MC FL-820s [Two Cut Open] 6480 and 8285 miles

[CarbonSteel]

These are from my last two OCs with Mobil Super 5000 in 5W-20 SN. I think both of these filters are in good shape, which is not really surprising as they are specified to go 7,500 miles under the normal operation schedule according to Ford.

BlueOvalFitter was concerned that his MS5K was turning dark after 1200 or so miles. The pictures of the oil spots are from the 8285 OC for him to compare to his.

Enjoy!

Motorcraft FL-820s – 6480 miles-1:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 6480 miles-2:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 6480 miles-3:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 6480 miles-4:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 6480 miles-5:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 8285 miles-1:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 8285 miles-2:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 8285 miles-3:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 8285 miles-4:

Motorcraft FL-820s – 8285 miles-5:

Oil Spot -1

Oil Spot-2:

 

[LeakySeals]

Where exactly were the oil samples taken from?

 

[MarkStock]

Nice to see the FL820S pleats staying in great shape after so many miles.

For my Ford I have a choice to make in March.

I have 5 quarts of QSUD 5w20 and about 11 quarts of Synpower 5w30. The vehicle needs 6 quarts and is spec'd for 5w20.

I have a FL820S and a Bosch Premium equivalent.

I don't have any other vehicles that can use these oils and filters.

Currently running QSUD 5w30 and Bosch Premium on one year / 5000 mile ocis. Had previously run Synpower 5w30 and FL820s.

I have to say, it seems to be running better with QS and Bosch Premium.

 

[LeakySeals]

I was able to find the efficiency for the FL820S, its 93.7 @20

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Where exactly were the oil samples taken from?

Do you mean for the oil spots on the paper towel?

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
I was able to find the efficiency for the FL820S, its 93.7 @20


Yes I think I read your original post on this subject. Thanks.

This is the reason I won't be buying the FL820s again. I think that this is too low a level of efficiency compared to the similarily priced alternatives (Pure One / Bosch Premium for $5 or less).

Of course, I don't know for sure how levels of efficiency relate to engine wear. That's largely proprietary information. And the fact that Toyota engines are hugely reliable while having the worst OEM filters, also makes Motorcraft specs seem just fine.

But if there is no real cost disadvantage to having an even greater margin of safety, then that's the course I like to take.

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Where exactly were the oil samples taken from?

Do you mean for the oil spots on the paper towel?


yeah, if you collected it from the stick, filter, pan, etc. Not sure it matters, just curious.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
This is the reason I won't be buying the FL820s again. I think that this is too low a level of efficiency compared to the similarily priced alternatives (Pure One / Bosch Premium for $5 or less).

Honestly, with modular engines running 300K+ on a myriad of filters and oil, I do not think it matters in the slightest the difference between 93.7 and 99.9 at 20um. As to the price, well I stacked a coupon a while back at AAP and scored 15 FL-820s them for $2.29 each out the door. I do understand your thoughts on it, but the differences lost or gained are probably minuscule.

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
BlueOvalFitter was concerned that his MS5K was turning dark after 1200 or so miles.


Well in some ways, that is good because the oil is suspending carbon.

Secondly, the carbon that turns oil black, is very small. 0.4 microns on something like that. So apparently, most oil filters won't capture it.

However, it is a fact that something with 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns (Pure One / Bosch Premium) will also capture smaller particles (at a far lower level of efficiency) at a great rate than a filter with a 93.7% efficiency (FL820s).

Additionally, as a filter loads up, it becomes more efficient at capturing particles of all sizes.

The actual difference between 93.7% efficiency vs 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns is huge. It's 73 particles per 1000 getting through vs 1. So 73 times worse / better.

So you can imagine how many particles of a smaller size are getting through, and the comparative difference will be even greater.

I have to say that at 3000 miles, the oil on my Ford with a Bosch Premium on it for the first time, looks way better than it ever has with a FL820s.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Where exactly were the oil samples taken from?

Do you mean for the oil spots on the paper towel?

yeah, if you collected it from the stick, filter, pan, etc. Not sure it matters, just curious.

The filter was still full of oil, so I let a few drops hit the paper towel. The dark spot is fully saturated (it is folded in two or three).

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
The actual difference between 93.7% efficiency vs 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns is huge. It's 73 particles per 1000 getting through vs 1. So 73 times worse / better.

I understand the mathematical difference, but what does it mean in the real world? There are too many modular engines that have lasted 300K with any number of filters that are likely not 99.9% @ 20um for it to matter that much.

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: MarkStock
This is the reason I won't be buying the FL820s again. I think that this is too low a level of efficiency compared to the similarily priced alternatives (Pure One / Bosch Premium for $5 or less).

Honestly, with modular engines running 300K+ on a myriad of filters and oil, I do not think it matters in the slightest the difference between 93.7 and 99.9 at 20um. As to the price, well I stacked a coupon a while back at AAP and scored 15 FL-820s them for $2.29 each out the door. I do understand your thoughts on it, but the differences lost or gained are probably minuscule.


I don't doubt the evidence, but it's not empirical enough. There are millions of these engines, and some of them get to 100k, 200k, 300k having gone through all sorts of experiences and maintenance regimes.

We need to take a good sample of them and, using sound statistical methods, figure out what was most common in terms of their longevity.

Additionally, there are many that have failed, and we need to use the same statistical methods on those as well.

This is why I say the information is largely proprietary. The manufacturers run these tests and analyze the results statistically. For all we know, there is a point at which they equate 93.7% oil filter efficiency together with 90% air filter efficiency to an engine life that is long enough so that the average customer will be happy, so that their image won't suffer, but so they will generate enough new sales and / or maintenance.

Toyota may have made their engines so reliable that they dropped their filter efficiency down to 50% to compensate.

I really don't know on what basis they feel all of these things to be acceptable.

What I do know is that engines need clean air and that particles between 5 and 15 microns cause engine damage. So filters that filter air better without restricting air flow, and oil filters that are significantly more efficient at 20 microns which makes them significantly more efficient between 5-15 microns, are prudent steps to take in my opinion.

 

[MarkStock]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: MarkStock
The actual difference between 93.7% efficiency vs 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns is huge. It's 73 particles per 1000 getting through vs 1. So 73 times worse / better.

I understand the mathematical difference, but what does it mean in the real world? There are too many modular engines that have lasted 300K with any number of filters that are likely not 99.9% @ 20um for it to matter that much.


I don't doubt these engines exist, but the fact that they exist does not empirically prove a likelihood of one thing over another. You need sound statistical methods to prove such things. Manufacturers do these studies, and the information is proprietary. We don't know what trade offs they have made in their specifications and what their motivations for those trade offs were.

 

[volk06]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: MarkStock
The actual difference between 93.7% efficiency vs 99.9% efficiency at 20 microns is huge. It's 73 particles per 1000 getting through vs 1. So 73 times worse / better.

I understand the mathematical difference, but what does it mean in the real world? There are too many modular engines that have lasted 300K with any number of filters that are likely not 99.9% @ 20um for it to matter that much.


I don't doubt these engines exist, but the fact that they exist does not empirically prove a likelihood of one thing over another. You need sound statistical methods to prove such things. Manufacturers do these studies, and the information is proprietary. We don't know what trade offs they have made in their specifications and what their motivations for those trade offs were.


If Ford has this data then 93.7% must be the number for a reason...

 

[MarkStock]

Don't forget that it was 80% once, and it went to 93.7% around the time the FL820s became the filter for some newer models.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
I don't doubt these engines exist, but the fact that they exist does not empirically prove a likelihood of one thing over another. You need sound statistical methods to prove such things. Manufacturers do these studies, and the information is proprietary. We don't know what trade offs they have made in their specifications and what their motivations for those trade offs were.

I can appreciate the need for the method behind the madness regarding the statistical data, but "how much is enough"? I am not trying to sway your opinion, just stating that I am skeptical it means a great deal in the real world based upon what I see regarding longevity on these engines. I suppose I will find out in the next few years as I plan to use Fl-820s filters until the 5.4L in my truck needs to be rebuilt. I have enough now for 22 OCs @ 8K to 9K is 176K to 198K and added to the nearly 90K I already have should push me nearly to the 300K point.

 

[LeakySeals]

LOL! No wonder your hacking one open! thanks again for the sacrifice.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock


This is the reason I won't be buying the FL820s again. I think that this is too low a level of efficiency compared to the similarily priced alternatives (Pure One / Bosch Premium for $5 or less).

Of course, I don't know for sure how levels of efficiency relate to engine wear. That's largely proprietary information. And the fact that Toyota engines are hugely reliable while having the worst OEM filters, also makes Motorcraft specs seem just fine.

But if there is no real cost disadvantage to having an even greater margin of safety, then that's the course I like to take.


For the 5% difference in efficiency, I'd rather go with the bypass in the base of the filter. While I'm guessing it makes as little difference as that 5% difference, I figure they spec'd the bypass in that location for a reason. It's funny, I actually stopped using the 820S and went to the 820 Racing, but after seeing the 94% efficiency I decided to use up the remaining filters I had laying around. I agree, cost really isn't an issue, but if the 820S filter fits I think it's about as good as it gets unless you go up to a wire-backed synthetic media.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: MarkStock
Currently running QSUD 5w30 and Bosch Premium on one year / 5000 mile ocis.

What engine is this? I should think that you could go much longer than 5K on QSUD?

 

[Jim Allen]

The FL820S is an excellent $4-5 (or $2.99) filter, safe at least to about 8K miles but the efficiency is on the low side (we won't debate numbers just yet). The P1 is an excellent $5-6 filter safe for at least 10K miles and the efficiency is excellent. But the XG2 is an excellent $7-9 filter (I just got some XG2s on sale for $7!) good for at least 15K miles also with excellent efficiency.

I'm working towards 15K (at least) OCIs so I need a long life filter (30 grams capacity) and am happy to find a very good one at $7-9. Also very happy it's got such good efficiency.

As to efficiency, I think there is a plateau where wear levels off at a fairly low level. Anecdotally, that would seem to be at around the place where the FL820S is... about 98% @ 25-30um for most engines. The saving grace is that modern engines don't generate the amount of junk older engines used to so enhanced filtration doesn't usually cut the ROI mustard. Diesels are an exception to that because we still have soot monsters, so I think there is still a good payoff for some diesels with improved filtration if you want a longer OCI.

Even if I wasn't going for a long OCI, I'd probably still gravitate to a more efficient filter if the extra cost wasn't astronomic. A P1 maybe. Even a Puro classic has better efficiency than the MC. FYI, I place little importance on the location of the bypass valve and have frequently expounded on why, so I won't do so again. I consider it "nice to have" but not a primary element.