THe pressure to supply smaller filters comes from car makers fighting for packaging space under the hood. An engineer friend who worked for a filter company told me they would get, on a regular basis, "factory" requests to meet a minimum filter performance spec in smaller and smaller packages. I used PH 8s on a Volvo which spec'ed PH 16s for about 240K. Perhaps it was "bad" for something, but I never noticed. As I have mentioned Toyota went from a PL 14476 to the bigger Pl 14477 in the 4 cyl Camry in 2002 and then back spec'ed it to the earlier cars.
Reasons NOT to go with an Over-sized filter?
- Thread starter dkryan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: dparm
Devil's advocate here...if the larger filter fits and is "better" (however you want to define that), why wouldn't the manufacturer have used it in the first place?
The Mo-090 (Fram xx16) is the spec'd filter for my Jeep. Chrysler designed the filter and Fram built their product around that. The FL1A (Fram xx8a) was built for older Fords and Fram built their product around that. Mopar vs. Motorcraft. 3/4-16 is just a popular thread size and the bypass specs are fairly universal. (or exact in this case.) Same with the FL400s. Chrysler doesn't recognize the filter because its not for their products. Motorcraft most likely doesnt spec the FL1A for a FL400s application because of fitment issues.
Long story short, the different sized filters with same bypass and thread spec's are for different vehicle makes and deemed non existant to other car manufactures.
From what i can tell, the 3.8 in the Wrangler JK is spec'd for the smaller version of the Mo-090 only because of a fitment issue. The Chrysler vans up to a certain year are still spec'd for the Mo-090 IIRC.
I have the Ultra XG8A on the 4.0 XJ in my sig, it would probably be fine until the can rusted out, it's a bit better than a PH18 or MO-090.
Originally Posted By: dparm
Devil's advocate here...if the larger filter fits and is "better" (however you want to define that), why wouldn't the manufacturer have used it in the first place?
The Mo-090 (Fram xx16) is the spec'd filter for my Jeep. Chrysler designed the filter and Fram built their product around that. The FL1A (Fram xx8a) was built for older Fords and Fram built their product around that. Mopar vs. Motorcraft. 3/4-16 is just a popular thread size and the bypass specs are fairly universal. (or exact in this case.) Same with the FL400s. Chrysler doesn't recognize the filter because its not for their products. Motorcraft most likely doesnt spec the FL1A for a FL400s application because of fitment issues.
Long story short, the different sized filters with same bypass and thread spec's are for different vehicle makes and deemed non existant to other car manufactures.
From what i can tell, the 3.8 in the Wrangler JK is spec'd for the smaller version of the Mo-090 only because of a fitment issue. The Chrysler vans up to a certain year are still spec'd for the Mo-090 IIRC.
I have the Ultra XG8A on the 4.0 XJ in my sig, it would probably be fine until the can rusted out, it's a bit better than a PH18 or MO-090.
Originally Posted By: dparm
Devil's advocate here...if the larger filter fits and is "better" (however you want to define that), why wouldn't the manufacturer have used it in the first place?
Why would an auto maker use 195 70 14 tires on a car when 205 65 15s would fit and last longer? Does a large filter benefit the auto maker or the owner?
Devil's advocate here...if the larger filter fits and is "better" (however you want to define that), why wouldn't the manufacturer have used it in the first place?
Why would an auto maker use 195 70 14 tires on a car when 205 65 15s would fit and last longer? Does a large filter benefit the auto maker or the owner?
Last edited:
Larger filters take longer to fill, so on the initial start-up, or if the ADBV leaks and the filter does not gravity fill, it takes longer for the engine to reach operaturing oil pressure.
^^^ I didn't think of this ... this is true (except for those who can pre-fill their oil filters, but not everyone can do this depending on the position of the filter). I've thought about running a larger oil filter a couple times, but I never did it because I wanted to be safe and just run the exact one specified for my car.
I thought this too, but with a fully operational ADBV that shouldnt be an issue.
Initially it will take longer to fill after the oil change, but honestly I cant see it being enough to matter. How many gallons per minute does the average oil pump crank out?
Initially it will take longer to fill after the oil change, but honestly I cant see it being enough to matter. How many gallons per minute does the average oil pump crank out?
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Main reason, if something filter related happens to the engine, filter warranty would not apply. Also, if under vehicle manufacturer warranty, same thing could be an issue. I'll add not a likely event, but needs to be noted.
In an oil related warranty claim the manufacturer would have to prove the filter caused the damage even if the filter is not on a cross-reference list. The manufacturer can not specify restrictions on parts substitutions except under very specific circumstances.
I was stated by a GM rep at a SEMA show that they install a filter at the factory that does "the job'. He went on to say that a larger filter installed by the owner is a useful upgrade. The owner does not have to deal with budget and cost constraint issues faced by the manufacturer that deals with hundreds of thousands of vehicles, just the vehicle they own.
Main reason, if something filter related happens to the engine, filter warranty would not apply. Also, if under vehicle manufacturer warranty, same thing could be an issue. I'll add not a likely event, but needs to be noted.
In an oil related warranty claim the manufacturer would have to prove the filter caused the damage even if the filter is not on a cross-reference list. The manufacturer can not specify restrictions on parts substitutions except under very specific circumstances.
I was stated by a GM rep at a SEMA show that they install a filter at the factory that does "the job'. He went on to say that a larger filter installed by the owner is a useful upgrade. The owner does not have to deal with budget and cost constraint issues faced by the manufacturer that deals with hundreds of thousands of vehicles, just the vehicle they own.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Main reason, if something filter related happens to the engine, filter warranty would not apply. Also, if under vehicle manufacturer warranty, same thing could be an issue. I'll add not a likely event, but needs to be noted.
In an oil related warranty claim the manufacturer would have to prove the filter caused the damage even if the filter is not on a cross-reference list. The manufacturer can not specify restrictions on parts substitutions except under very specific circumstances.......
Two separate warranties were being addressed in my quote. The first is the filter warranty which only applies to the spec'd filter. That means as said, if an engine failure is caused by the filter or even suspected, there is no coverage from the filter manufacturer. Said several times in this forum, first thing a filter manufacturer checks when a filter related claim occurs is for the correct filter application. Non spec filter used, filter warranty claim is denied. In the event of no vehicle warranty, this means the owner is on his own and likely not to collect a dime. That warranty is pretty cut and dried.
The second would be if there also a vehicle warranty in effect. While the dealer would have to prove the the non spec filter caused the engine damage/failure, using a non spec filter is a likely first step the dealer will look to blame. Even spec aftermarket filters frequently get blamed for engine issues by dealers. And, while the dealer/manufacturer would have to prove it, who has the deeper pockets to fight such a claim if it goes to court. Most times it's the dealer and vehicle manufacturer. Again, unlikely event but the OP asked for any considerations for not oversizing.
In the OP's case, when it comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/141610, I consider it more of a 'sensible upsize' as opposed to a major oversize. The latter size is ~1/2" longer and all the rest of the specs are the same. Same goes for their SAE thread counterparts the 4967/14476 to the 4386/14477. I'd upsize either of the small applications if room permitted.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Main reason, if something filter related happens to the engine, filter warranty would not apply. Also, if under vehicle manufacturer warranty, same thing could be an issue. I'll add not a likely event, but needs to be noted.
In an oil related warranty claim the manufacturer would have to prove the filter caused the damage even if the filter is not on a cross-reference list. The manufacturer can not specify restrictions on parts substitutions except under very specific circumstances.......
Two separate warranties were being addressed in my quote. The first is the filter warranty which only applies to the spec'd filter. That means as said, if an engine failure is caused by the filter or even suspected, there is no coverage from the filter manufacturer. Said several times in this forum, first thing a filter manufacturer checks when a filter related claim occurs is for the correct filter application. Non spec filter used, filter warranty claim is denied. In the event of no vehicle warranty, this means the owner is on his own and likely not to collect a dime. That warranty is pretty cut and dried.
The second would be if there also a vehicle warranty in effect. While the dealer would have to prove the the non spec filter caused the engine damage/failure, using a non spec filter is a likely first step the dealer will look to blame. Even spec aftermarket filters frequently get blamed for engine issues by dealers. And, while the dealer/manufacturer would have to prove it, who has the deeper pockets to fight such a claim if it goes to court. Most times it's the dealer and vehicle manufacturer. Again, unlikely event but the OP asked for any considerations for not oversizing.
In the OP's case, when it comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/141610, I consider it more of a 'sensible upsize' as opposed to a major oversize. The latter size is ~1/2" longer and all the rest of the specs are the same. Same goes for their SAE thread counterparts the 4967/14476 to the 4386/14477. I'd upsize either of the small applications if room permitted.
Originally Posted By: tommygunn
@HerrStig, how/why would a 205/65-15 tire last longer than 195/70-14? In fact, in many cases both the above sizes would be available for the same car, like the 90s Camry.
Entirely different reasoning from the oil filters.
THe 205 60 is the same height but wider and has a higher load capacity. Now we can argue compound ansd construction all night but based on my experience the 15 will last longer. BTW, I know Gen 4 Camrys inside and out and have upgraded to 15 on two of them to deal with the lousy handling the 14s provided. In 2001, BTW, Toyota went to 15s on all the 4 cyl Camrys and 16s on the V6.
@HerrStig, how/why would a 205/65-15 tire last longer than 195/70-14? In fact, in many cases both the above sizes would be available for the same car, like the 90s Camry.
Entirely different reasoning from the oil filters.
THe 205 60 is the same height but wider and has a higher load capacity. Now we can argue compound ansd construction all night but based on my experience the 15 will last longer. BTW, I know Gen 4 Camrys inside and out and have upgraded to 15 on two of them to deal with the lousy handling the 14s provided. In 2001, BTW, Toyota went to 15s on all the 4 cyl Camrys and 16s on the V6.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dlundblad
I thought this too, but with a fully operational ADBV that shouldnt be an issue.
Initially it will take longer to fill after the oil change, but honestly I cant see it being enough to matter. How many gallons per minute does the average oil pump crank out?
At start-up and idle RPM, not a ton, but enough to fill an oil filter and the pressurize the oiling system in 3 or 4 seconds normally. The difference between the oil pressure light going out on my car with a pre-filled filter vs a bone dry filter is about 1~2 seconds.
I thought this too, but with a fully operational ADBV that shouldnt be an issue.
Initially it will take longer to fill after the oil change, but honestly I cant see it being enough to matter. How many gallons per minute does the average oil pump crank out?
At start-up and idle RPM, not a ton, but enough to fill an oil filter and the pressurize the oiling system in 3 or 4 seconds normally. The difference between the oil pressure light going out on my car with a pre-filled filter vs a bone dry filter is about 1~2 seconds.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
So what if you go from a 20 psid bypass to a 8 psid bypass?
It's possible the oil filter would go into bypass much more and much earlier as it loaded up with crud and the delta-p started to increase. IMO, the bypass valve setting is dependent on both the engine's oiling system specs and also the flow characteristics of the filter itself.
It's just not all engine specs that determine the bypass valve setting, and that's why different brand filters for the same exact engine might have different bypass settings, but not a huge difference like 20 vs 8 psi.
So what if you go from a 20 psid bypass to a 8 psid bypass?
It's possible the oil filter would go into bypass much more and much earlier as it loaded up with crud and the delta-p started to increase. IMO, the bypass valve setting is dependent on both the engine's oiling system specs and also the flow characteristics of the filter itself.
It's just not all engine specs that determine the bypass valve setting, and that's why different brand filters for the same exact engine might have different bypass settings, but not a huge difference like 20 vs 8 psi.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Quote:
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Main reason, if something filter related happens to the engine, filter warranty would not apply. Also, if under vehicle manufacturer warranty, same thing could be an issue. I'll add not a likely event, but needs to be noted.
In an oil related warranty claim the manufacturer would have to prove the filter caused the damage even if the filter is not on a cross-reference list. The manufacturer can not specify restrictions on parts substitutions except under very specific circumstances.......
Two separate warranties were being addressed in my quote. The first is the filter warranty which only applies to the spec'd filter. That means as said, if an engine failure is caused by the filter or even suspected, there is no coverage from the filter manufacturer. Said several times in this forum, first thing a filter manufacturer checks when a filter related claim occurs is for the correct filter application. Non spec filter used, filter warranty claim is denied. In the event of no vehicle warranty, this means the owner is on his own and likely not to collect a dime. That warranty is pretty cut and dried.
The second would be if there also a vehicle warranty in effect. While the dealer would have to prove the the non spec filter caused the engine damage/failure, using a non spec filter is a likely first step the dealer will look to blame. Even spec aftermarket filters frequently get blamed for engine issues by dealers. And, while the dealer/manufacturer would have to prove it, who has the deeper pockets to fight such a claim if it goes to court. Most times it's the dealer and vehicle manufacturer. Again, unlikely event but the OP asked for any considerations for not oversizing.
In the OP's case, when it comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/141610, I consider it more of a 'sensible upsize' as opposed to a major oversize. The latter size is ~1/2" longer and all the rest of the specs are the same. Same goes for their SAE thread counterparts the 4967/14476 to the 4386/14477. I'd upsize either of the small applications if room permitted.
This is, by far, the most important and critical topic for the thread. Simply put, this is about burden of proof.
SO VERY MANY OF THE MEMBERS HERE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE M/M ACT (commonly referred to as the "lemon law" or "warranty law" or other such stuff).
First and foremost, go directly to the source; go to the FTC website:
http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law
Read the ENTIRE thing, and all the sub-links.
Limited warranty coverage (which would apply to just about any brand of filter I know of offered in our market) is clearly defined in the company's written warranty statement. Check Puro, Fram, Champ, Wix, etc. You'll find them there buried in their stuff.
You see, when you follow the filter maker application chart, then IF there is a failure of the filter (performance or deterioration, etc) that results in engine damage, the burden of proof is upon the filter maker to show that their product did not cause the problem. This can turn into a war between vehicle OEM and filter maker, but you (the consumer) are not in this battle, other than being a time-riddled casuality.
However, if you DO NOT FOLLOW the OEM or filter maker recommendations, then it is YOU who MUST PROVE that your selection did not cause the problem. It becomes YOUR burden of proof to show that your oversized filter selection did not cause the issue. And I remind you that the OEM and filter makers have huges reams of data, hundreds of hours of testings, and a bevy of lawers to defend their position. What do you have? A hopeful list of BITOG members chattering about "flow" this and "byapss pressure" that. Even if you could ultimately win a session of legal intervention, it would only come after years of delays, wrangling, etc. You'd run out of time and money LONG before you were pronounced a "winnner" in this regard. I challenge you to show me case history based upon trial or arbitration that would conclude otherwise.
In regard to the OPs question, the greatest risk is that of outright warranty coverage denial or painful, significant delay so great that you'll wish you'd never gone off the reservation.
And for what? Using a filter that shows ZERO proof of being "better" (defined as reducing wear rates in a manner that can be shown to be statistically significant).
Admittedly, the risk of filter failure is very low to begin with, so the propensity for loss is extremely remote. But if that unwanted circumstance does arise, you are in for one heck of a long, uphill battle where YOU are the one who has to PROVE your choice was not the root cause. Good luck with that ...
And I will take the opportunity to remind you all that real data shows even normal filters in normal applications are grossly under-utilized to begin with. Using a "bigger" filter (falsely presumed to be "better" based upon size) shows no tangible gain over a typical recommended filter in the proper application. If you have proof (not heresay or conjecture, but real PROOF) then by all means, bring it forth for all to see.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Main reason, if something filter related happens to the engine, filter warranty would not apply. Also, if under vehicle manufacturer warranty, same thing could be an issue. I'll add not a likely event, but needs to be noted.
In an oil related warranty claim the manufacturer would have to prove the filter caused the damage even if the filter is not on a cross-reference list. The manufacturer can not specify restrictions on parts substitutions except under very specific circumstances.......
Two separate warranties were being addressed in my quote. The first is the filter warranty which only applies to the spec'd filter. That means as said, if an engine failure is caused by the filter or even suspected, there is no coverage from the filter manufacturer. Said several times in this forum, first thing a filter manufacturer checks when a filter related claim occurs is for the correct filter application. Non spec filter used, filter warranty claim is denied. In the event of no vehicle warranty, this means the owner is on his own and likely not to collect a dime. That warranty is pretty cut and dried.
The second would be if there also a vehicle warranty in effect. While the dealer would have to prove the the non spec filter caused the engine damage/failure, using a non spec filter is a likely first step the dealer will look to blame. Even spec aftermarket filters frequently get blamed for engine issues by dealers. And, while the dealer/manufacturer would have to prove it, who has the deeper pockets to fight such a claim if it goes to court. Most times it's the dealer and vehicle manufacturer. Again, unlikely event but the OP asked for any considerations for not oversizing.
In the OP's case, when it comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/141610, I consider it more of a 'sensible upsize' as opposed to a major oversize. The latter size is ~1/2" longer and all the rest of the specs are the same. Same goes for their SAE thread counterparts the 4967/14476 to the 4386/14477. I'd upsize either of the small applications if room permitted.
This is, by far, the most important and critical topic for the thread. Simply put, this is about burden of proof.
SO VERY MANY OF THE MEMBERS HERE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE M/M ACT (commonly referred to as the "lemon law" or "warranty law" or other such stuff).
First and foremost, go directly to the source; go to the FTC website:
http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus01-businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law
Read the ENTIRE thing, and all the sub-links.
Limited warranty coverage (which would apply to just about any brand of filter I know of offered in our market) is clearly defined in the company's written warranty statement. Check Puro, Fram, Champ, Wix, etc. You'll find them there buried in their stuff.
You see, when you follow the filter maker application chart, then IF there is a failure of the filter (performance or deterioration, etc) that results in engine damage, the burden of proof is upon the filter maker to show that their product did not cause the problem. This can turn into a war between vehicle OEM and filter maker, but you (the consumer) are not in this battle, other than being a time-riddled casuality.
However, if you DO NOT FOLLOW the OEM or filter maker recommendations, then it is YOU who MUST PROVE that your selection did not cause the problem. It becomes YOUR burden of proof to show that your oversized filter selection did not cause the issue. And I remind you that the OEM and filter makers have huges reams of data, hundreds of hours of testings, and a bevy of lawers to defend their position. What do you have? A hopeful list of BITOG members chattering about "flow" this and "byapss pressure" that. Even if you could ultimately win a session of legal intervention, it would only come after years of delays, wrangling, etc. You'd run out of time and money LONG before you were pronounced a "winnner" in this regard. I challenge you to show me case history based upon trial or arbitration that would conclude otherwise.
In regard to the OPs question, the greatest risk is that of outright warranty coverage denial or painful, significant delay so great that you'll wish you'd never gone off the reservation.
And for what? Using a filter that shows ZERO proof of being "better" (defined as reducing wear rates in a manner that can be shown to be statistically significant).
Admittedly, the risk of filter failure is very low to begin with, so the propensity for loss is extremely remote. But if that unwanted circumstance does arise, you are in for one heck of a long, uphill battle where YOU are the one who has to PROVE your choice was not the root cause. Good luck with that ...
And I will take the opportunity to remind you all that real data shows even normal filters in normal applications are grossly under-utilized to begin with. Using a "bigger" filter (falsely presumed to be "better" based upon size) shows no tangible gain over a typical recommended filter in the proper application. If you have proof (not heresay or conjecture, but real PROOF) then by all means, bring it forth for all to see.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
So what if you go from a 20 psid bypass to a 8 psid bypass?
It's possible the oil filter would go into bypass much more and much earlier as it loaded up with crud and the delta-p started to increase. IMO, the bypass valve setting is dependent on both the engine's oiling system specs and also the flow characteristics of the filter itself.
It's just not all engine specs that determine the bypass valve setting, and that's why different brand filters for the same exact engine might have different bypass settings, but not a huge difference like 20 vs 8 psi.
I would assume that any filter will go into bypass at some time regardless of the pressure rating. Otherwise why not go with a 30 psi filter? Also I would think the higher the rated bypass pressure the more loose gunk that collects not trapped by the filter media.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
So what if you go from a 20 psid bypass to a 8 psid bypass?
It's possible the oil filter would go into bypass much more and much earlier as it loaded up with crud and the delta-p started to increase. IMO, the bypass valve setting is dependent on both the engine's oiling system specs and also the flow characteristics of the filter itself.
It's just not all engine specs that determine the bypass valve setting, and that's why different brand filters for the same exact engine might have different bypass settings, but not a huge difference like 20 vs 8 psi.
I would assume that any filter will go into bypass at some time regardless of the pressure rating. Otherwise why not go with a 30 psi filter? Also I would think the higher the rated bypass pressure the more loose gunk that collects not trapped by the filter media.
Originally Posted By: johnachak
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
As long as the bypass valve is the same PSI, no good reason not to use an oversized oil filter.
+1, My feelings exactly.
+2 Been using a PF52 (longer version of the PF47) for years now without issue. As long as the specs are the same, why not get more filter media?
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
As long as the bypass valve is the same PSI, no good reason not to use an oversized oil filter.
+1, My feelings exactly.
+2 Been using a PF52 (longer version of the PF47) for years now without issue. As long as the specs are the same, why not get more filter media?
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
THe pressure to supply smaller filters comes from car makers fighting for packaging space under the hood. An engineer friend who worked for a filter company told me they would get, on a regular basis, "factory" requests to meet a minimum filter performance spec in smaller and smaller packages. I used PH 8s on a Volvo which spec'ed PH 16s for about 240K. Perhaps it was "bad" for something, but I never noticed. As I have mentioned Toyota went from a PL 14476 to the bigger Pl 14477 in the 4 cyl Camry in 2002 and then back spec'ed it to the earlier cars.
Where do you find Toyota specifying Purolator filters? Looked up the 14477 on Purolator site and they don't list the application for pre 2002 Camry.
My advice, don't try amateur re-engineering, your more likely to make a costly mistake.
THe pressure to supply smaller filters comes from car makers fighting for packaging space under the hood. An engineer friend who worked for a filter company told me they would get, on a regular basis, "factory" requests to meet a minimum filter performance spec in smaller and smaller packages. I used PH 8s on a Volvo which spec'ed PH 16s for about 240K. Perhaps it was "bad" for something, but I never noticed. As I have mentioned Toyota went from a PL 14476 to the bigger Pl 14477 in the 4 cyl Camry in 2002 and then back spec'ed it to the earlier cars.
Where do you find Toyota specifying Purolator filters? Looked up the 14477 on Purolator site and they don't list the application for pre 2002 Camry.
My advice, don't try amateur re-engineering, your more likely to make a costly mistake.
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
So what if you go from a 20 psid bypass to a 8 psid bypass?
It's possible the oil filter would go into bypass much more and much earlier as it loaded up with crud and the delta-p started to increase. IMO, the bypass valve setting is dependent on both the engine's oiling system specs and also the flow characteristics of the filter itself.
It's just not all engine specs that determine the bypass valve setting, and that's why different brand filters for the same exact engine might have different bypass settings, but not a huge difference like 20 vs 8 psi.
I would assume that any filter will go into bypass at some time regardless of the pressure rating. Otherwise why not go with a 30 psi filter? Also I would think the higher the rated bypass pressure the more loose gunk that collects not trapped by the filter media.
You can't go too high on a bypass valve because part of the purpose of the bypass valve is to also protect the media from damage from too much delta-p across the filter. If filters are changed before they get too loaded up, I don't think the bypass valve opens much at all - especially after the oil gets fully hot (good reason to keep your foot out of the throttle until the engine gets warmed up well). It would be hard to get a filter to go into bypass even when running near red line on an engine that puts out pretty good oil flow.
Checkout this Thread (Link)
I don't see how a high setting on a bypass valve would cause less gunk to be trapped by the media and collect someplace else. Any time the bypass valve is closed, the oil has to go through the media and therefore crud will be caught in the media. Crud gets trapped down in between the pleats, and once trapped it pretty much stay there.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
So what if you go from a 20 psid bypass to a 8 psid bypass?
It's possible the oil filter would go into bypass much more and much earlier as it loaded up with crud and the delta-p started to increase. IMO, the bypass valve setting is dependent on both the engine's oiling system specs and also the flow characteristics of the filter itself.
It's just not all engine specs that determine the bypass valve setting, and that's why different brand filters for the same exact engine might have different bypass settings, but not a huge difference like 20 vs 8 psi.
I would assume that any filter will go into bypass at some time regardless of the pressure rating. Otherwise why not go with a 30 psi filter? Also I would think the higher the rated bypass pressure the more loose gunk that collects not trapped by the filter media.
You can't go too high on a bypass valve because part of the purpose of the bypass valve is to also protect the media from damage from too much delta-p across the filter. If filters are changed before they get too loaded up, I don't think the bypass valve opens much at all - especially after the oil gets fully hot (good reason to keep your foot out of the throttle until the engine gets warmed up well). It would be hard to get a filter to go into bypass even when running near red line on an engine that puts out pretty good oil flow.
Checkout this Thread (Link)
I don't see how a high setting on a bypass valve would cause less gunk to be trapped by the media and collect someplace else. Any time the bypass valve is closed, the oil has to go through the media and therefore crud will be caught in the media. Crud gets trapped down in between the pleats, and once trapped it pretty much stay there.
- Status
Similar threads
