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.