TG6607 vs TG7317

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 13, 2002
Messages
2,528
Location
North Carolina
Just looking at the filter for a friends 08 Sentra and the TG6607 is small. I did a little searching, didn't see anything on it in here but not sure how well the search feature works. Anyway I found the TG7317 is just about the same filter but is longer, the TG6607 is 2.63 tall and the TG7317 is 3.47 tall. Plenty of room for the TG7317. I was going to install the TG7317 on the next oil change. It has the same by-pass pressure of 13psi as the TG6607. Thoughts anyone?
 
Thoughts?

1) being a 2008, I doubt OEM warranty is an issue; that is moot

2) filter warranty coverage is in play here; there are plenty of warnings already hashed out over-and-over again on this topic; you risk warranty denial or delay when going off the reservation and take the burden of proof upon yourself

3) what is it that a "longer" filter is going to give you? What expectation do you have for the larger filter? What makes you thing the 6607 is too small? Do you have UOAs and/or PCs that show how the 6607 is failing?

4) if "better (insert something here)... was your answer to #3, then what proof do you have for a baseline of the purpose of comparison/contrast? How would you know (be able to prove) that one filter did "better" than another?

5) what is the O/FCI plan? how does the choice of a TG stack up to the expected use? Do you "need" a TG, or is that just as large a waste as chasing the bigger filter down a rabbit hole?

I am not stating that a larger filter is wrong here; I'm stating that you have shown no proof that you have any selection criteria other than a perceived size is too small and (typical of the American mentality), more must = better ... But you've got nothing to prove that the current state is failing, or how you'd judge any tangible improvement. If your friend wants you to put on a larger filter, and he/she is willing to accept the (admittedly small) risk, for absolutely no perceptible gain, then go for it, by all means.



I find these threads irritating ... Yes - I'm going there.
How does anyone expect to be able to judge an improvement, when no effort has been put into establishing an understanding of current state, nor defined what "better" actually means in terms of real world performance? However remote, there is a risk of warranty denial/delay should something go wrong. Are you going to pay for your friend's engine if it fails? However remote, it could happen, and in the quest for what? More what? Better than what?


First prove to me that the 6607 is somehow inadequate, then I'll accept the question. Otherwise, this is just a "bigger is better" mentality rehash of the age old question so typical of BITOG mainstream.
 
Last edited:
Same base, same bypass pressure.

Only difference is length.

Running a 7317 instead of a 6607 myself...
 
Since this is a new used car for them and it has 142k miles on it. I just had the question on the two filters. As usual good information has been brought to mind that I didn't consider.

I plan on running a UOA on this to see how the conventional oil installed will hold up. The owner drives 150 miles a day round trip to work. Most of it is two lane country road. So the miles rack up kind of fast at 4k a month.

The car seems to be in great shape, not sure I like the fact that it has a CVT transmission, but their 2003 Century was in pretty bad shape and I'm sure this is better on mpg. Thanks for the info and bringing up thoughts that I had not considered.
smile.gif
 
I do agree with the thought process of bigger does not always mean better. I do think that the 7317 has a bit more filter media than the 6607. Does this matter? Is this helpful at the end of the day? Can it be proven by measurable outcomes? Maybe. Maybe not. But who on here has the bigtime money to thoroughly test this hypothesis?? No one. Is more filter media better than less? More than likely yes. But would it be substantial enough to really amount to much? Who knows for sure.
Has long has the pressure specification is the same is really all that matters. And it is the same.
 
Automakers, as has been previously pointed out, are looking for the cheapest, lightest, smallest filter which will get their products at least passed the warranty. Specifications are issued to filter makers with a certain lead time , and to be an OEM supplier, those specifications must be met. It's often a challenge for the filter companies to meet the specs. It would be interesting to see what specifications come from an auto maker for "severe duty" applications.
 
You could run the TG9688 as well. Slightly different bypass specs (9-15psi), but not enough to make a difference.

It's about 3" wide and 3" tall. Not sure on the square inches of media though.
 
I posted similar on another forum with the Fram Ultra filters that are thread size M20 x 1.5". There are two more but I left them off because the O.D. is 3.66" and most likely too wide.


Filter | O.D. | Height | PSI

XG6607 | 2.69" | 2.63" | 13

XG7317 | 2.69" | 3.47" | 13

XG9688 | 3.02" | 3.08" | 9-15

XG3593A | 3.02" | 3.39" | 12
 
That 6607 is WAY too tiny! It's like a toy filter for your lawn mower or motorcycle or power wheels

I'd definitely use the 7317 in any 6607 application.
 
Oil pressure has come up 8 to 10 psi in my Ram going from the tiny new filter to the old one spec'd for trucks prior to the change to electric power steering. There was a concern of clearance by the engineers, I presume. The new one is ridiculously small. They now allow 10k mile OCI on conventional as well, go figure.
 
Rat407, just ignore dnewton3. Everybody else does. Wound a little tight.
Yes, its a good assumption that a longer filter is better. More surface area for more dirt trapping at about the same price. Some people will never get that.
 
I have a 05 Altima 3.5, Fram lists the longer 7317 for the 3.5 and the short 6607 for the 2.5. Tearolator lists the short 14612 for the 3.5 and the longer 14610 for the 2.5. The first couple of years I had the car Tearolator listed the 14610 and then changed it to the 14612.
 
Thoughts are you should start hacking filters open to see for yourself the differences. I did, and sometimes the can is deceiving, amongst other things of importance, like if it was put together wrong. Then there is the bitog mantra oil filters get better as they get dirty, which means the small filter is better. I use the slightly larger Toyota filter than specified. Toyota uses many sizes of filters that have the same thread. So whoever says car companies are doing it to be cheap are not looking at facts. In your case I would use the larger as it isn't like you're putting a garbage can size on there.
 
Have you seen the tiny one, in comparison, that GM uses for their 3.6L 24-valve V6 in the last 10 years? It's only 2" diameter by 3.5" long, a cartridge only (no metal can).
TG8765.jpg


I say that because I remember when it first surprised me how small it was for that size engine. Then I began to wonder if it had enough surface area to hold up for 2 oil changes, despite the blanket standard claims by Fram for TG at 10,000 miles.

So if that tiny guy is good enough, all others I've seen on other engines must be plenty OK. Still, get a bigger one if you can! Wish I could trade mine for a Ford-sized filter or something.

And all above who say they can show a picture or just look at a filter and tell how far it was from clogging, or maybe it was already clogged, they are just dreaming. You can't tell!
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Thoughts are you should start hacking filters open to see for yourself the differences. I did, and sometimes the can is deceiving, amongst other things of importance, like if it was put together wrong. Then there is the bitog mantra oil filters get better as they get dirty, which means the small filter is better. I use the slightly larger Toyota filter than specified. Toyota uses many sizes of filters that have the same thread. So whoever says car companies are doing it to be cheap are not looking at facts. In your case I would use the larger as it isn't like you're putting a garbage can size on there.


Good point. I have also seen a few jobber type filters that the larger filter had the exact same media cartridge inside as the little one with a larger spacer spring. I think it was Wix who had pulled that stunt on some of their jobber no name type filters. I like Wix by the way but I was not impressed with that tactic.
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I have also seen a few jobber type filters that the larger filter had the exact same media cartridge inside as the little one with a larger spacer spring. I think it was Wix who had pulled that stunt on some of their jobber no name type filters. I like Wix by the way but I was not impressed with that tactic.


Many if not most of the jobber filters have consolidated anyway, so they'd use the 6607 for both 6607 and 7317 applications (and 3593A as well)
 
Originally Posted By: ExMachina
Rat407, just ignore dnewton3. Everybody else does. Wound a little tight.
Yes, its a good assumption that a longer filter is better. More surface area for more dirt trapping at about the same price. Some people will never get that.



Rat407 -
Just ignore me. (Most) everyone else does. And they also ignore science, data, and real proof. Rather, they rely on subjective and speculative "logic", jump to conclusions, and ignore real concerns. Hence, the vast majority of members on BITOG ...

Having more capacity, way past what you could ever use, and having zero ability to quantify any tangible tracking method does not make for a good decision, despite what some will tell you. What you can do, and what you should do, are two totally different things.

- The risk of using a non-approved filter is real, although admittedly low, in that warranty denial is very probable.
- The reward of using a non-approved filter is (at best) unproven, and not quantified; having more capacity when you don't use the existing isn't "better", it's wasteful.


Don't theorize that bigger is better; show me how bigger will succeed when the current state is not known to be failing! Show me, using either macro or micro data analysis, that the little filter has failed to protect the engine and only a larger one will guarantee it's lifecycle. Show me any kind of real hard data from UOAs, PCs and teardown analysis that the 6607 fails and the 7317 will solve the problem.



Perhaps it's not a matter of me being wound a little tight; maybe it's that some others are simply too loose with their form of logic.
21.gif
 
Where does one find the approved filter part number from the vehicle manufacturer? In their system? Surely a Fram catalog or similar filter manufacturer catalog for their specific part which is non-OEM carries little weight.
 
Fram has a great look up tool on their site, and also shows you every filter it crosses to, including OEM. So you can use it to look up most anything, very handy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top