Yes, most oversized options will be have to be larger lengthwise than the standard size, although there is still some small room for the gasket diameter from the standard size.
BEWARE: Toyota OEM YZZ filters undersized
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
Typical of many BITOG conversations, we find ourselves looking at the wrong criteria ... and then making decisions based on dubious distinctions.
What is "oversized" or "undersized" anyway?
Does it refer to the base size?
Does it refer to the length?
Does it refer to the media square surface area?
Does it refer to the contaminant holding capacity?
This is why these conversations are total bunk. Few people take the time to define HOW they judge something; what parameters are going to be used to quantify success or failure. They just post up a theory, run willy-nilly mentally naked through the internet, and they start a panic-induced "conversation".
For any given engine design, there is an appropriate amount of dirt-holding capacity needed for the intended OCIs. Some OEMs even have the faith to say that one can FCI every other OCI. Other OEMs state to FCI with every OCI. How is it then, that a filter for my daughter's old Galant can go 15k miles in one application, but is only good for 3k miles in another? Am I supposed to believe that the Galant runs 5x cleaner than the other car?
The ONLY time a filter is "undersized" to me is when it cannot contain the expected contamination loading during the intended OCI. Nothing more; nothing less. If you have an old, dirty running engine and a filter with low media surface area but high efficiency beta, then you're going to blind off that media a lot sooner than an engine that runs clean, has a lot of surface area on the filter, and a lower beta. If the media isn't blinded to a point of perpetual filter BP, then it's not "undersized" for the intended OCI. When is a filter "undersized"? When it cannot contain the wear inducing particles within the intended OCI.
I miss Gary Allan; a long-lost voice of reason in the topic of filtration. He would remind us all of the filtration triangle; efficiency, size and duration all work together and changing one aspect will affect the others.
What is "oversized" or "undersized" anyway?
Does it refer to the base size?
Does it refer to the length?
Does it refer to the media square surface area?
Does it refer to the contaminant holding capacity?
This is why these conversations are total bunk. Few people take the time to define HOW they judge something; what parameters are going to be used to quantify success or failure. They just post up a theory, run willy-nilly mentally naked through the internet, and they start a panic-induced "conversation".
For any given engine design, there is an appropriate amount of dirt-holding capacity needed for the intended OCIs. Some OEMs even have the faith to say that one can FCI every other OCI. Other OEMs state to FCI with every OCI. How is it then, that a filter for my daughter's old Galant can go 15k miles in one application, but is only good for 3k miles in another? Am I supposed to believe that the Galant runs 5x cleaner than the other car?
The ONLY time a filter is "undersized" to me is when it cannot contain the expected contamination loading during the intended OCI. Nothing more; nothing less. If you have an old, dirty running engine and a filter with low media surface area but high efficiency beta, then you're going to blind off that media a lot sooner than an engine that runs clean, has a lot of surface area on the filter, and a lower beta. If the media isn't blinded to a point of perpetual filter BP, then it's not "undersized" for the intended OCI. When is a filter "undersized"? When it cannot contain the wear inducing particles within the intended OCI.
I miss Gary Allan; a long-lost voice of reason in the topic of filtration. He would remind us all of the filtration triangle; efficiency, size and duration all work together and changing one aspect will affect the others.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Typical of many BITOG conversations, we find ourselves looking at the wrong criteria ... and then making decisions based on dubious distinctions.
What is "oversized" or "undersized" anyway?
Does it refer to the base size?
Does it refer to the length?
Does it refer to the media square surface area?
Does it refer to the contaminant holding capacity?
This is why these conversations are total bunk. Few people take the time to define HOW they judge something; what parameters are going to be used to quantify success or failure. They just post up a theory, run willy-nilly mentally naked through the internet, and they start a panic-induced "conversation".
For any given engine design, there is an appropriate amount of dirt-holding capacity needed for the intended OCIs. Some OEMs even have the faith to say that one can FCI every other OCI. Other OEMs state to FCI with every OCI. How is it then, that a filter for my daughter's old Galant can go 15k miles in one application, but is only good for 3k miles in another? Am I supposed to believe that the Galant runs 5x cleaner than the other car?
The ONLY time a filter is "undersized" to me is when it cannot contain the expected contamination loading during the intended OCI. Nothing more; nothing less. If you have an old, dirty running engine and a filter with low media surface area but high efficiency beta, then you're going to blind off that media a lot sooner than an engine that runs clean, has a lot of surface area on the filter, and a lower beta. If the media isn't blinded to a point of perpetual filter BP, then it's not "undersized" for the intended OCI. When is a filter "undersized"? When it cannot contain the wear inducing particles within the intended OCI.
I miss Gary Allan; a long-lost voice of reason in the topic of filtration. He would remind us all of the filtration triangle; efficiency, size and duration all work together and changing one aspect will affect the others.
Dnewton3 - What a breath of fresh air and the voice of reason. I do have a question for you.
Are there any affordable methods to determine when a filter is nearing it's designed capacity?
Typical of many BITOG conversations, we find ourselves looking at the wrong criteria ... and then making decisions based on dubious distinctions.
What is "oversized" or "undersized" anyway?
Does it refer to the base size?
Does it refer to the length?
Does it refer to the media square surface area?
Does it refer to the contaminant holding capacity?
This is why these conversations are total bunk. Few people take the time to define HOW they judge something; what parameters are going to be used to quantify success or failure. They just post up a theory, run willy-nilly mentally naked through the internet, and they start a panic-induced "conversation".
For any given engine design, there is an appropriate amount of dirt-holding capacity needed for the intended OCIs. Some OEMs even have the faith to say that one can FCI every other OCI. Other OEMs state to FCI with every OCI. How is it then, that a filter for my daughter's old Galant can go 15k miles in one application, but is only good for 3k miles in another? Am I supposed to believe that the Galant runs 5x cleaner than the other car?
The ONLY time a filter is "undersized" to me is when it cannot contain the expected contamination loading during the intended OCI. Nothing more; nothing less. If you have an old, dirty running engine and a filter with low media surface area but high efficiency beta, then you're going to blind off that media a lot sooner than an engine that runs clean, has a lot of surface area on the filter, and a lower beta. If the media isn't blinded to a point of perpetual filter BP, then it's not "undersized" for the intended OCI. When is a filter "undersized"? When it cannot contain the wear inducing particles within the intended OCI.
I miss Gary Allan; a long-lost voice of reason in the topic of filtration. He would remind us all of the filtration triangle; efficiency, size and duration all work together and changing one aspect will affect the others.
Dnewton3 - What a breath of fresh air and the voice of reason. I do have a question for you.
Are there any affordable methods to determine when a filter is nearing it's designed capacity?
I used the longer filter from Toyota on my car, the parts guy say they will all fit in most cases. A fatter filter won't fit in some cases. I'd love to use the same filter as my parent's cars to keep things common.
Case in point - Honda backspecs the smaller 15400-PLM-A0x(Fram PH7317 sized) filter on most of their older engines. The aftermarket still calls for the bigger PH3593A or its equivalent to be used still until a certain model year. I've used the smaller filter on a friend's Accord V6 with no problems - Honda will list the older big filter as a superceded part.
Case in point - Honda backspecs the smaller 15400-PLM-A0x(Fram PH7317 sized) filter on most of their older engines. The aftermarket still calls for the bigger PH3593A or its equivalent to be used still until a certain model year. I've used the smaller filter on a friend's Accord V6 with no problems - Honda will list the older big filter as a superceded part.
NONSENSE with a capital N.
Guys, if the flange is larger than the oil filter, we know that the oil filter is undersized. We also all know that size is not a direct estimator of the dirt-holding capacity and/or media surface area. However, you must be naïve to think that, for a given filter line, say Fram Ultra, size doesn't directly correlate with the media surface area and dirt-holding capacity and inversely correlate with oil-filter operating pressure.
Here are the photos of the undersized made-in-Thailand Denso 150-1000 (Denso 115010-4160, which is the Denso-branded near-clone of Toyota 90915-YZZF2) and the standard-size Fram PH2951 next to each other.
Here are the photos of the undersized made-in-Thailand Denso 150-1000 (Denso 115010-4160, which is the Denso-branded near-clone of Toyota 90915-YZZF2) and the standard-size Fram PH2951 next to each other.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
We also all know that size is not a direct estimator of the dirt-holding capacity and/or media surface area. However, you must be naïve to think that, for a given filter line, say Fram Ultra, size doesn't directly correlate with the media surface area and dirt-holding capacity and inversely correlate with oil-filter operating pressure.
The only sure way to know the media surface is to cut and measure. L14459 and L14610 come to mind. An L10241 I cut once did not have a lot of media (https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...113#Post3740620)
We also all know that size is not a direct estimator of the dirt-holding capacity and/or media surface area. However, you must be naïve to think that, for a given filter line, say Fram Ultra, size doesn't directly correlate with the media surface area and dirt-holding capacity and inversely correlate with oil-filter operating pressure.
The only sure way to know the media surface is to cut and measure. L14459 and L14610 come to mind. An L10241 I cut once did not have a lot of media (https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...113#Post3740620)
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Guys, if the flange is larger than the oil filter, we know that the oil filter is undersized. We also all know that size is not a direct estimator of the dirt-holding capacity and/or media surface area. However, you must be naïve to think that, for a given filter line, say Fram Ultra, size doesn't directly correlate with the media surface area and dirt-holding capacity and inversely correlate with oil-filter operating pressure.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Dnewton3 - What a breath of fresh air and the voice of reason. I do have a question for you.
Are there any affordable methods to determine when a filter is nearing it's designed capacity?
Cut a few open, and you will find that none of us are ever approaching anything like a small percentage of the dirt holding capacity of our filters when we throw them out.
If you have an engine in reasonable condition, with a decent oil, and a reasonable OCI you never approach any limit.
The OP's "knowledge" on what constitutes "over" and "undersized" filters is more made up definitions that carry no real world meaning.
Guys, if the flange is larger than the oil filter, we know that the oil filter is undersized. We also all know that size is not a direct estimator of the dirt-holding capacity and/or media surface area. However, you must be naïve to think that, for a given filter line, say Fram Ultra, size doesn't directly correlate with the media surface area and dirt-holding capacity and inversely correlate with oil-filter operating pressure.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Dnewton3 - What a breath of fresh air and the voice of reason. I do have a question for you.
Are there any affordable methods to determine when a filter is nearing it's designed capacity?
Cut a few open, and you will find that none of us are ever approaching anything like a small percentage of the dirt holding capacity of our filters when we throw them out.
If you have an engine in reasonable condition, with a decent oil, and a reasonable OCI you never approach any limit.
The OP's "knowledge" on what constitutes "over" and "undersized" filters is more made up definitions that carry no real world meaning.
Some of you missed the main point of this thread.
The dimensions of the original Japanese oil filter for my engine are different than the economical international-markets-distribution low-efficiency made-in-Thailand YZZ filter. Some aftermarket oil filters seem to respect the dimensions of the original filter, while some others use the economical YZZ filter's dimensions. For example Fram lists Mobil 1 M1-102 in their cross-reference database while Mobil 1 lists M1-103. The flange is obviously made for the bigger filter. So, this is a heads-up for those who buy aftermarket oil filters. I've never said that a smaller oil filter wouldn't work. This is an oil thread and people come here for information on best oil and best parts, and this was a useful observation.
The dimensions of the original Japanese oil filter for my engine are different than the economical international-markets-distribution low-efficiency made-in-Thailand YZZ filter. Some aftermarket oil filters seem to respect the dimensions of the original filter, while some others use the economical YZZ filter's dimensions. For example Fram lists Mobil 1 M1-102 in their cross-reference database while Mobil 1 lists M1-103. The flange is obviously made for the bigger filter. So, this is a heads-up for those who buy aftermarket oil filters. I've never said that a smaller oil filter wouldn't work. This is an oil thread and people come here for information on best oil and best parts, and this was a useful observation.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
low-efficiency
What measurements do you have on the filter efficiency ?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
low-efficiency
What measurements do you have on the filter efficiency ?
The internet is loaded with stories of Toyotas blowing engine due to these "undersized" filters. .
No matter where the filter was constructed, a engineer from Toyota in Japan gave the Okay to use that size. Otherwise we would have heard of many problems as there are millions of these engines out in the world. Maybe something in the oil delivery system has changed?
Denso makes quality products regardless of manufacturing origin.
No matter where the filter was constructed, a engineer from Toyota in Japan gave the Okay to use that size. Otherwise we would have heard of many problems as there are millions of these engines out in the world. Maybe something in the oil delivery system has changed?
Denso makes quality products regardless of manufacturing origin.
- Status
