Motorcraft Filter Specifications

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
406
Location
Northern California
OK. I know where I need to go at Ford to get the exact specs, so I will have to work on that now. I know the exact catalog and the page even. That and some more information was possible due to a very nice and informative gentleman at Purolator talking with me for about 15 minutes on the phone today. Purolator has been nothing but stellar in their communication and service with me about all of this! Kudos!

I'm reposting the information I found about the FL1A to help clarify what I'm about to type:
Quote:
FL1A
Oil Filter Style Canister
Height (in) 5.190 in.
Outside Diameter (in) 3.780 in.
Filter Bypass Relief Valve Yes
Relief Valve Open (psi) 11-14 psi
Anti-Drainback Valve Yes
Smallest Particle Filtered 20 microns
Maximum Burst Pressure (psi) 200 psi
Thread Size 3/4-16 in.
Gasket Outside Diameter (in) 2.800 in.
Gasket Inside Diameter (in) 2.422 in.
Gasket Thickness (in) 0.203 in.


Some brief, overall facts about the Motorcraft gasoline engine oil filters:
The ratings such as the filtering efficiency (80% at 20 microns) and the 200psi burst pressure are simply the absolute minimum that Ford will allow.

Taking the FL1A as an example:
  • The actual filtering efficiency should be ~93% at 20 microns.
  • The canister can also actually withstand a burst pressure of somewhere about/up to ~280psi.
  • The holding capacity should be ~12g.
  • The Motorcraft filters are somewhere in between a Purolator Classic and a PureOne.
  • The "S" type filters, such as the FL-820S, are like the PureOne filters in that they both have a silicone ADBV.
  • The "non-S" type filters, such as the FL1A, are like the Classic in that they do not have a silicone ADBV (providing the equivalent Motorcraft filter model has one).
  • The Purolator filters have a dome-end bypass valve vs. the Ford-spec'd...end? bypass valve (the correct name is slipping me at the moment).
 
On Purolator's Web site they list the Classic at 97.5% at 20 microns and the PureOne at 99.9%, so Motorcrafts are less efficient.
 
This is good info. I had suspected that the 80% efficency at 20 microns was the minimum spec not the actual spec. The 12 grams of holding capacity is pretty impressive. That is close to P1 but I'd think filter size would be a factor.

I tend to look at the MC filter as being the equal to the Purolator classic and then some. A better bypass and sometimes a silicone drainback all for about the same price as the Purolator Classic. If you have a Ford or an application that MC fits I think it'd be the filter to use.
 
Originally Posted By: roushstage2

Some brief, overall facts about the Motorcraft gasoline engine oil filters:
The ratings such as the filtering efficiency (80% at 20 microns) and the 200psi burst pressure are simply the absolute minimum that Ford will allow.

Taking the FL1A as an example:

The actual filtering efficiency should be ~93% at 20 microns.


Where did you find these specs? Link? I've tried to get Motorcraft filter specs directly from Ford and the Motorcraft Division and they could tell me nothing whatsoever.

Originally Posted By: roushstage2
The Motorcraft filters are somewhere in between a Purolator Classic and a PureOne.


In terms of what spec?
 
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
This is good info. I had suspected that the 80% efficency at 20 microns was the minimum spec not the actual spec. The 12 grams of holding capacity is pretty impressive. That is close to P1 but I'd think filter size would be a factor.

I tend to look at the MC filter as being the equal to the Purolator classic and then some. A better bypass and sometimes a silicone drainback all for about the same price as the Purolator Classic. If you have a Ford or an application that MC fits I think it'd be the filter to use.


The 13 grams of holding capacity for Purolator PureOne is for the PL30001 filter.
 
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: roushstage2

Some brief, overall facts about the Motorcraft gasoline engine oil filters:
The ratings such as the filtering efficiency (80% at 20 microns) and the 200psi burst pressure are simply the absolute minimum that Ford will allow.

Taking the FL1A as an example:

The actual filtering efficiency should be ~93% at 20 microns.


Where did you find these specs? Link? I've tried to get Motorcraft filter specs directly from Ford and the Motorcraft Division and they could tell me nothing whatsoever.

Originally Posted By: roushstage2
The Motorcraft filters are somewhere in between a Purolator Classic and a PureOne.


In terms of what spec?

I found those specs online.
fl820sspecs.jpg


As far as "in terms of what spec," I don't know that all specs would be exactly in between necessarily. That was just a simple way I suppose to show how they are related to the Purolator filters over the phone. :)
 
OK. Here it is folks. These are from 2005, so they are not the most up to date, BUT, should be more than anyone has seen here to date according to responses I have seen and from what I've been told. These are the ratings for all Motorcraft filters, information circa 2005. Enjoy!! :D

2005motorcraftoilfilter.jpg


2005motorcraft2inchfuel.jpg


2005motorcraft3inchfuel.jpg


2005motorcraftairfilter.jpg


2005motorcraftdieselfue.jpg


If there would be a better place for all of these, let me know and I'll make a specific "Motorcraft Filter Spec" thread. I will still try and find 2009 spec sheets if possible for updated information, which I know there is. :)
 
Originally Posted By: roushstage2

Some brief, overall facts about the Motorcraft gasoline engine oil filters:
The ratings such as the filtering efficiency (80% at 20 microns) and the 200psi burst pressure are simply the absolute minimum that Ford will allow.


2005motorcraftoilfilter.jpg


I really don't see where the specs shown above say that the 80% efficiency @ 20 microns is the absolute minimum that Ford allows. To me, it says the efficiency IS 80% @ 20 microns.

And the note at the bottom of the chart makes me wonder if this data was actually from Ford. The note says "Efficiency rating is not called out in the Ford Testing specification." If it wasn't called out in the testing spec, then were did those efficiency numbers come from?

Like I said earlier, I contacted Ford's Motorcraft Dept and asked if they had data like this and they said "No".
 
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: roushstage2

Some brief, overall facts about the Motorcraft gasoline engine oil filters:
The ratings such as the filtering efficiency (80% at 20 microns) and the 200psi burst pressure are simply the absolute minimum that Ford will allow.


2005motorcraftoilfilter.jpg


I really don't see where the specs shown above say that the 80% efficiency @ 20 microns is the absolute minimum that Ford allows. To me, it says the efficiency IS 80% @ 20 microns.

And the note at the bottom of the chart makes me wonder if this data was actually from Ford. The note says "Efficiency rating is not called out in the Ford Testing specification." If it wasn't called out in the testing spec, then were did those efficiency numbers come from?

Like I said earlier, I contacted Ford's Motorcraft Dept and asked if they had data like this and they said "No".

Purolator, the manufacturer of the Motorcraft filters, said that the rating is the minimum; not the actual.

I can guarantee the data is from Ford because I pulled it from their catalogs.

I've contacted Motorcraft too and was told "no." They are not the ones that carry this data, per them and FoMoCo.
 
Originally Posted By: roushstage2

Purolator, the manufacturer of the Motorcraft filters, said that the rating is the minimum; not the actual.


The way the data is presented is misleading then. If Purolator knows what the real efficiency is for each of those Motorcraft filters they manufacture, then why don't they (whoever generated this date - FoMoCo with Purolator data ??) just advertise the actual efficiency? Showing some mystical supposed minimum efficiency of "80% @ 20" microns (with no notes to show that intention) doesn't get too many points from the people who understand filter efficiency.
 
That is some good information. With one/two exceptions, the FL 820S is all my son has run on his 4.6L Explorer. I still have one cut open from his last OC. It is a very well made filter, and to look at it as comapared to others dissected, it doesn't look to be 80% @20mu.

The rating, lowballed or otherwise, might keep some from choosing the Motorcraft over others. At ~$3.64 at Wally it is a good price.

But, based on it's overall construction, the rating is somewhat of a paradox.
 
Quote:
You cant really eyeball efficiency.
True that. As I said, my comments were based on other dissected filters either posted here or by myself, which has been substantial. So, that would include things like media amount, length and type.

I now wish that I had sent river_rat an FL 820S, but he did cut open and test a Motorcraft FL-1A against a Donaldson and P1 here (scroll). Now, while it didn't test as well it those quality filters, it did hold it's own. IIRC, even r_r felt, based on his testing, that the Motorcraft was closer to a Puro Classic in results. In other words, not the rated 80%.

In any case, if you look at the MC Fl-1A construction in the link, as previously said, the rating doesn't seem to align with it's overall quality construction.
 
I hate to say this because it may sound like I'm bashing Ford, which I am not, but I don't think auto manufacturers really have much incentive to build or sell truly efficient filters to the general public. What is most important to them is durability. In other words, they don't want the filter falling apart in a way that will cause customer complaints and warranty work, and they want things like the silicone ADBV that prevents start up noise, which the consumer will notice. The average car can probably go 100,000 or 200,000 miles these days with no oil filter on there whatsoever. As long as the engine lasts to the end of the warranty the manufacturer is happy. That's all it needs to do for Ford. Even if the insides of a filter are [censored], the average consumer would never notice.

On the other hand, companies like Fram, Purolator, and Champ make a lot of filters for the aftermarket and the DIY folks like here on BITOG. They need something like "efficiency" to stand out from the crowd. That's also why we get funny colors, grippy surfaces, and catchier boxes. Notice that Wix and NAPA are pretty low key on the marketing stuff like colors, because they mostly sell to repair shops. Similarly, I would guess that Wix is less concerned about "efficiency" and more concerned with durability, for the same reasons Ford is.
 
Interesting hypothesis. OTOH, that might also fit in with MC/FoMoCo not really caring if the figure officially listed, in this case 80%/20mu, is a stated lowball minimum. It is hard to find efficiency info on any/many of the OE/propietary filters.

But, keep in mind even the Fram/Honeywell rating is at >20mu. More than somewhat vague when one considers that that could be any number > 20. Then again, the average consumer either doesn't care and/or doesn't know what that means. If they see anything, it's, 96%, 99% efficient etc.
 
I would guess that probably at least 95% of the cars on the road are running with a substandard filter put on at the dealer, a garage, or a quicky lube place. Probably have the cheapest bulk oil in there too. And, they're probably running low on oil and not changing it often enough. All car repair places use basically the cheapest filter they can get, unless they can upsell the customer to a "premium" filter. Half the time I can't even recognize the name on the filter put on by the cheapy lubes. Most people would never even know if the filter blew out, like the Ecores we've seen on BITOG. They would blissfully drive that car to the end of its life, which is usually due to something other than the engine blowing up. I've driven a bunch of cars into the ground--totally abused them with no maintenance in some cases, and never once have I had a failure I could attribute to the oil or filter. The end usually comes because of rust, or an accumulation of components wearing out that would cost more to repair than the car is worth.
 
I don't disagree with anything you said. And, I don't need the best filter either, eg., I have a stash of AAP TG. But, I would like to think no matter how long I keep/use a car, that I am getting the most for my money. Value always, in other words.

Since coming to Bitog, I've thought Motorcraft fit in that category, though the published efficiency might not. But, what I may see as value, others might not. The more you know about the product though, the wiser the choice you can make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top