Fordnatics List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Shel Belinkoff <(email redacted)>



On Mon, 12 Sep 1994, Et3 Donaca wrote:
>
> > Naoki , you might try to find a filter listed for a motorhome or a van to go
> > on the same type of motor . They are usually about halph as long as a normal
> > filter , to allow clearance for the power steering belt . I have always been
> > sure to change the filter more often than normal due to the reduced surface
> > area of the filter element , but it does give more clearance around the filter
> >

I have done some research into oil filters, and it should
be noted that you cannot determine the amount of filtering
media based on the size of the cannister. For example, using
a standard Ford FL-1A as a test, the following differences
between compatable filters were observed:



Make P/N Element Size
-------------------------------------------
Fram PH8A 40 folds - 214 sq.in.
K-mart K-1 48 folds - 304 sq.in.
Motorcraft FL-1A 54 folds - 316 sq.in.
Purolator PER-1A 57 folds - 330 sq.in.
STP SO-1 51 folds - 320 sq.in.
STP STP-1 53 folds - 332 sq.in.
Wix 51515 80 folds - 474 sq.in

Shel Belinkoff
(email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Minh Lang)


> I have done some research into oil filters, and it should
> be noted that you cannot determine the amount of filtering
> media based on the size of the cannister. For example, using
> a standard Ford FL-1A as a test, the following differences
> between compatable filters were observed:
>
>
>
> Make P/N Element Size
> -------------------------------------------
> Fram PH8A 40 folds - 214 sq.in.
> K-mart K-1 48 folds - 304 sq.in.
> Motorcraft FL-1A 54 folds - 316 sq.in.
> Purolator PER-1A 57 folds - 330 sq.in.
> STP SO-1 51 folds - 320 sq.in.
> STP STP-1 53 folds - 332 sq.in.
> Wix 51515 80 folds - 474 sq.in
>
> Shel Belinkoff
> (email redacted)

Can we assume that the one that has the largest element size is
the best? Or it also depends how well those elements filter the
oil? From the above list, it looks like the popular FRAM is
a piece of junk?

- Minh -

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: chucko (Chuck Fry)

A lot was made of that C*ns*m*r R*p*rts article about oil filters, from
which the surface area numbers were presumably taken. Surface area is
just one measure of a filter's quality; it says nothing about the filter
media (some critical specs are the minimum particle size captured, total
capacity, and pressure drop), the quality of construction, how the
filter media reacts with alternative fuels, etc.

As it happens, my father is an executive for a company that supplies
filter media to several large filter makers. He mentioned that they had
begun supplying a new type of filter paper to one of these manufacturers
for its regular production filters, and it was a success; it was very
effective at removing small particles, and was not too expensive to
manufacture. The filter maker then tried the same stuff in its racing
filters, and it was a disaster. It turned out that alcohol fuels
attacked the paper's resins, turning it to mush and causing fibers to be
released into the oil! The filter maker had to revert to their previous
medium for the race filter. (Yes, I know the brand name; no, I'm not
telling.)

Another filter maker was both disturbed and pleased about the CR
article: disturbed because it showed a complete lack of knowledge about
what makes one filter better than another in actual use, pleased because
their filter did well in the results!

I've been trying to pry some more detailed information out of Dad for
years, but somehow we never seem to find the time. I'm trying to get
him an email account...

I'd love to see *authoritative* information comparing filters, parts,
etc. I consider SAE to be authoritative. I consider CR (when talking
about technical issues) to be one step above the unwashed masses in
rec.autos.tech.

-- Chuck

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (Dave Williams)


-> just one measure of a filter's quality; it says nothing about the
-> filter media (some critical specs are the minimum particle size

Higher-quality filters used to use laminated or multiple layer media.


-> filters, and it was a disaster. It turned out that alcohol fuels
-> attacked the paper's resins, turning it to mush and causing fibers to

Disturbing, considering 15% alcohol "gasoline" at the pump, not to
mention M80 in some areas, and Baud-knows-what MTBE, ETBE, and probably
toe jam in most other gasolines.


-> I consider SAE to be authoritative.

The British IMechE typically submits papers for peer review; IMechE
papers are damned hard to get on this side of the pond. The SAE, on the
other hand, will print just about anything you care to write, since
they're in the business of selling memberships and papers.

Spinning off topic for a moment, have you ever considered how much
money the SAE rakes in? My dues are $65/yr. Papers... we won't even
discuss that. Profit margin on their book publications is on the order
of 95%. They charge for meetings and conventions, and then still have
the big brass cojones to send me NRA-style begging letters. Expenses
are practically zero. Most of your "professional societies" are highly
profitable, but the SAE is cock of the walk.