Oil Filter opinion

[Chris Fucik]

Ok, I've been using K&N HP-1001 oil filters on my GTP since it got it's first oil change at 500 miles. For the last change, I followed the advice of a number of the guys on the Club GP forum and went with the longer HP-2001 filter for the added filter surface area and corresponding flow/filtration benefits.

After reading about the equally solid construction and superior filtering capabilities of the Mobil 1 filters, I'm tossing around the idea of switching to an M1-201, which is the equivilant of the HP-2001, for my next oil change.

I realize that the K&N flows a bit better, but with a significantly longer filter than stock, which will flow better than a stock length filter, might I be ok anyway? Is it worth it for the added filtration?

As for the filter being out of spec for the car, it's not a problem here. The fit is close, but there are no clearance issues and since it's a GM, the bypass valve is in the engine.

So, I'm looking for opinions between the two choices, Mobil 1 or K&N.

[ May 05, 2004, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Chris Fucik ]

 

[Patman]

If you're going to be driving your car hard, you'll want to stick with the K&N for it's superior flow. I wouldn't worry about trying to filter out super small particles on your 3.8 engine, since it's rather loose clearances mean that it can tolerate a 20 micron particle without causing any wear. So why bother trying to take out the 10 micron particles if they do no harm?

 

[T-Keith]

If you want high flow stick with the K&N, if you want to go with extended drains try the Mobil 1 filter(silicone ADBV). They are both made by Champion and both good filter, but a little overpriced IMHO. There's not much that seperates them from the $2 Supertech.

-T

 

[JohnnyO]

I got back-to-back used oil analysis in my wife's Grand Am , one with a K&N filter and one with a Mobil 1 filter, both with Mobil 1 oil. The numbers including the Insolubles (dirt) were nearly identical. The K&N may flow better but on a well-maintained engine there might not be enough dirt to matter. I did notice that with either, near the end of the OCI the engine did not rattle on start-up like it did with the AC or SuperTech.

[ May 06, 2004, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
If you're going to be driving your car hard, you'll want to stick with the K&N for it's superior flow. I wouldn't worry about trying to filter out super small particles on your 3.8 engine, since it's rather loose clearances mean that it can tolerate a 20 micron particle without causing any wear. So why bother trying to take out the 10 micron particles if they do no harm?

---

Patman: You've got me thinking (usually very dangerous...). Any thoughts about, or sources discussing, the size ranges at which particles become potentially harmful in other engines? I'd be most curious about the Toyota 3.0L V-6 (1MZ-FE) and 4.7L V-8 (2UZ-FE), since I own one each, but I'd also be interested in any others from an "academic" perspective.

 

[Patman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patman:
If you're going to be driving your car hard, you'll want to stick with the K&N for it's superior flow. I wouldn't worry about trying to filter out super small particles on your 3.8 engine, since it's rather loose clearances mean that it can tolerate a 20 micron particle without causing any wear. So why bother trying to take out the 10 micron particles if they do no harm?

---

Patman: You've got me thinking (usually very dangerous...). Any thoughts about, or sources discussing, the size ranges at which particles become potentially harmful in other engines? I'd be most curious about the Toyota 3.0L V-6 (1MZ-FE) and 4.7L V-8 (2UZ-FE), since I own one each, but I'd also be interested in any others from an "academic" perspective.

---

I wish there was something out there which helped us to see what engines can tolerate what size of particles, but there isn't, not as far as I know. Although maybe SAE has a paper on it perhaps?

 

[T-Keith]

Just because the 3800 is OHV doesn't mean it's a high clearance engine. I'd be willing to bet that it has closer clearances than alot of OHC engines. Clearance usually refer to main and connecting rod bearings, which has little to do with camshaft location. The 3800 series II was designed in 95 for decreased tolerances and quieter and smoother operation, including tighter clearances. I see no reason to believe this is a larger clearance engine, although they do seem to be easy on oil.

-T

 

[GT Mike]

I think one of the reasons the 3800 series II is easy on oil is because it has roller lifters, and roller fulcrum rocker arms. These reduce internal friction significantly. To the best of my knowledge, the main and rod bearing oil clearances haven't changed since back in the days when this engine was still evolving out of its carbureted RWD ancestors.

I've been really happy with using Baldwin B-43S filters (stock length) on my '97 N/A 3800. But then again, my philosophy on filters is if it's not orange, it's fine. I've used Wix and AC Delco filters on it too, and they've been fine as well. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to say I could even notice a difference. I like the Baldwin filters because the kewl red color matches my car.

 

[TC]

SAE Paper #881825 -- the 1988 AC Filter/Detroit Diesel study -- determined that particles in the 2-22 micron range cause most engine wear. Specifically, it simply found that particles that would fit into bearing/journal clearances are the ones that cause damage. The clearances they measured were in the 2-22 micron range, and they noted that particles in this range were causing the most wear. (Sounds "stupid-obvious" when you think about it, but it required studies to verify all this.)

I compared crank bearing spec's going back to the early 60's a couple months back and concluded that these had reduced about 25% over the past two decades or so (more precisely built engines these days), but this should have been dialed into the 1988 SAE test.

In short, we need to address particles in the 2-22 micron range. I'm not sure that the make of the engine is of great significance unless it has way-out-of-norm clearances.

 

[T-Keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GT Mike:
I think one of the reasons the 3800 series II is easy on oil is because it has roller lifters, and roller fulcrum rocker arms. These reduce internal friction significantly. To the best of my knowledge, the main and rod bearing oil clearances haven't changed since back in the days when this engine was still evolving out of its carbureted RWD ancestors.

I've been really happy with using Baldwin B-43S filters (stock length) on my '97 N/A 3800. But then again, my philosophy on filters is if it's not orange, it's fine. I've used Wix and AC Delco filters on it too, and they've been fine as well. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to say I could even notice a difference. I like the Baldwin filters because the kewl red color matches my car.

---

They have changed. This engine has been redesigned three times since the carb days. All incorperated piston and rod changes.

-T

 

[Spector]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

I got back-to-back used oil analysis in my wife's Grand Am , one with a K&N filter and one with a Mobil 1 filter, both with Mobil 1 oil. The numbers including the Insolubles (dirt) were nearly identical.

---

My experience as well with Mobil 1, Pure 1, Amsoil etc. K&N is a great filter and I have convinced myself based on my own UOA and cutting filters open etc. that I could also run no filter and get back a similar result as with any of the above filters (as Bob did in fact do). Thus, I now go with the flow, on a well operating engine filters are there for catastrophic failure only, useless appendages from the early days of engine manufacturing, poor quality oil etc. Nice to have but, like the human appendix, serve very little useful purpose in most engines today IMO.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spector:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnnyO:

I got back-to-back used oil analysis in my wife's Grand Am , one with a K&N filter and one with a Mobil 1 filter, both with Mobil 1 oil. The numbers including the Insolubles (dirt) were nearly identical.

---

My experience as well with Mobil 1, Pure 1, Amsoil etc. K&N is a great filter and I have convinced myself based on my own UOA and cutting filters open etc. that I could also run no filter and get back a similar result as with any of the above filters (as Bob did in fact do). Thus, I now go with the flow, on a well operating engine filters are there for catastrophic failure only, useless appendages from the early days of engine manufacturing, poor quality oil etc. Nice to have but, like the human appendix, serve very little useful purpose in most engines today IMO.

---

I think you are right. And for that reason, I avoid the more expensife Purolator that is overly packed with pleats. Right now I am running a Fleetguard (LF697)and noticed how easy the prefill permeated the media--apparently has very low resistance.

 

[Dropout]

Details?

[/QUOTE]Snipped: I could also run no filter and get back a similar result as with any of the above filters (as Bob did in fact do). Snipped [/QB][/QUOTE]