Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: unDummy
Yes, a quality full flow filter, like the M1/RP/Ams/P1/KN/XG... along with a Filtermag or equivalent stick-on magnets, will easily outperform a Magnefine.
That's something I'd like to test. Racor make a 10u absolute trans filter, which is far better than even the RP and MI engine filters mentioned and if you added magnetic capability to that.... you'd have sumthin'.
Now the Magnefine has average filtration from it's 35u absolute filter but, according to Magnefine's testing, their magnet setup catches ferrous particles in the high 90's percentile because of the internal flow director and the close proximity of the magnets to the oil. Nothing I've see anecdotally disputes that so I've come to accept their data.
At this point, I'm not convinced that those filter mag devices can match that high 90's ferrous performance. I know they can catch stuff. Maybe lot's of stuff, maybe in the high 90s percentages, but the lack of proximity makes me wonder. Would be fun to find out one way or another.
Still, the cost issue comes into play. On one hand, you've got the cost of a filter base, the plumbing, an expensive filter ($10+ on the engine filters and up to $30 on the Racor fitler) plus the magnets (which are expensive) vs a $15 Magnefine that is about 90 percent as efficient. The higher cost of the spin-on is somewhat balanced by the higher capacity but, interestingly, the change intervals for the Magnafine and the Racor are the same, 30K miles, even though the Racor has some 10 times the capacity. I suspect Racor's recommendations are conservative and based on medium duty applications, which is their major market for the LFS kit. I would think that, after the initial clean-up of the oil (after trans break-in), a larger spin on filter would be pretty much a 100K gig. Even a Magnefine can be pushed farther than 30K after the oil is cleaned that first time. In order for the cost issues to balance, you'd need to run the spin-on/fitlermag combo a looooong time to balance the cost/effectiveness ratios of the simple Magnefine.
Oddly enough, I have had BOTH a Racor and a Magnefine on both my trucks for about two years now. I got them for tests, so cost was not the object. I did check the flow rate of the double fitlers (both their mfr rated flows and actual flow measured by me with a graduated container and a stopwatch) against the rated cooler line flow. I did oil contamination analysis on both setups and they were near enough to be even-steven. Either would be a major benefit.
The Magnefine reduced the ISO cleanliness code of the oil in the trans of my '05 F150HD from an already clean 15/14/12 (it was a fairly fresh change) to 13/12/9. That's an 81 percent reduction in the particle count in 2200 miles.
I installed a Racor LFS spin-on filter kit in my old '86 Ford diesel and it dropped from a 16/15/13 (again fairly fresh oil) to a 15/14/11 in only 274 miles, a 66 percent reduction in the actual particle count.
I haven't retested either truck with the double fitlration and probably won't unless I can get the tests comped. Maybe later when my paycheck improves again.
Here's a Magnefine cut open:
The only problem I see is that in some case, the particles in the ATF are non-ferrous. I had a Camry with roughly 200K on it and Amsoil ATF in the transmission. I did a UOA and had high aluminum. I believe aluminum comes from the torque converter at least on the Toyota. Installed a Magnefine and ran some 6000 miles and retested and still had high aluminum. I am still sold on Magnefine as many cars do not have room for a remote trans. filter.
