Anyone using the larger Napa version? I think it holds a quart more. They have asked me a few times at Napa if I wanted the larger version. Part #1773. There are a few other manufacturers that make this larger FL1-a filter too. So maybe someone is using one of those??... thanks
Motorcraft FL1-a... Napas larger version #1773
- Thread starter Blaze
- Start date
- Status
that is sweet! i have never seen that before. im gonna go take a couple measurements on my fairmont now.
weird, the wix site says its almost 7 inches long, but it sure looks longer then that in pics, compared to the fl-1a
with it being only 2 inches longer then the fl-1a, i dont see any way it can hold an additional full quart.
with it being only 2 inches longer then the fl-1a, i dont see any way it can hold an additional full quart.
Last edited:
Additional oil can't hurt. I just read on a Ford forum they hold 1.5 gts and the FL1-a holds 26 ozs. So a 22 oz differance. So almost twice the size?? People like them on the I-6. Anywho I'm going to pick one up next change.
nope. i cant believe 22 ounces in less then 2 additional inches. that MIGHT be the case on the name brand motorcrafts, for which i cant find the exact dimensions of. but according to wixfilters.com, it is not the case on the napa/wixs.
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
Why do you think it filters "considerably worse" than a 51515? I don't have access to the specs on the Wix series, but the Purolator equivalents have identical bypass pressures, and all Puro's use the same media so there's no way the Purolator 40017 is going to filter "considerably worse" than the 30001.
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
Why do you think it filters "considerably worse" than a 51515? I don't have access to the specs on the Wix series, but the Purolator equivalents have identical bypass pressures, and all Puro's use the same media so there's no way the Purolator 40017 is going to filter "considerably worse" than the 30001.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
Why do you think it filters "considerably worse" than a 51515? I don't have access to the specs on the Wix series, but the Purolator equivalents have identical bypass pressures, and all Puro's use the same media so there's no way the Purolator 40017 is going to filter "considerably worse" than the 30001.
ummm, if you have the internet, the same service that allows you to post on this very website, then you have access to wix specs.
and speaking of specs, that is exactly what makes me think it filters considerably worse. i looked at the specs
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
Why do you think it filters "considerably worse" than a 51515? I don't have access to the specs on the Wix series, but the Purolator equivalents have identical bypass pressures, and all Puro's use the same media so there's no way the Purolator 40017 is going to filter "considerably worse" than the 30001.
ummm, if you have the internet, the same service that allows you to post on this very website, then you have access to wix specs.
and speaking of specs, that is exactly what makes me think it filters considerably worse. i looked at the specs
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
Why do you think it filters "considerably worse" than a 51515? I don't have access to the specs on the Wix series, but the Purolator equivalents have identical bypass pressures, and all Puro's use the same media so there's no way the Purolator 40017 is going to filter "considerably worse" than the 30001.
ummm, if you have the internet, the same service that allows you to post on this very website, then you have access to wix specs.
and speaking of specs, that is exactly what makes me think it filters considerably worse. i looked at the specs
Would it have killed ya just to answer the question instead of sending me off on a goose chase? I really don't CARE enough about the Wix version to go look (the Purolator version is obviously every bit the equal or superior of the 30001, provided it will fit), which is why I asked here.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
it also filters considerably worse then the fl-1a equivalent, the 51515. that is the reason i wont be trying one out
Why do you think it filters "considerably worse" than a 51515? I don't have access to the specs on the Wix series, but the Purolator equivalents have identical bypass pressures, and all Puro's use the same media so there's no way the Purolator 40017 is going to filter "considerably worse" than the 30001.
ummm, if you have the internet, the same service that allows you to post on this very website, then you have access to wix specs.
and speaking of specs, that is exactly what makes me think it filters considerably worse. i looked at the specs
Would it have killed ya just to answer the question instead of sending me off on a goose chase? I really don't CARE enough about the Wix version to go look (the Purolator version is obviously every bit the equal or superior of the 30001, provided it will fit), which is why I asked here.
Are you guys comparing a Purolator 'classic' to a Napa Gold/Wix?
Can't speak for Jakegday, but I'm just comparing Purolator Classic model 40017 to model 30001. In that case the only difference between the filters AT ALL is that 40017 has more surface area (and the 30001 already huge by modern standards).
I *think* he's comparing Wix 51515 to Napa Gold 1773 (also a Wix) and saying that 1773 is a less effective filter. I could see that if it has a different media, different bypass pressure, etc. and so I asked... but he wants me to go dig up Wix specs myself and look for whatever nugget of info he's found. No thanks, not for something that's pretty much just idle curiosity anyway. I waste too much time on here already!
I *think* he's comparing Wix 51515 to Napa Gold 1773 (also a Wix) and saying that 1773 is a less effective filter. I could see that if it has a different media, different bypass pressure, etc. and so I asked... but he wants me to go dig up Wix specs myself and look for whatever nugget of info he's found. No thanks, not for something that's pretty much just idle curiosity anyway. I waste too much time on here already!
OK, curiosity got the better of me. I see why Jakegday wouldn't replace a 51515 with a 1773 (NAPA number, Wix number 51773).... and I agree, neither would I.
And I'll take the time to put the answer here:
The 51515 is rated at 21 microns and uses paper/glass media. The 1773 is rated at 32 microns and uses paper media. Basically, I don't think the extra surface area compensates for the larger pore size in the media.
Similarly, if I had to choose between a Purolator Classic L40017 or a Pure One PL30001, I'd pick the PL30001. A little less area (although still very large by modern standards), but better media.
And I'll take the time to put the answer here:
The 51515 is rated at 21 microns and uses paper/glass media. The 1773 is rated at 32 microns and uses paper media. Basically, I don't think the extra surface area compensates for the larger pore size in the media.
Similarly, if I had to choose between a Purolator Classic L40017 or a Pure One PL30001, I'd pick the PL30001. A little less area (although still very large by modern standards), but better media.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
The 51515 is rated at 21 microns and uses paper/glass media. The 1773 is rated at 32 microns and uses paper media. Basically, I don't think the extra surface area compensates for the larger pore size in the media.
spot on 440. i had a feeling the OP was just after the extra oil advantage, while not realizing the real disadvantage
The 51515 is rated at 21 microns and uses paper/glass media. The 1773 is rated at 32 microns and uses paper media. Basically, I don't think the extra surface area compensates for the larger pore size in the media.
spot on 440. i had a feeling the OP was just after the extra oil advantage, while not realizing the real disadvantage
Great conversation guys, from a 3rd party observer!
thank you.
reading this:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
but he wants me to go dig up Wix specs myself and look for whatever nugget of info he's found. No thanks, not for something that's pretty much just idle curiosity anyway. I waste too much time on here already!
and then this RIGHT afterwards:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
OK, curiosity got the better of me. I see why Jakegday wouldn't replace a 51515 with a 1773 (NAPA number, Wix number 51773).... and I agree, neither would I.
literally made me laugh out loud.
i have to search for my info, so i expect everyone else to be able to do the same
reading this:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
but he wants me to go dig up Wix specs myself and look for whatever nugget of info he's found. No thanks, not for something that's pretty much just idle curiosity anyway. I waste too much time on here already!
and then this RIGHT afterwards:
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
OK, curiosity got the better of me. I see why Jakegday wouldn't replace a 51515 with a 1773 (NAPA number, Wix number 51773).... and I agree, neither would I.
literally made me laugh out loud.
i have to search for my info, so i expect everyone else to be able to do the same
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
OK, curiosity got the better of me. I see why Jakegday wouldn't replace a 51515 with a 1773 (NAPA number, Wix number 51773).... and I agree, neither would I.
literally made me laugh out loud.
i have to search for my info, so i expect everyone else to be able to do the same
Yeah, but I do this $#!~ (research) ALL day every day and have been for 25 years. sometimes its just nice to ask a question and get a 1-sentence answer. If it were something that would take a page of explanation, THEN I'd post a web link.
And besides, that second post was nearly an hour after the first one!
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
OK, curiosity got the better of me. I see why Jakegday wouldn't replace a 51515 with a 1773 (NAPA number, Wix number 51773).... and I agree, neither would I.
literally made me laugh out loud.
i have to search for my info, so i expect everyone else to be able to do the same
Yeah, but I do this $#!~ (research) ALL day every day and have been for 25 years. sometimes its just nice to ask a question and get a 1-sentence answer. If it were something that would take a page of explanation, THEN I'd post a web link.
And besides, that second post was nearly an hour after the first one!
- Status