Where is the Proof?

[Spector]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
What might be a more interesting discussion, since you believe filters don't make much of a difference, is why a $2 Supertech oil filter is just as good/or not good as a $13 K&N.

---

Now that is a good question. I have used Amsoil filters most of my past 10 years and use a K&N on one car. Primarily for flow, as I stated earlier, I don't believe filters are much good for other then catastrophic failures. (why do manufacturers keep them, probaby multiple reasons including pressure from related filter manufactureres and profits). Anyway, For some reason, totally unsubstantiated, I look for construction and flow more then media etc as I only change the filter once a year so that is much more important to me and that is why I use the Amsoil and K&N. Now, like the oversized debate, there is no proof that a Supertech would not endure a year of service as well. As you pointed out, it is wahtever floats your boat and permits you to sleep at night.

In my case none of my engines have an ovesized on the market that would give me an extra 1/2 quart of oil, all could be measured in ounces and less then 8 at that! With synthetic does an extra 8 ounces make a diff? Many people do not even add oil until it is down 1/2 to 1 quart anyway. I always keep mine topped off.

 

[Tyrolkid2]

Going from the OEM VW/Audi oil Filter on the 1.8T to the NAPA Gold 1333 did the following for our cars:

1) Increased oil capacity from 4.7 to 5.2 qts.(10%) on Golf/Jetta, from 3.9 to 4.4 on Audis(13%)

2) Decreased oil temps on our race cars 10-20deg with no other changes.

 

[Greaser]

Well bigger or not...the Ford oversize I use in all the Jeeps I service nine times out of ten costs LESS to purchase than a comparable Chyrco size...so it's a no-brainer..plus size does matter

 

[TC]

Installing a $3 Purolator #L24458 on a Honda instead of a $6 Bosch #3312 will increase filter media area by 115%! (Plus save ya three bucks.)

 

[Ugly3]

427Z06 -

If everyone who wanted to use a larger filter "did their homework" as you obviously did I would have very little concern.

I doubt that is really the case - some guy will end up with the wrong bypass pressure, flow rate, etc.

My main point (similar to several others who have posted) is that the correctly specified filter from a quality filter maker has all the correct features (bypass, check valve, etc,) and would never get to it's capacity in normal service.

It is doubtful that one would plug up a filter in 10,000 miles let alone lesser change intervals.

Let's face it, any quality conventional oil can go 5,000 in all but the most extreme applications. At 5,000 miles I doubt the oil filter is 20% to 30% "consumed".

While a larger filter may have more reserve capacity, what is the point, you don't need it anyway.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZmOz:

Originally posted by Ugly3:
[qb] As someone else said, why not? There are NO disadvantages to a larger filter. Nobody is throwing money at anything...a bigger filter cost the same as a small one. There are no good reasons to keep the stock filter, and there are plenty of good reasons to use an oversized filter...

---

Exactly. Common sense says more area is better. And no one here can prove that more area is not better.

 

[labman]

I agree that a larger filter likely has at most a marginal advantage. On the other hand, in many cases, why not? When I still had my Grand AM, I was running a PF 52 in place of the smaller PF 47. I had verified the increased filter area by hacksaw and tape measure. The filter was mounted behind an engine mount where its larger size was still well protected. With the bypass in the engine, that wasn't an issue.

What I hate to see are the people replacing a quality OEM filter with a much bigger Fram that may or may not have any more filter area. I am not sure a slightly off bypass is a big problem, but no bypass on an engine without an internal one would be. The other problem is a filter sticking out where it could be damaged.

 

[T-Keith]

Many cars will not have the room for the oversize filter. Many people put them on anyway. I'd say filter damage is a downside. Plus a larger filter often makes it much more difficult to remove and install. So yes there are disadvantages.

Remember your engine moves a lot when driving so keep this in consideration when choosing an oversize filter.

IMO it's not worth it on a less then 7500mi oil change unless you have an unusually small filter.

-T

 

[Pablo]

I can't say we double blind, 100% repeatable results, but....

On the 250,000 mile Volvi I use a dual remote full flow setup. Car stock holds 4 qts with a tiny filter. Car with my set-up holds 6 qts....

BROR makes a GREAT POINT!!

 

[Razl]

What about the argument that filters get better with age(at filtering smaller particles)? If these OEM sized filters aren't clogging up at 10K-15K miles, wouldn't an oversized filter be less efficient at filtering under the same change intervals?

 

[labman]

I have seen no data on that. Maybe we should all switch to Fram giving up flow for efficiency.

 

[Bror Jace]

Guys, don't forget that as media surface area in an application increases, the velocity against each square inch of surface decreases. It's kind of the opposite of the venturi effect. Same thing happens when a river or stream suddenly widens ... the current slows down proportionately with the increase in width. With filters, as smaller particles pass through the media with less velocity, their likelihood of getting trapped increases. This is a good thing. High velocity particles are more like to "blow through" the media and stay in the engine oil doin' their nasty thing.

Hey ZR2RANDO, remember Tom - tsjay the filter media guy at Edmunds Town Hall? I’m surprised he never found his way over here.

--- Bror Jace

 

[SSLoneStar]

Sweet comeback !! Gotta Love it !
I run oversize on both my LS1 and Jeep 4.0 for these reasons and always will.

SS/LS
:gearhead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
"It is just another case of the "gearheads" throwing $$ and time trying to get a benefit that is not needed."

EXAMPLE #1
The Bosch #3312 is a "stock" Honda and Mitsubish-Mopar replacement filter. It has a paltry 81 sq in of media. The oversized PureOne #24458 has about 198 sq in, over twice that of the Bosch. The PureOne also filters finer and costs a half-buck LESS than the Bosch. Just one example of "gearheads" getting better filtration through an oversize filter, while saving a half-buck in the process.

EXAMPLE #2
Honda owners can use the stock Purolator #14459, OR FOR THE SAME PRICE, opt for the #24458, with about 54% more media. Doesn't require a rocket scientist in this case -- go for the oversized filter at no additional cost.

"Stock" filters will typically do just fine. But more media area = less chance of clogging, and more significantly, reduced flow impairment over the entire life cycle of the filter. Never forget what you're paying for in a filter: FILTRATION MEDIA. The more, the better.

---

 

[SSLoneStar]

 

[ZR2RANDO]

What Razl says is true (keep those brain gears spinnin there buddy yur keepin us honest!!!):

"What about the argument that filters get better with age(at filtering smaller particles)? If these OEM sized filters aren't clogging up at 10K-15K miles, wouldn't an oversized filter be less efficient at filtering under the same change intervals?"

That being said still a good idea to choose a filter that had more media (so it can have a longer life at "like-new" condition). It will still still get more efficient as time goes by, it would just take longer, and allow more max flow as it does.
If you really desire higher efficiency regarding smaller particle filtration just buy a filter (larger version of course..) that provides for smaller particle filtration from the start...PureOne is the typical example here.
I agree that more media (of whatever type media you want) is the goal. That is the core purpose of the filter. Remember we don't want any more bypass than necessary...
good call!

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

Good thought, but it will still be more efficient because of media velocity as Bror explained.

 

[TallPaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Razl:
What about the argument that filters get better with age(at filtering smaller particles)? If these OEM sized filters aren't clogging up at 10K-15K miles, wouldn't an oversized filter be less efficient at filtering under the same change intervals?

---

Interesting point, but then is the factory spec optimum? Or should we be switching to smaller filters so they "age" quicker?

BTW, I am running oversized on everything:

FL1A instead of smaller FL400s on the 3.0 Aerostar.

Longer Puro L40017 (MC FL299) instead of FL1A (Puro #L30001) on pickup and motorhome. In this case it actually cost more for the longer filter. The L40017 is $6.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TallPaul:
Interesting point, but then is the factory spec optimum? Or should we be switching to smaller filters so they "age" quicker?

---

Nah! just rub a protective layer of dirt on your new filter before you install it

Actually, if you look at the clean and dirty filtration efficiency of a K&N, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea for a K&N. Paper filters are pretty good right out of the box and don't really need a protective layer of dirt before they start working well, even though they do improve a bit as they get dirty.

 

[00 scrub]

Would filters with more surface area allow more flow? The longer filters woul have more holes in the center portion of the canister to allow flow.

 

[ZR2RANDO]

Jason, unclear on your statement,, I do agree with Bror. More media would start out better than less media would due to that slower velocity, and would have longer life to boot.

[ August 19, 2004, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: ZR2RANDO ]