quote:
Ford may have required the silicone ADBV in order to fight a start up rattle problem on a particular model


That much is assured. I'd venture/wager that the original assembly line filter did not have a silicon ADBV ..and maybe even the aftermarket OEM filter didn't either. At some point (maybe with the original chassis or some future chassis that also used it) that filter proved to produce too many customer complaints that the nickle the bean counter saved cost too much in warranty concerns.

Quote:
but a lot of the Motorcraft filters have the more ordinary nitrile one.


Most. I probably haven't seen them all, but the FL820S is the only one that comes to mind at the moment.

Quote:
I think the only thing the auto mfg. really cares about is getting the engine to the end of the warranty


I don't think it would be too wise to make cars that grenade .0001 seconds after the warranty expires. The current format for domestics is a 12-15 year life span on the chassis ..and to let the maintenance costs skyrocket for individual repairs (to induce a new or newer purchase).


Quote:
In other words, the level of filtration is probably low on the totem pole of things Ford is worried about.


I think the level of is not that important within a given range. Probably
Drive train warranties are pretty long these days. The last thing they would want is for you to follow the recommendations and fail. Think Toyota/Lexus sludge issues. While not a filter specific problem, it was, imo, one that wasn't fudge factored enough and the engines experienced problems too soon in the normal life cycle.

Quote:
In other words, the level of filtration is probably low on the totem pole of things Ford is worried about.


Part two.

I think it's low on most totem poles. Even the Euro's (probably- my speculation). If they've got a filter in use out to 18+ months, that thing has got to be pretty loose at the onset of service.

I'm starting to give Dave Newton a bigger slice of our yin:yan pie here. It's going to take a long time for your engine's life to be altered by the incidence of abrasive metal particles that the engine is throwing off (non-wear - just a stray imperfection taking a powder) but the larger combustion byproduct particles need to be kept in check.


That wouldn't be a bad experiment. I might take that up some time in the future.

I think I'll get with dnewton3 ..and maybe Shannow ..see what would be the best way to plug the data escape hatches to see how you can nail down the insoluble production to the wear profile ..without being able to attribute it to some stray metal piece that zings on by every once and a while. Right now my mind is unclear on the proper sequence ..if one exists.