Motorcraft FL-400S cut open, 5,006 mi in use

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Oregoonian

But I still think the MC filters are nor made for long OCI's. If I ever used one, I would not push them beyond 6K or so....never 10K. What are your thoughts ?
_______________________________________________
03' Ford Focus (2.3L Duratec PZEV) / 99K
PP 5w20 / Puro PureOne PA 10241 / OCI: 8K +/-


It's fine for a 10K OCI on a clean engine (the 820S, at least). The 820S filter is 80% efficient@ 20u and the capacity is 8 grams. The Ford Racing 820S is 99% efficient@ 20u and the capacity is 10.9 grams. So, when you consider the extra filtration efficiency of the racing filter, it's probably a wash as far as which one of those will handle more mileage. When I cut my 820 Racing filter open at 10K, it looked like it had been on for 1K miles. I have no doubt I could have done 15-20K without problem. But again, my engine is really clean, and I do a lot of highway miles, so the filter doesn't really see a hard life.

If anything, I think you're better off using the 820S for a longer OCI, since the efficiency will improve as it's on there longer--as long as the above caveats apply.

 

[Sayjac]

Yes, the Motorcraft filter efficiency you cite (80%@20um) is what has been out there (published) for some time. To put it nicely, 'that' figure is nothing spectacular. There have been several threads regarding this point. One that says 'non published' information indicates that iirc the efficiency is closer to ~92% @20um. One member says an answer he got was 'at least' 80%@20um.

Thus the term I use for Mc efficiency, nebulous. This is one reason why imo, the MC filter is a good 5k OCI filter, which coincidentally is when the OLM (not a true one) indicator used to go off in my son's 05 Explorer 4.6L. And for ~$4 at Wally, doesn't seem much to be gained by regularly pushing it to 10k. Not saying it can't be done, just wouldn't be my first choice for that OCI.

While never having used the Ford Racing filter, based on it's efficiency, compared to the MC I would see it more as a 10k+, or extended OCI filter. The Ford 'Racing' filter seems rather unique in this way. Most true "racing" filters would emphasize flow and be closer to sieves than excellent efficiency filters. No so with the Ford Racing filter, seems more like a quality heavy duty street filter.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: pbm
The conventional wisdom used to be that Motorcraft used the Pureone media rather than the Puro Classic media in their Purolator made versions....is this still the thought?

First I heard of that. It's generally thought that Motorcraft filters use Classic media while Bosch Premiums use PureONE media.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Yes, the Motorcraft filter efficiency you cite (80%@20um) is what has been out there (published) for some time. To put it nicely, 'that' figure is nothing spectacular. There have been several threads regarding this point. One that says 'non published' information indicates that iirc the efficiency is closer to ~92% @20um. One member says an answer he got was 'at least' 80%@20um.

Thus the term I use for Mc efficiency, nebulous. This is one reason why imo, the MC filter is a good 5k OCI filter, which coincidentally is when the OLM (not a true one) indicator used to go off in my son's 05 Explorer 4.6L. And for ~$4 at Wally, doesn't seem much to be gained by regularly pushing it to 10k. Not saying it can't be done, just wouldn't be my first choice for that OCI.


I agree, I would *guess* the efficiency is over 80%@ 20u, but that's obviously nothing but a guess. I figure the advantage to using it longer is that its efficiency will increase over time, rather than saving a couple bucks. I know they increased the interval on a bunch of engines to 7.5K around '06 or '07, and now some go to 10K/OLM--so I don't doubt for a second that the filter will do 10K under the right circumstances.

Originally Posted By: sayjac
While never having used the Ford Racing filter, based on it's efficiency, compared to the MC I would see it more as a 10k+, or extended OCI filter. The Ford 'Racing' filter seems rather unique in this way. Most true "racing" filters would emphasize flow and be closer to sieves than excellent efficiency filters. No so with the Ford Racing filter, seems more like a quality heavy duty street filter.


Yeah, I agree with that as well--though the filter's stated capacity isn't anything ridiculously high (10.9 grams), which is why I think a 10K OCI on the regular 820S would be fine. While I was under warranty I was doing 5-6K on the regular 820S, and the ones I cut open looked as boring as the one in this thread!

And then, remember this one. Pretty similar construction to the MC filters (basically a Chinese Purolator copy). I think filters will safely go much longer than most folks realize...

 

[RF Overlord]

I agree with JOD that any of the FLxxxS filters will go 10,000 miles on a clean engine with no issues.

 

[Texan4Life]

thanks for the pics..

yeah it would be nice if we could get straight answers about filter media.

even if it is as simple as yeah this filter line uses a higher quality media. or this line uses a value media.

I was amazed when I emailed Baldwin and I got a screen shot of their catalog comparison of two filters. and one of the comparisons was "media grade", among others such as efficiency and holding capacity.

 

[Sayjac]

As I said, to each their own. In a FomoCo product with an OLM, I'd have no issue running the FL-S' to that limit, or the spec'd owners manual OCI. However, I wouldn't go out of my way to pick them as my regular 10k OCI filter on an other than Ford product. I don't see that as a knock on the filter.

And while a filter becomes more efficient with use, 'I' wouldn't count on filter loading to make up for or improve significantly on any filter's efficiency rating. Also, while the MC's efficiency 'may' be better than advertised, and based on how it's built, would seem so, no one has answered the question definitively.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: sayjac

And while a filter becomes more efficient with use, 'I' wouldn't count on filter loading to make up for or improve significantly on any filter's efficiency rating. Also, while the MC's efficiency 'may' be better than advertised, and based on how it's built, would seem so, no one has answered the question definitively.

No doubt about that one. That's one of the reasons I coughed up for the Racing filter--they sent me the specs on it when I asked (they were identical to what was posted on here). For the 820S, I got "at least 80%@ 20u". For 10-15K changes, it's not gonna break me. My general thoughts on the 820S though is that it places a premium on flow versus efficiency, while using a less expensive media. I say that based simply on the stated efficiency and the size of the media. That combo give me much more faith in the capacity of the filter than it does in its efficiency. But yeah, it would be nice to actually *know* the true efficiency of the filter??

All that said, I used the regular 820S for the first 90K miles or so and my engine is still in one piece!