Was curious if anybody has seen info regarding options for fords new fl400s filters? Always used the fl820s with my old mustang but perhaps there is a better options than motorcraft for the new pony?
Last edited:
Ford FLl400S?
- Thread starter buck91
- Start date
- Status
those 2filters you mention wont interchange
I think that the FL910S....and FL400s are interchangeable....the 400s being longer.
I think you are confusing the FL400s with the FL500s. The FL400s had been around awhile, and like was said earlier will not fit a FL820s application.
The FL500s is the new kid on the block, and it matches the FL820s threads. I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s. It is smaller in diameter, longer in length, and has a lower bypass pressure. All of the new Ford V6 & V8 have this filter.
The FL500s is the new kid on the block, and it matches the FL820s threads. I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s. It is smaller in diameter, longer in length, and has a lower bypass pressure. All of the new Ford V6 & V8 have this filter.
Originally Posted By: stranger706
I think you are confusing the FL400s with the FL500s. The FL400s had been around awhile, and like was said earlier will not fit a FL820s application.
The FL500s is the new kid on the block, and it matches the FL820s threads. I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s. It is smaller in diameter, longer in length, and has a lower bypass pressure. All of the new Ford V6 & V8 have this filter.
The 6.2L still uses an FL-820S. The FL-500S isn't replacing the FL-820S from what I can see, some filter makers might replace it on their lookups, have seen a lot of vehicles services by quickie lubes with a tiny filter on a 5.4.
I think you are confusing the FL400s with the FL500s. The FL400s had been around awhile, and like was said earlier will not fit a FL820s application.
The FL500s is the new kid on the block, and it matches the FL820s threads. I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s. It is smaller in diameter, longer in length, and has a lower bypass pressure. All of the new Ford V6 & V8 have this filter.
The 6.2L still uses an FL-820S. The FL-500S isn't replacing the FL-820S from what I can see, some filter makers might replace it on their lookups, have seen a lot of vehicles services by quickie lubes with a tiny filter on a 5.4.
Originally Posted By: stranger706
I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s.
Oh dear, I hope not.
I know the FL500S is being used in a lot of newer applications, but I hope Motorcraft at least give plenty of warning if they intend to discontinue the FL820S, so I have time to get a lifetime supply...
I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s.
Oh dear, I hope not.
I know the FL500S is being used in a lot of newer applications, but I hope Motorcraft at least give plenty of warning if they intend to discontinue the FL820S, so I have time to get a lifetime supply...
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: stranger706
I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s.
Oh dear, I hope not.
I know the FL500S is being used in a lot of newer applications, but I hope Motorcraft at least give plenty of warning if they intend to discontinue the FL820S, so I have time to get a lifetime supply...
While the diameter of the FL820 is somewhat of a PITA when doing an oil change on my Mark VIII, it's a piece of cake on my F250. I may have to stock up.
Originally Posted By: stranger706
I think the FL820s is being phased out in favor of the FL500s.
Oh dear, I hope not.
I know the FL500S is being used in a lot of newer applications, but I hope Motorcraft at least give plenty of warning if they intend to discontinue the FL820S, so I have time to get a lifetime supply...
While the diameter of the FL820 is somewhat of a PITA when doing an oil change on my Mark VIII, it's a piece of cake on my F250. I may have to stock up.
dnewton3
Staff member
I doubt that Ford and the aftermarket are going to "phase out" the FL820S; too many applications. What we might see is the preference of the market to move to the FL500S.
I, for one, given a choice, prefer a smaller diameter; easier to get my mitts around when installing/removing the filter.
What many people fail to realize is that most filters will do a fine job in a wide range of applications. Why there are so many filters on the market is beyond me. The complexity of manufacturing and stocking is bewildering.
The Wix is a 57502 with a bypass pressure of 8psi (listed).
The Wix 51372 has a bypass of 16psi (listed), and is slightly larger in diameter, but essentially the same height. The beta data is about the same.
The Purolator L22500 is their replecement for the FL500S, and it has a bypass of 15.5psi (yes, that's not my typo; that's 15.5 psi). Really? As if they could control the bypass opening to the 1/2 psi???????? Most filters give a "range" of 8-11, 12-16, etc. Purolator has figured out the bypass to the nearest 1/2 psi?
The Purolator L24651 fits the FL820S apps. It has a bypass of 8-16psi. That's a 100% variance in bypass listing.
And yet, all four of those filters would likely do a fine job, presuming they would physically fit in the space. The FL500S is smaller in diameter, and therefore could likely fit where a FL820S would not. And I HIGHLY suspect that there is no significant performance difference in normal applications. Often, similar filters might show a tiny difference in ISO ratings in a lab, but when you put the filter on an engine, the wear metals don't show any statistical difference in actual lifecycle of the equipment. Using a high-end filter over an el-cheapo probably makes an important difference, but worrying over the FL820S vs. FL500S is just moot.
Where I see value is in the commonization of filters; having as few as possible that do a job more than well enough. It's conceptually the same as having one oil that can cover many apps. You might have a car running 5w-20, a van with 5w-30 and a truck with 10w-30. But the 5w-30 would likely cover them all, and while not "optimum", it would provide sufficient protection that could not be distinguished in the real world data, otherwise.
I know BITOGers sweat the small stuff; I get it - it's what we do. But the reality of these applications don't manifest into a "better" filter saving an engine from doom, nor a percieved "lesser" filter in condeming an engine to mechanical demise. I can see the quest for getting good value out of a filter; I cannot see the logic of turmoil over such tiny nuances that don't equate to performance differences in the real world.
I, for one, given a choice, prefer a smaller diameter; easier to get my mitts around when installing/removing the filter.
What many people fail to realize is that most filters will do a fine job in a wide range of applications. Why there are so many filters on the market is beyond me. The complexity of manufacturing and stocking is bewildering.
The Wix is a 57502 with a bypass pressure of 8psi (listed).
The Wix 51372 has a bypass of 16psi (listed), and is slightly larger in diameter, but essentially the same height. The beta data is about the same.
The Purolator L22500 is their replecement for the FL500S, and it has a bypass of 15.5psi (yes, that's not my typo; that's 15.5 psi). Really? As if they could control the bypass opening to the 1/2 psi???????? Most filters give a "range" of 8-11, 12-16, etc. Purolator has figured out the bypass to the nearest 1/2 psi?
The Purolator L24651 fits the FL820S apps. It has a bypass of 8-16psi. That's a 100% variance in bypass listing.
And yet, all four of those filters would likely do a fine job, presuming they would physically fit in the space. The FL500S is smaller in diameter, and therefore could likely fit where a FL820S would not. And I HIGHLY suspect that there is no significant performance difference in normal applications. Often, similar filters might show a tiny difference in ISO ratings in a lab, but when you put the filter on an engine, the wear metals don't show any statistical difference in actual lifecycle of the equipment. Using a high-end filter over an el-cheapo probably makes an important difference, but worrying over the FL820S vs. FL500S is just moot.
Where I see value is in the commonization of filters; having as few as possible that do a job more than well enough. It's conceptually the same as having one oil that can cover many apps. You might have a car running 5w-20, a van with 5w-30 and a truck with 10w-30. But the 5w-30 would likely cover them all, and while not "optimum", it would provide sufficient protection that could not be distinguished in the real world data, otherwise.
I know BITOGers sweat the small stuff; I get it - it's what we do. But the reality of these applications don't manifest into a "better" filter saving an engine from doom, nor a percieved "lesser" filter in condeming an engine to mechanical demise. I can see the quest for getting good value out of a filter; I cannot see the logic of turmoil over such tiny nuances that don't equate to performance differences in the real world.
Last edited:
I think the OP is asking what other filter brands and models are available that match the FL400S specs.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
I think the OP is asking what other filter brands and models are available that match the FL400S specs.
I think we've deduced that he might have been referring to the FL500S, however, he hasn't clarified that yet.
And as for "other filter brands and models" that are available, there is a cross-ref in just about every major brand website I know of for Wix, Purolator, Fram, Champion, Bosch, Baldwin, Donaldson, Amsoil, etc.
He was searching for "better options than motorcraft", but like most people, he hasn't defined what "better" means ....
As our dear departed Gary would have noted, there is a filtration triangle that one cannot avert:
size?
efficiency?
longevity?
and there is also cost to consider?
He wants something different, but he has no idea of what that means nor how to define it. I would contend that there's nothing wrong with the OEM spec'd filter, nor many other "nearly same as" filters.
I think the OP is asking what other filter brands and models are available that match the FL400S specs.
I think we've deduced that he might have been referring to the FL500S, however, he hasn't clarified that yet.
And as for "other filter brands and models" that are available, there is a cross-ref in just about every major brand website I know of for Wix, Purolator, Fram, Champion, Bosch, Baldwin, Donaldson, Amsoil, etc.
He was searching for "better options than motorcraft", but like most people, he hasn't defined what "better" means ....
As our dear departed Gary would have noted, there is a filtration triangle that one cannot avert:
size?
efficiency?
longevity?
and there is also cost to consider?
He wants something different, but he has no idea of what that means nor how to define it. I would contend that there's nothing wrong with the OEM spec'd filter, nor many other "nearly same as" filters.
Last edited:
Wow, completely forgot I posted this. Anyways, I must have been a bit ambiguous because it seems only a few people took my actual meaning. My old Mustang used the 820 while the new one (sold the old one, I'm not that lucky) is spec'd for the FL400S (four hundred) and I am asking if sticking with motorcraft is the best bet with this or if there is a better filter for less money available?
Originally Posted By: buck91
I am asking if sticking with motorcraft is the best bet with this or if there is a better filter for less money available?
Sounds like you went from a V8 to a V6.
Anyway, it's tough to beat the value of a Motorcraft filter, especially if your local WM sells them. Plus, you have the advantage of the bypass valve on the thread end instead of the dome, although in the real world it probably doesn't matter that much.
I am asking if sticking with motorcraft is the best bet with this or if there is a better filter for less money available?
Sounds like you went from a V8 to a V6.
Anyway, it's tough to beat the value of a Motorcraft filter, especially if your local WM sells them. Plus, you have the advantage of the bypass valve on the thread end instead of the dome, although in the real world it probably doesn't matter that much.
Originally Posted By: buck91
Wow, completely forgot I posted this. Anyways, I must have been a bit ambiguous because it seems only a few people took my actual meaning. My old Mustang used the 820 while the new one (sold the old one, I'm not that lucky) is spec'd for the FL400S (four hundred) and I am asking if sticking with motorcraft is the best bet with this or if there is a better filter for less money available?
Short answer good luck in finding one. I am happy with Motorcraft filters.
Wow, completely forgot I posted this. Anyways, I must have been a bit ambiguous because it seems only a few people took my actual meaning. My old Mustang used the 820 while the new one (sold the old one, I'm not that lucky) is spec'd for the FL400S (four hundred) and I am asking if sticking with motorcraft is the best bet with this or if there is a better filter for less money available?
Short answer good luck in finding one. I am happy with Motorcraft filters.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: buck91
Wow, completely forgot I posted this. Anyways, I must have been a bit ambiguous because it seems only a few people took my actual meaning. My old Mustang used the 820 while the new one (sold the old one, I'm not that lucky) is spec'd for the FL400S (four hundred) and I am asking if sticking with motorcraft is the best bet with this or if there is a better filter for less money available?
To be honest your first post was a bit misleading, at least to me. The two filters do NOT interchange, so the point is moot. I guess we all focused on the filter characteristics aspect, and not the brand aspect. I, for one, apologize for going off course; my mistake.
If you want to know if there are "better" filters than MC, then you'll be hard pressed to find such at the prices WalMart offers. There are filters that have greater efficiency, but they certainly cost more as well. PureOne, EaO, M1, BD+, etc all come to mind as high end premium filters.
For "normal" OEM OCI durations though, it's hard to beat the standard filters from Purolator, MC, Wix/NG, etc for the price. The reality that escapes most people is that "normal" filters do a great job for "normal" OCI durations. Many premium filters can show superior efficiency performance in the lab ISO testing protocol, but in the crankcase, you'll never be able to distinguish the difference in a UOA, contrasting the two options in "normal/severe" (non-extended OCI) service. The point? You don't "need" a premium filter when a normal filter does a job more than well enough.
I have no idea why your old Mustang is gone (rust, accident, trade from boredom, gift to realtive, etc). Ask yourself these questions:
Did the old ride have an engine that simply wore out from using a "normal" filter? (I seriously doubt it did). Would you have been able to double or triple the lifecycle of the engine, to equate to 2x or 3x the cost of premium filters? (Probably not). Then why would it stand to reason that a premium filter is needed? (Hint - the answer is in the question) ....
Just know that there is no "best" filter for all applications, but there are many "good" filters that can fit into most all applications.
Choosing a filter is only but one part of an overall maintenance program. The lube and filter should compliment each other, and work in the overall OCI scheme. There is no logic to changing oil at normal OEM limits, but using a synthetic oil and/or a premium filter. They are overkill and a waste of money in the application. Synthetics and premium filtration are tools to extend your lube OCI lifecycle. If you're not going to do that, then they are a total waste of money.
There is nothing wrong with using any decent brand name, properly spec'd filter for your new ride, if you're simply going to follow OEM OCI limits. Don't spend time trying to find the "best" filter; rather, spend your time trying to locate the "best buy" from many filters.
Wow, completely forgot I posted this. Anyways, I must have been a bit ambiguous because it seems only a few people took my actual meaning. My old Mustang used the 820 while the new one (sold the old one, I'm not that lucky) is spec'd for the FL400S (four hundred) and I am asking if sticking with motorcraft is the best bet with this or if there is a better filter for less money available?
To be honest your first post was a bit misleading, at least to me. The two filters do NOT interchange, so the point is moot. I guess we all focused on the filter characteristics aspect, and not the brand aspect. I, for one, apologize for going off course; my mistake.
If you want to know if there are "better" filters than MC, then you'll be hard pressed to find such at the prices WalMart offers. There are filters that have greater efficiency, but they certainly cost more as well. PureOne, EaO, M1, BD+, etc all come to mind as high end premium filters.
For "normal" OEM OCI durations though, it's hard to beat the standard filters from Purolator, MC, Wix/NG, etc for the price. The reality that escapes most people is that "normal" filters do a great job for "normal" OCI durations. Many premium filters can show superior efficiency performance in the lab ISO testing protocol, but in the crankcase, you'll never be able to distinguish the difference in a UOA, contrasting the two options in "normal/severe" (non-extended OCI) service. The point? You don't "need" a premium filter when a normal filter does a job more than well enough.
I have no idea why your old Mustang is gone (rust, accident, trade from boredom, gift to realtive, etc). Ask yourself these questions:
Did the old ride have an engine that simply wore out from using a "normal" filter? (I seriously doubt it did). Would you have been able to double or triple the lifecycle of the engine, to equate to 2x or 3x the cost of premium filters? (Probably not). Then why would it stand to reason that a premium filter is needed? (Hint - the answer is in the question) ....
Just know that there is no "best" filter for all applications, but there are many "good" filters that can fit into most all applications.
Choosing a filter is only but one part of an overall maintenance program. The lube and filter should compliment each other, and work in the overall OCI scheme. There is no logic to changing oil at normal OEM limits, but using a synthetic oil and/or a premium filter. They are overkill and a waste of money in the application. Synthetics and premium filtration are tools to extend your lube OCI lifecycle. If you're not going to do that, then they are a total waste of money.
There is nothing wrong with using any decent brand name, properly spec'd filter for your new ride, if you're simply going to follow OEM OCI limits. Don't spend time trying to find the "best" filter; rather, spend your time trying to locate the "best buy" from many filters.
Last edited:
The FL400S is one of the best low-priced filters available-made by Purolator, with Classic-style media, SILICONE anti-drainback valve, for around $4 from WM or AZ-I use them myself!
My local WM has stopped carrying the Motorcraft filters. I don't think you can beat the price/value equation of the FL400S without finding some premium filters on sale or with rebates. You might be a able to save a few cents by purchasing Purolator Classics at your local WM, but it isn't quite the filter the FL400S is (no silicone ADBV).
Thanks guys. Sounds like the concensus is that the MC FL400S is the best bang for the buck in this application!
- Status
