oversized filter in a camry 5s-fe

[JustinC25]

Hi I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this.
I am currently running a V6 Filter (Wix 51348) on a 4 cylinder Camry. But I have not tried running this setup in cold weather.
Has anyone done this? I am in NH and the temp ranges from 85 in the summer to -20 degrees in the winter. Would it be safe to run a larger filter in the cold weather? or Should I stick with the stock tea cup size filter for the winter? Most of the winter it doesn't dip below 20 degrees, but in January we get a cold snap and it drops to -20 for a few days. My question is will this filter be ok for this condition, or is there ANY risk involved with using this filter in cold conditions? And does anyone have experience with this positive or negitive?

Thanks,
Justin

 

[tackleberry625]

A larger oil filter will hold more oil and will be able to hold more particles that a smaller stock filter for extended OCIs. Hope this helps and good luck. Oh, the larger filter wont hurt anything, it can only help.

 

[flatlandtacoma]

No risk that I can think of, and the only downside (and this is such a minor effect as to be hardly worth mentioning) is the 5-10% added oil capacity will take slightly longer to warm up.

 

[richter1]

I run the Mobil 1 M209 (Wix 51516) filter in my 2007 Tacoma. It is the Champion Labs recommended oversize filter for the M102 (Wix 51348). It is now in there for it's first New England winter.

 

[Kitto]

Try Wix 51396, I have been running this for a long time in my 5SFE.

 

[dnewton3]

A larger filter is both a blessing and a curse. Well - not really a curse. There's a con to running too large of a filter.

For any given size of filter, from the same brand of manufacturer, it would presumably use the same media. Most filters (especially cellulose) actually do their job best when partially blinded off with particulate. The more particulate they collect, the smaller the opening for the next particle, hence - they can progressively catch smaller particles. So, if you use a larger filter, it will take that much more time to develope a given particle trap for a desired micron size. Not that it's a bad thing, but every decision has it's pro's and con's.

Have you done UOA's on your stock fitler set up? If so, do a few with the new fitler choice, and then watch your insolubles. It's doubtful you'll see much, if any, statistical difference, but you never know.

I don't think you'll help or hurt your engine in the long run.

I'm going to consolidate some of my vehicles to one filter, for the sake of reduced stocking on my shelf. I'm just taking the features of each, comparing and contrasting, and (with G.A.s suggestion) I'm going to use the 51348.

 

[UncleRunkle]

I've been running a Motorcraft FL1A(oversize for my app.) on my contour for two cold desert winters with temps routinely in the low 20's and teens on early moring startups with no problems.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
For any given size of filter, from the same brand of manufacturer, it would presumably use the same media.


One would think so ..and in some filters it appears to bear out in spec's. For Wix is appears that if you plot the 51348, 51516, 51068 and 51515 you get some kind of proportional curve of better filtration as you go bigger with a diminishing rate of return. The 51348 may not be in that group (that showed that result).

Quote:
Most filters (especially cellulose) actually do their job best when partially blinded off with particulate. The more particulate they collect, the smaller the opening for the next particle, hence - they can progressively catch smaller particles. So, if you use a larger filter, it will take that much more time to develope a given particle trap for a desired micron size.


While this is true, filter efficiency is also effected by velocity. Bigger filter, slower moving particles ..higher capture ratio when compared to smaller filters.

In regard to "troubles" ..that same lower velocity and larger virtual "still well" should make start up easier in getting any mass within it moving. One would think that the oil flow is going to take a right angle turn ASAP in some cascading laminar shearing as it descends into the base of the filter ..and that a larger filter will have more media to allow the required pushed mass to exit the filter in the shortest path possible.

 

[tackleberry625]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
For any given size of filter, from the same brand of manufacturer, it would presumably use the same media.


One would think so ..and in some filters it appears to bear out in spec's. For Wix is appears that if you plot the 51348, 51516, 51068 and 51515 you get some kind of proportional curve of better filtration as you go bigger with a diminishing rate of return. The 51348 may not be in that group (that showed that result).

Quote:
Most filters (especially cellulose) actually do their job best when partially blinded off with particulate. The more particulate they collect, the smaller the opening for the next particle, hence - they can progressively catch smaller particles. So, if you use a larger filter, it will take that much more time to develope a given particle trap for a desired micron size.


While this is true, filter efficiency is also effected by velocity. Bigger filter, slower moving particles ..higher capture ratio when compared to smaller filters.

In regard to "troubles" ..that same lower velocity and larger virtual "still well" should make start up easier in getting any mass within it moving. One would think that the oil flow is going to take a right angle turn ASAP in some cascading laminar shearing as it descends into the base of the filter ..and that a larger filter will have more media to allow the required pushed mass to exit the filter in the shortest path possible.


couldnt have said it any better myself

 

[dnewton3]

I agree that a larger filter will reduce the velocity of the fluid, but I disagree with the assumption that will allow a better capture ratio.

I offer this:

Some could theorize that a faster flow will impale a particle into the media, while others would presume the mass momentum would all it to push past (like a football full back at full speed).

To the contrary, one could argue that a slower particle would be captured by the tentacles of the media, while others could show situations where a slower particle would wiggle it's lethargic way past.

It's very true to say that the velocity is effected in increasing the oil's path by enlarging the filter. If you increase the surface area, then the mathmatical equation of volume (cubic area) through or past that surface (squared area), then the speed of that transaction MUST slow down.

However, it's not correct to assume what effect that change in velocity will have. There is not necessarily a linear relationship in the capture ratio. And any change has the ability to go in a positive or negative direction. Only a controlled experiment would show how each filter would respond.

My comment in the previous post was aluding to the "filtration triangle" you often refer to. For any given surface area, if you increase that area, all other things being equal, it will take longer to "fill" that area. And to some degree, filling is a good thing as it helps close down the "hole" for the particles to pass through. Only when the holes become too small to allow the minimum necessary volumetric flow do we have an undesireable condition.

Therefore, I stand by my comment from earlier. A larger filter provides a longer filter life (FCI), but it also most likely takes longer to achieve a compartive filtering effect.

 

[dnewton3]

I also meant to address this:
"In regard to "troubles" ..that same lower velocity and larger virtual "still well" should make start up easier in getting any mass within it moving. One would think that the oil flow is going to take a right angle turn ASAP in some cascading laminar shearing as it descends into the base of the filter ..and that a larger filter will have more media to allow the required pushed mass to exit the filter in the shortest path possible."

I agree that if we increase the surface area of the filter media, we slow the velocity across the media, presuming we're provided a constant volume of flow.

First, assuming we're comparing filters that would mate to the same engine, then beause the base and gasket are at or near the same dimension, then the filter is likely to be longer on it's axis to gain the desired media, therefore there is a greater distance for the total volume of fluid to travel. The oil near the base plate may do a near-about face, but some of it has to go all the way to the end, and then all the way back. Therefore, a "bigger/longer" filter is likely to provide an overall longer distance for the oil to travel, comparitively speaking.

Also, are you negating an important reality that my namesake (I. Newton) made famous many centuries ago?: a body at rest tends to stay at rest; a body in motion tends to stay in motion. Soooooo ... at start-up, a larger mass (more oil in a larger filter) will need more force to start it moving! Now, the reality is that we help the situation by having to move it to a slower pace in a larger fitler (less required velocity) but we loose in that we have more to get started moving (greater mass), so the equation is very likely to be a wash.

Since we don't know off-hand the actual velocity, and the volumes would be dependent upon which filters we would choose to compare, the actual math would likely be slightly different for each and every scenario. But it's fair to conclude that there would likely be a mathematical relationship between the given increase in mass versus the resultant drop in velocity, although the relationship may not be linear, possibly on a curve? So there would probably be a mathmatical "constant" to factor in, resulting in a near stalemate of the result. In other words, the change in velocity likely is offset by the effort required to push the greater mass.

You have to think of it in true definitions of "velocity", "work" and "power". Velocity is distance per unit of time. Work is defined as an applied force over an applied distance. Power is defined as taking that applied resultant "work" and putting it in the concept of time. Say my task is to raise 100 pounds of beer up 10 feet into the air. I can choose to carry 1 pound at a time, 10 pounds at a time, or all 100 pounds all at once; the amount of "work" is the same - that of 1000 pound-feet. But the concept of time speaks to how much power is required to accomplish the task. It takes more power to do it all at once; say 1000 pound-feet in one minute versus mutiple trips in 10 minutes.

This applies to my idea of the larger mass of oil in the larger filter. Although you move it slower, you have more of it to move. You have decreased the speed necessary, but increased the force required. (The distance may or may not be quite equal; longer filter versus wider filter???). So because you have a possibly greater distance to travel, and more force required to move more mass, you have increased the "work" requirement. Presuming the oil pump is a reasonably fixed power provider when viewed at any given second or any given rpm, then your power is hopefully a constant. Since your pump provides this fixed amount of "work per unit of time", if you increase the work load, you have to increase to time allowed to do that same work, to keep the equation in ratio. So in theory it would take MORE time to pressurize the oil galleries. But I frankly think "if" this happens, it's so minutely small that it's inconsequential. I would think that the increased effort to push (force measured in pounds) and the change in velocity (measured in feet per second) are so darn small that the measureable end result WOULD LIKELY RESULT IN MICRO INCREMENTAL MEASUREMENTS; TENTHS OF AN OUNCE AND FRACTIONS OF A SECOND.

And we haven't even begun to delve into the whole concept of pressure rise regarding incompressible fluids. There are chapters in my engineering books dedicated to this topic alone.


My "final answer" on this is that there is such a small and probably immeasureable difference in the realized effect of a change in filter size regarding start up flow that it's a moot point.

If only I got paid to do this for a living. What joy lube engineers and technitians must have!

 

[Gary Allan]

With all due respect to your education (which is far greater than mine)....

Quote:
therefore there is a greater distance for the total volume of fluid to travel.


Why so? There is absolutely no mandate that this is true. We're, again, viewing instantaneous transitions here.

Quote:
The oil near the base plate may do a near-about face, but some of it has to go all the way to the end, and then all the way back.


There is absolutely no mandate that this occurs at start up (which is what we're discussing). It will collide with a static mass ..moving all of it in a kinetic manner. The stuff nearer the outlet will move the easiest ..therefore ..the most. Your own Newtonian principles will mandate that the oil near the bottom/end stay at rest if there's any alternative path of less resistance for for the introduced flow to take.

You would have laminar shearing that occurs in all conduits where fluid is flowing (non-turbulent) once "normalized".

Your nitpick on velocity tends to cloud the issue. You're moving x amount of oil per minute. As it hits a larger chamber, it loses it's velocity. MEAN velocity doesn't change ..but INTERMEDIATE VELOCITY SURELY DOES. Please define this occurrence in something that makes sense to you in expression. If this isn't a change in velocity ..what have you learned to call it?

Under your (apparent) manner of expression ...twice as many bullets traveling at half speed have the same velocity as one at it's normal speed (2X). It moves the same lead per minute if that's what you're saying

These are fundamental principles for clarifiers, spray dryers ...even shop vacs ..and oil catch cans. You have a high(er) velocity flow (that in these cases suspends some particulate/heavy vapor) and introduce it to a much larger chamber. It loses its velocity and comes to a relative standstill. The particles/heavy vapor elements drop out ...the flow then exits are whatever the exit conduit dictates (usually back to a high velocity due to sensible economy of space).

Quote:
a body at rest tends to stay at rest; a body in motion tends to stay in motion.


This should assure that the oil at the base of the larger filter remain motionless longer than one in a smaller filter.

Under stable "normalized" conditions ...I don't have much of an argument.

 

[dnewton3]

"There is absolutely no mandate that this occurs at start up (which is what we're discussing). It will collide with a static mass ..moving all of it in a kinetic manner. The stuff nearer the outlet will move the easiest ..therefore ..the most. Your own Newtonian principles will mandate that the oil near the bottom/end stay at rest if there's any alternative path of less resistance for for the introduced flow to take."

Sort of a trick statement that I used to lead you to a conclusion I wanted to show you. I pretty much agree with your assessment here, but if it applies to the (bigger filter) with more media, then it applies to the shorter filter as well. So, you concept of velocity in regard to startup may be, by your own conclusion, a moot point as I pointed out, because either fitler will likely flow oil quicker towards the base first. Length probably doesn't matter at start up at all! Agree?

So that leaves with with velocity while running. If I didn't state it well, I applogize. In fact, I'll quote myself here: "I agree that if we increase the surface area of the filter media, we slow the velocity across the media, presuming we're provided a constant volume of flow." I do completely agree that given a larger media with a fixed flow, the fluid velocity will drop. My point is still that we can't assume slower velocity at the filter media automatically means better filtration.

"Under your (apparent) manner of expression ...twice as many bullets traveling at half speed have the same velocity as one at it's normal speed (2X). It moves the same lead per minute if that's what you're saying" - Nope. I probably made the example thicker and more complicated that it needed to be. I live with the engineering definitions of work, velocity, power, etc. In your example, it would be appropriate to say twice as many bullets at 1/2 speed do the same amount of work as half the bullets at twice the speed. Work being force applied over distance. Power is work per unit time. They are confusing when you start lumping them together. A bullet exhibits a distance over the time (velocity). Then you apply the amount of bullets (the force factor). It's all about the math and definitions. Sorry if it doesn't make sense.

Your example of the shop vac is presuming a force that has little effect in lube systems in the oil filter; that being gravity. Gravity is the filter in the shop vac case. In the shop vac, assuming the stuff falls out before it hits the small filter at that protects the motor, gravity is the only filter for large particles (objects). But gravity knows no bounds for particle size, it treats them all the same. It also acts uniformly no matter the location or orientation of the particle. But in an oil filter, the media is the filter. It's not the same. The media has physical properties such as size, shape, pore size, etc. that can effect the abiltiy to capture the particles. And the particles themselves are not perfect little round marbles. They have odd shapes and sizes too. That's why I say just because you slow the flow at the media, you won't automatically get better filtraion. Perhaps a higher velocity would catch a given particle size and shape better than a slower velocity, given the media's characteristics and the particles characteristics. Really we don't; my only point was that you made a likely unfair assumption here.

Overall, would you agree the given the relative sizes of the filter available for this Camry in a reasonable useable sense, adding a inch or less of media length (filter height) really wont effect the start up velocity, or overall filtering ability? My post several posts back was merely a comment to your filtration triangle concept. More media means more holes to fill. More holes to fill means more time (assuming a long term near constant "average" flow) before the holes will start to catch smaller and smaller particles. Right?

BTW - completely off topic: check these out: Wix 51360 and 24764. A full flow at 6um! small package. Filter intervals would be short! But wow! 6um full flow.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Sort of a trick statement that I used to lead you to a conclusion I wanted to show you.
might I suggest some more attention to the humanities ..abnormal psychology is what I suggest w/focus on the anxieties.

Quote:
Length probably doesn't matter at start up at all! Agree?


This is a "The power of YES" method of debate. In conversation you stand there and nod as your body animations "suggest" that the person agree with you. They want to share your enthusiasm ..and nod right along with you ..more or less without regard to what you say.

It's along the lines of "well, you know?" whether you do or not.

You're engaging in manipulative dialog here ..I'm smiling ..but it's disingenuous

So, nope, I don't agree. It will be diseffected in proportion to it's size. Now whether I'm expressing it properly for your critique ..that's another story

Quote:
So that leaves with with velocity while running. If I didn't state it well,
No. You didn't. You took exception to my use of the word velocity ..yet didn't dispute it as I defined it ....yet..

Quote:
I probably made the example thicker and more complicated that it needed to be.


Yes, you did. yet went on to further go off track and explain other principles.

Quote:
I live with the engineering definitions of work, velocity, power, etc. In your example, it would be appropriate to say twice as many bullets at 1/2 speed do the same amount of work as half the bullets at twice the speed.


You objected to my reference (somewhere back) to "decreased velocity" ...then as above ..you switched to something else.

You don't live in a vacuum and neither does anyone else. Most of us know the difference between pressure, current and power. Some of us can ever step up from the gutter and deal with reactance and impedance ..and even (if we dusted up just a tad) with harmonics.

So, again, your objections to my references to velocity ..and its changes when moving through various diameter conduits has what to do with ..what?

Quote:
Sorry if it doesn't make sense.
No ..but there may be someone who needs the primer. What didn't make sense to me is why you bothered when it had nothing to do with what I was responding to ..ie. your objections to my use of 'velocity'. Sorry if you didn't understand.

Quote:
Your example of the shop vac is presuming a force that has little effect in lube systems in the oil filter; that being gravity.


This is flawed only when you assume, for whatever reason, that it was used as an example for its purpose ..and not for depicting changes in VELOCITY. You seemed to take such exception to my use of the term ..that I reached for ever physical/practical example so that you could understand.

I failed

Quote:
That's why I say just because you slow the flow at the media, you won't automatically get better filtraion. Perhaps a higher velocity would catch a given particle size and shape better than a slower velocity, given the media's characteristics and the particles characteristics. Really we don't; my only point was that you made a likely unfair assumption here.


Well, filter manufacturers disagree with you. It's also common sense even by your own statements of force/velocity/mass composites/configurations.


We're getting in over our posting heads here. While I'm surely willing to continue in like manner ..it would just be best if we really ask ourselves if some personal self measurement of "size-metrics" really needs to be stroked here. You're obviously a smart man ..but your ego is needy ..or so it seems. You'll outgrow this need for elevation via devaluation in time as wisdom overtakes your knowledge.

 

[dnewton3]

Gary - I've seen and participated in many posts where, at some point, you occasionally mention that it's possible, and maybe preferable, to leave a good qualtiy FF filter on, rather than change it during an OCI. Did I misunderstand this concept?

If I didn't misunderstand, then I presume, the rationale was that a good quality filter has the capacity to hold plenty of particulate. And further, as the particulate is captured, it in turn closes down the gaps and helps catch even smaller particulate. Presuming you don't allow the filter to blind off to a point where the flow decrease is detrimental to the engine, then continued filtering with the same filter is a good thing. In a simplified statement, the longer you use a filter the better job it does. Did I get this right? (That is meant NOT as a rhetorical question, but an honest query). It seems to be an obvious statement, but maybe I am missing something.

I believe that if you increase the filter media by some assumed value, say 20%, then you'll likely get approximately 20%+/- more life cycle before you would need to change it. But by what you're stating, it's likely that the slower velocity would allow the capture of an increasingly greater volume of particulate. Wouldn't that have the effect of blinding off the filter sooner, at some factor of increased proportion?

So in your scenario, a 20% larger filter would not last 20% longer because it captures more? If this were true, where is the break even point? With this logic, at some point, it's mathmatically possible to cross over a break point where you would experience no life cycle gain at all; i.e. a much slower velocity would allow such a greater capture rate that you could almost get all the particulate on the first pass, no matter the size. But, what keeps this break point from happening is that there is a lower limit to the size of partculate that the media will capture, regardless of velocity. So, here exists the practical limits to just how much particulate a filter can capture in size and shape.

It is reasonable to predict that a larger filter by "X"% will gain a similarly proportionate amount of life cycle before reaching the limit of application in regard to safe service. But, that extended life cycle would also take the same proportionate amount of "time" to filter "down" to any specified partiulate size.

My theorm is this: more media = more holes to fill = a longer time interval before that same particulate can create yet smaller holes, to catch yet smaller particulate.
In my reasoning, the media increase is proportional to a life cycle increase, and thereby inversely proportional to the filtering at a specified size.

Your theorm: more media = slower velocity = an increase in particulate caught, in proportion to velocity decrease.
Your conecpt basically says that an increase of filter media has some proportionate decrease in life cycle.

Quoting you, in respone to my statement:
"Well, filter manufacturers disagree with you." -- I have never read any data that supports your side of disagreement. I've read over some SAE papers regarding filtration, but never come across this concept as a direct study with tabulated results. I would certainly admit that I'm not in this for a living, so I certainly have the capacity to learn more. I'd appreciate any direct references you could provide.

 

[Gary Allan]

I will attempt to find you bona fide authoritative text. I don't keep a library.


Quote:
My theorm is this: more media = more holes to fill = a longer time interval before that same particulate can create yet smaller holes, to catch yet smaller particulate.
In my reasoning, the media increase is proportional to a life cycle increase, and thereby inversely proportional to the filtering at a specified size.


I don't have too much to argue with there ...except that a lower velocity will allow higher capture of smaller particles regardless of pore distribution or the number of pores.

Or, inverted, a faster moving particle doesn't come to rest as easy on any surface ..all things being equal.

Simply stated, there are larger pores and smaller pores in any media. The larger pores are going to see more oil flow than smaller pores and see more particles. As these larger pores become saturated, smaller pores will carry more of the flow. More surface area (more media/larger filter)..more lower velocity flow through an increased number of larger pores ..more low velocity particles finding it easier to come to rest upon impact with a friction surface.



Not that I can "prove" this ..but I'll offer this for consideration. This is my "belief".

Note the four filters below. Note the differences as you go larger/longer. IF you make the assumption that they use the same media, what does this suggest?

Part Number: 51348
UPC Number: 765809513488
Principal Application: Various Chrysler/Jeep (82-07), Various GM, Saturn (85-07), Lexus (90-07), Saab (67-07), Suzuki (86-02), Toyota (88-07), Yugo (86-89), Harley-Davidson, Various Lawn&Garden, Farm Equip.
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 3.404
Outer Diameter Top: 2.921
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 3/4-16
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 8-11
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Beta Ratio: 2/20=21/37
Burst Pressure-PSI: 275
Max Flow Rate: 7-9 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 19

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.734 2.430 0.226



Part Number: 51516
UPC Number: 765809515161
Principal Application: Ford/Mercury (81-07), Chrysler/Jeep (02-07), Mazda Trucks (94-07)
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 4.828
Outer Diameter Top: 2.921
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 3/4-16
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 8-11
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Beta Ratio: 2/20=14/31
Burst Pressure-PSI: 275
Max Flow Rate: 7-9 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 20

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.734 2.430 0.226

Part Number: 51068
UPC Number: 765809510685
Principal Application: Agco Tractors, Chrysler (70-91), Ford/Mercury (83-97), Kubota Engines, Land Rover (95-04), Toyota (68-90)
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 4.338
Outer Diameter Top: 3.660
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 3/4-16
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 8-11
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Beta Ratio: 2/20=10/26
Burst Pressure-PSI: 275
Max Flow Rate: 7-9 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 19

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.834 2.462 0.200

Part Number: 51515
UPC Number: 765809515154
Principal Application: Chrysler Family of Cars/Trucks (57-70), Ford Family of Cars/Trucks (57-00), Mazda Trucks (94-00), Toyota Landcruiser (71-96) - (Two Quart version is 51773)
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 5.178
Outer Diameter: 3.660
Thread Size: 3/4-16
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 8-11
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Beta Ratio: 2/20=13/23
Burst Pressure-PSI: 290
Max Flow Rate: 7-9 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 19

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.834 2.462 0.200

Now (first rule of debate is to explode your opponent's bombs for him in advance) you can offer that the Beta 2 results don't follow this increased profile as does the Beta 20 indications ..I cannot resolve that ...but I'll ask you for alternative supposition to why there's a DISTINCT increase in Beta 20 performance as you go larger. Naturally, as one can reason, there will be a reduced rate of return as you go larger.

 

[Vaca]

Originally Posted By: JustinC25
Hi I was wondering if anyone has any experience with this.
I am currently running a V6 Filter (Wix 51348) on a 4 cylinder Camry. But I have not tried running this setup in cold weather.
Has anyone done this? I am in NH and the temp ranges from 85 in the summer to -20 degrees in the winter. Would it be safe to run a larger filter in the cold weather? or Should I stick with the stock tea cup size filter for the winter? Most of the winter it doesn't dip below 20 degrees, but in January we get a cold snap and it drops to -20 for a few days. My question is will this filter be ok for this condition, or is there ANY risk involved with using this filter in cold conditions? And does anyone have experience with this positive or negitive?

Thanks,
Justin


Justin,

One important consideration that I don't see in this thread is the size of the gasket and the mating surface of the different filters. The 5sfe uses a smaller gasket size than the v-6 filter.

I have a camry 5sfe also, and I tried putting on my Lexus v-8 filter (90915-20004) which is the same size as the v-6 camry filter. While the larger filter fit, the outside of the gasket was just a bit bigger than the oil cooler's (standard on my Camry) mating surface. I was concerned about the possibility of the gasket rupturing, particularly in the cold, so I went back to the standard 4 cylinder size...

Wix details, I cut and pasted below.

If you find that your's works well, let me know and I'll think about putting on the larger filter again.

Seperately, Toyota makes a great filter in the larger size...it's the 90915-20004 made in Japan. It's a little different filter media than normal, but seems to be an extremely well made filter and I'd love to use it on my Camry as well as my Lexus, so again, any good experience you have with the larger filter on a 5sfe would be much appreciated.


Part Number: 51394
UPC Number: 765809513945
Principal Application: GM (85-05), Daihatsu (88-92), Infiniti (91-96), Kawasaki Mules, Nissan (91-95), Toyota (80-07), Scion (04-07), Atlas-Copco, Briggs&Stratton, Cub Cadet, Generac, John Deere, Kubota, New Holland
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 2.977
Outer Diameter Top: 2.685
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 3/4-16
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 8-11
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Burst Pressure-PSI: 400
Max Flow Rate: 7-9 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 19

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.475 2.173 0.233

 

[dnewton3]

Gary - I found a filter that directly contradicts your theory of bigger = better filtration. On the other hand, I found one that continues your example.

I believe that they are in the same family; I'm not completely sure I understand the Wix numbering system. I'm trying to compare apples to apples here. 3/4-16 threads, similar flow rates, similar burst pressures, same gasket size, etc. Only looking for height differences that would indicate more/less media.

To support you, the 51085 is shorter than the 51068 and 51515, and has a filter beta ratio of 2/20 15/28; this would fall in line with your therom.

However ...
Check out 51311. You'll see that the filtering is much better with beta at 2/20 8/21, yet this filter is SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than the 51068/51515 filters you showed for your comparison. Presumably the velocity would be much greater because this filter is so much shorter, yet it filters the best of all 4 we mentioned in this thread in this canister diameter.

In the end, I think you and I could continue to find examples that both support and deter each other's concepts. So perhaps we're at a stalemate?

It really points me towards a conclusion that to find a filter that fits your needs, you probably can't generalize as I had, or as you had. The best method is delve deep into the individual filter data and pick the best for each application.

All it takes is an undying love for reading filter specs for hours on end!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
However ...
Check out 51311. You'll see that the filtering is much better with beta at 2/20 8/21, yet this filter is SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than the 51068/51515 filters you showed for your comparison. Presumably the velocity would be much greater because this filter is so much shorter, yet it filters the best of all 4 we mentioned in this thread in this canister diameter.


You forgot the qualification (that you were asked to adopt "for the moment) was that they were all the same media. IF they were then it would support the assertion. The conditions FIT the assertion .. Surely that didn't escape your view.

I could have showed you the 51773, which is enormous,..yet has a relatively lousy single pass rating. They don't give the multipass results with that filter.


...but ..this is a very basic concept in many facets of filtration/clarification from air to oil ..to water. I cannot believe that you are ignorant of it.

You have much more formal education under your belt.


Here's one reference in water filtration. If you can configure an objection to it not being universally applied ..be my guest.

Quote:
Filtration Variables

Filtration performance and cartridge life depends on several factors including the following operating conditions.

Flow Rate

High flow rates through cartridges or filter media degrade the adsorptive retention mechanisms and decrease efficiency. And, a decrease in flow rate increase cartridge efficiency and performance by enhancing adsorptive* retention and the ability to from a filter cake. Optimum efficiency for pleated cartridges average from 0.5 to 0.75 gpm


*Adsorptive Retention is when the particle stays in the filter media due to interactions between the particle and the surface of the medium.

http://www.thewaterexchange.net/water-filters-basics.htm

So, although the flow rate will vary from time to time, the velocity through any given pore will be lower if that flow is distributed over a like rated media of more square inches. It will increase in efficiency over like flow rates over a lesser square inches.


By all means ...keep on going. Sooner or later I'll run out of ammo or the desire to continue.

 

[Gary Allan]

btw- the part you're missing is "give concession where concession is due". Otherwise, this is perfectly acceptable as "sauce for the goose"