TG6607 vs TG7317

[geeman789]

My 2011 Subaru Impreza spec's a 6607 sized filter... clearance is on the tight side because the filter is nestled in between headers and block.

However, when Subaru "redesigned..." the engine for the 2012 model year Impreza and BRZ, they moved the filter location to the top of the engine, and now spec a bigger, 7317 sized filter.

The new engine is smaller (2.0L vs 2.5L ), but the oil filter is bigger.

Hmmmmmm...?

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: Shrubitup
Originally Posted By: dnewton3



the reward is imagined.



Incorrect. Humans are emotional. We buy stuff to make us feel better abt whatever. I'm sure you've not allowed emotion to factor into even one of your past purchases, right?




To the contrary, you must not read my ramblings often.

I agree only in part; some humans are guided mostly by emotion. Others, such as me and some folks here, understand the differences between wants and needs, and can articulately separate the two halves of our brain between facts and emotions in making choices. I fully realize that emotion plays into it. In fact, I'd say that about 99.9% of BITOG purchases are based upon emotion and not facts.

I, too, use emotion to purchase things. But I FULLY admit to doing so, and don't try to obscure a topic by conflating logic and feelings. When I buy a product I "want", such as cigars or bourbon or a firearm, to please my desires, I'm buying things emotionally. But when it comes to pragmatic applications for my home/vehicles/equipment, I eschew emotion and look to facts. Being a primate high on the evolutionary scale, I can learn both from my own mistakes and those of others. I can reason and deduce.

I stand by my statement; the benefit is imagined in his head, because I have seen ZERO credible proof that a filter larger than any entity would sanely recommend for this application is "better" in terms of real world wear control. And I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

The reward is imagined.
The risk (admittedly remote) is real.

 

[dlundblad]

Originally Posted By: geeman789
My 2011 Subaru Impreza spec's a 6607 sized filter... clearance is on the tight side because the filter is nestled in between headers and block.

However, when Subaru "redesigned..." the engine for the 2012 model year Impreza and BRZ, they moved the filter location to the top of the engine, and now spec a bigger, 7317 sized filter.

The new engine is smaller (2.0L vs 2.5L ), but the oil filter is bigger.

Hmmmmmm...?


I think this proves that the oil filter size doesn't matter.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
..... But when it comes to pragmatic applications for my home/vehicles/equipment, I eschew emotion and look to facts.....

And yet, you ran a non spec FL400S oil filter application as documented in the link below because, "it's what I wanted to use".
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb..._qu#Post3536592

So the quoted conclusion below would also apply to your use of FL400S.

Quote:
The reward is imagined.
The risk (admittedly remote) is real.

Safe to say imo, the same would apply for those wishing to use an upsize like the topic'd 7317 instead of shorty the 6607. Same specs and when comparing from the same manufacturer of both, I know I'm getting more media area in the 7317/14610 application size. If that means nothing to some, that's ok. Then, I do it because it's what I want to use.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
..... But when it comes to pragmatic applications for my home/vehicles/equipment, I eschew emotion and look to facts.....

And yet, you ran a non spec FL400S oil filter application as documented in the link below because, "it's what I wanted to use".
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb..._qu#Post3536592

So the quoted conclusion below would also apply to your use of FL400S.

Quote:
The reward is imagined.
The risk (admittedly remote) is real.



Yes, I "wanted" to run it. At least, sort of ... It was, in fact, a mistake initially on my part; I grabbed the wrong filter at that moment of installtion. The Villager has an in-block bp valve; it does not need one in the filter. The FL400S has a bp in the filter. There is nothing unsafe about running two bp valves; running no bp valve is a bad idea. So I "wanted" to run it and see what would happen; my theory is that nothing bad would happen. I thought " ... what the heck; give it a try ..." But at least I had a theory that I was attempting to quantify with data, unlike most here. My entire intent was to run much longer OCIs; I "wanted" to prove beyond doubt that "normal" filters and oils are grossly underutilized. My two back-to-back experiments with lubes/filters extended to 2x and 3x the OEM OCI was an experiment I "wanted" to run. In fact, you could even say it was a factor of 5x, because the OEM severe criteria is 3k miles, and I ran out to 15k miles. At the time my wife's driving qualified as "severe" by their definition, and nothing bad happened at all, despite running the oil/filter out 5x longer than "recommended".

You see, I "wanted" to prove my hypothesis with facts. So I "eschewed" the normal mantra and tested my theory. My evidence (both UOA data and filter dissections) showed my theory valid.


For those who "want" to upsize a filter, I challenge them, you and anyone else to show that the upsized filter provides a tangible statistical difference in performance of wear-rate control. To date, exactly NO ONE has EVER been able to prove it here.

The desire to upsize is fine by me; do what you want. But we should not, as a BITOG group, pretend that theory equals reality unless we can PROVE it. I proved that longer OCIs are safe and achievable, and that wear rates actually drop as the OCI matures. But I have yet to see anyone prove that a slightly upsized filter has any ability to affect wear rates in normal applications. Never.

If you're going to nit-pick my words, at least take them in context, please. Don't try to play word games here; it's not becoming of anyone. You know what my intent was.




When I stated that longer OCIs return lower wear rates, I did so after running very large macro data analysis (see my article). I also tested the theory locally in my own garage with multiple OCI extensions. And, there is an SAE study that also back this up. That's THREE different, unlinked methods of credible testing that all point to the same conclusion. I "wanted" to test the theory, and I proved it via three separate methods.

When others state that a "bigger filter is better", I have yet to see any of them prove it with any means testing. There is also no credible SAE study that speaks directly to this topic. So far, this is all theory and no proof.


Do what you want, but what you want and what you can prove are two totally different things.


For my experiments, the risk was real, but so was the reward. I proved that OCIs can be safely extended.


For the OP, and everyone else here, there has been no credible evidence presented that a larger filter results in some "better" tangible result (presumably less wear?) in normal applications, such as what the OP intends.



.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
.....If you're going to nit-pick my words, at least take them in context, please.....

Nit pick? Not in context?

As I linked to the exact thread post as follow up for all to read, and used ... to indicate more to the quote, I don't consider it out of context, or a nit pick.

And I'm perfectly aware of what you did running a filter with a bypass where none was spec'd. The fact remains you ran a non spec filter because "you wanted to". In so doing you ran the exact same "risk" one would run by running an oversize filter. The filter warranty was not in effect, same as running an oversize filter.And your "anecdotal experiment" only showed that one time your non spec filter with the extra bypass exhibited no observable issue.

Bottom line though your risk as far as filter warranty goes, which is precisely in context imo, was 'exactly the same'. And in the linked thread I pointed that out just prior to your 'because I wanted to' post. However, unlike yourself I did so without sounding your usual preachy tone.

And how many members have run oversize filters with 'no adverse effects' same as your redundant bypass experiment. I would venture to say significantly more than your singular non spec filter bypass anecdote.

So I'll continue run a 7317/14610 where access allows in place of the shorty 6607. I like the idea of getting the same filter specs but with more media area.

As for nit pick, seems like pot kettle to me.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
...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)

True, but just because quick lubes and some indies used downsized filters doesn't mean the knowledgeable diy guy has to. While I'll admit that it may not mean much, I'm not enamored with the practice of downsizing(sometimes two application sizes) filters from spec.

I do find it ironic though that quick lubes and some indies use 'downsized from spec' filters as SOP, while it's often debated/discussed here whether upsizing is ok.

To the specific topic, when to comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/14610, out of vehicle warranty and where access allows, I do it without hesitation. Same spec, just ~1" longer and more media area. Same for SAE cousins, 4967/14476 to 4386/14477. Just me.

BTW, Nissan seems noted for specing the shorty 6607 application where the longer 7317/14610 will easily fit.
In the case of the 14476 vz 14477, Toyota back specified the larger filter which was OEM on the Gen 5 Camry I 4 to the Gen Three and Four versions of the engine. Apparently the sky has not fallen.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
For those who "want" to upsize a filter, I challenge them, you and anyone else to show that the upsized filter provides a tangible statistical difference in performance of wear-rate control. To date, exactly NO ONE has EVER been able to prove it here.

The desire to upsize is fine by me; do what you want. But we should not, as a BITOG group, pretend that theory equals reality unless we can PROVE it.
...
For the OP, and everyone else here, there has been no credible evidence presented that a larger filter results in some "better" tangible result (presumably less wear?) in normal applications, such as what the OP intends.

I agree that there is no proof that an upsize oil filter (larger diameter or longer or both) provides tangible benefit such as lower wear rate. But, there is no evident that an upsize oil filter would cause more wear or other negative effects to the engine either, assume all else are the same(bypass pressure, flow rate ...)

I used upsize(longer) oil filters in my LS400 for almost all its life and it didn't cause any negative that I know after 370k miles.

I used upsize(longer and larger) oil filters in my S2000 for 15-20k miles and I didn't detect any problem with it.

Both cars have plenty of room for 1.5-2.5" longer filters, and the longer filter is actually easier to install/remove. Since upsize filters cost the same without negative effect why not use it ?

 

[dnewton3]

I never stated or implied that a larger filter would be a risk to the engine. As long as you select a filter with all other attributes in conformance (flow, gasket size, BP setting, etc) you will likely be OK. But, I state that using a non-approved filter for an application submits the user to risk of denial or delay in warranty coverage. Don't confuse the two.

There are LOTS of times I do things that are considered out of the norm, or go "off the reservation". But I do it with a theory in mind, and set out to prove or disprove some idea with a clear methodology, and am able to define and quantify results. Yes - I "want" to do these things. And I accept the risk, however remote. But I can show with tangible evidence the results of my actions; there is reward to my risk.

There there are others that simply do things because they "want" to, with no ability to answer even simple questions as to why, in terms of real logic. Nothing wrong with having an emotional response; we all do it. But I abhor this topic of "larger filters are better." Better in terms of what? Let's review some of the potential claims:
1) more holding capacity. Silly - because if your standard filter is not blinded off, then having "more" capacity does absolutely nothing for you. My own experiments have shown that even "normal" filters can go FAR past the OEM scheduled limits.
2) more cooling due to more volume. Silly - nearly every application is a liquid cooled engine and the temps are controlled by the coolant system. Air-cooled equipment is the same way. The oil filter capacity increase is so negligible that quantifying the potential thermal exchange rate change is infinitesimally small (but if you want to have me believe this, then you must PROVE it with seasoned data). Also, that extra "cooling" effect in summer has a detrimental effect in winter; it takes longer for the oil to warm up and tugs on the "normal" temps by trying to reduce them. Again - I believe this is negligible, but it's a fair ying to counter the yang of this topic
3) more wear control. Totally unproven. In fact, evidence exists to the contrary; small changes in filter size do nothing to affect wear rates. The typical system variance in wear control far exceeds any minute change due to filter size.
4) more of less, meaning fewer filters to stock on the shelf in your garage. OK - this makes sense on the surface, but not underneath. Are you so limited on space that stocking both the smaller and larger filter size is going to make your shelf collapse, or you'd not be able to close the garage door? This is a matter of convenience that really has little to offer. You only "want" to stock one filter on the shelf, as opposed to two? And that space savings is a benefit? Come on, now .... If you are hurting so much for that little few cubic inches, then just buy the filters on the day you plan the OCI and you won't have to stock anything on the shelf and your wife can have it for her pottery project.


All of those unproven benefits as opposed to a very real risk in warranty denial. Absolutely there is anecdotal proof that using a different filter really does not help or hurt the engine. Larger filters typically perform every bit as well as the standard filters. The risk isn't to the engine; it's to your wallet.

There have been times I've been willing to take that risk, but I NEVER advise others to do so blindly. I NEVER tell people to do what I do, just for the sake of internet approval. I do things as experiments to find the limits of some condition, or to prove that the limits are out past where people would admit. And when I do these things, I go to great effort to both define and quantify the data/results. You know, most of my UOAs are a violation of some sense of typical protocol. I often run the OCIs out WAY past the OEM limits. I do it both in terms of miles and chronological duration. I "want" to do this to prove that normal products have way more capacity for performance than most would ever admit. I take the risk on willingly. But I have a plan, and I can define and quantify the rewards. And I never ask others to follow without first understanding the risks.

If you "want" to do something, then go for it. Do it. I don't care what you do. But if you're going to do it, at least be able to prove WHY you did it; be able to back it up with some form of credible evidence. To date, NO ONE has EVER been able to prove that using a larger filter makes any difference in terms of wear control, cooling or capacity in a "normal" OCI. None. Ever. Never ever. Not once.

But I DO care about the lurkers or newbies that somehow would get the impression that using a larger filter is a good idea, and has no downside. Quite the opposite; using a larger filter has shown no tangible benefit, but presents real risks. We have a moral and ethical obligation to present fair and honest assessments.
- There is no proof that using a larger filter in an otherwise normal application has any tangible effect in wear control, cooling or capacity.
- There is anecdotal proof that using a larger filter does not hurt the equipment.
- There is a real risk that using a non-approved filter will lead to warranty delay or outright denial, and it would take HUGE amounts of time and money on your part to make them pay up.


I don't mind, or care, if you run a bigger filter.
I do mind, and object, if you tell others it's "better", with absolutely no proof, and act as if there is no risk to your actions.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I never stated or implied that a larger filter would be a risk to the engine. As long as you select a filter with all other attributes in conformance (flow, gasket size, BP setting, etc) you will likely be OK. But, I state that using a non-approved filter for an application submits the user to risk of denial or delay in warranty coverage. Don't confuse the two.

Agreed. One has to be aware of that. And there's other fine print, too. They filter manufacturers all (at least all to the extent of my reading so far) will only cover the filter for the vehicle for which they specify, and for the viscosity specified by the manufacturer.

Trying to redline an engine right after start, using a non-bypass filter on an engine with no bypass in the block during a Saskatchewan winter with SAE 50 may cause problems, and the filter manufacturer isn't going to rescue anyone from that.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
...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)

True, but just because quick lubes and some indies used downsized filters doesn't mean the knowledgeable diy guy has to. While I'll admit that it may not mean much, I'm not enamored with the practice of downsizing(sometimes two application sizes) filters from spec.

I do find it ironic though that quick lubes and some indies use 'downsized from spec' filters as SOP, while it's often debated/discussed here whether upsizing is ok.

To the specific topic, when to comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/14610, out of vehicle warranty and where access allows, I do it without hesitation. Same spec, just ~1" longer and more media area. Same for SAE cousins, 4967/14476 to 4386/14477. Just me.

BTW, Nissan seems noted for specing the shorty 6607 application where the longer 7317/14610 will easily fit.
In the case of the 14476 vz 14477, Toyota back specified the larger filter which was OEM on the Gen 5 Camry I 4 to the Gen Three and Four versions of the engine. Apparently the sky has not fallen.

I guess Toyota decided that using the longer application with same specs but more media area and oil volume was preferable to using the shorty 4967/14476. Good call 'imo.'

One thing certain, saves any question about using the upsize in that case because there are no filter warranty considerations. So no risk, however minute, with which to be concerned.

 

[KCJeep]

The filter companies all hide behind "spec only" warranties and I completely understand they simply have to.

The "risk" however is so tiny IMO as to be akin to being clubbed to death by a Bigfoot. Even the Fram rep who posts on here admits he oversizes on his personal vehicles.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I never stated or implied that a larger filter would be a risk to the engine. As long as you select a filter with all other attributes in conformance (flow, gasket size, BP setting, etc) you will likely be OK. But, I state that using a non-approved filter for an application submits the user to risk of denial or delay in warranty coverage. Don't confuse the two.
...
I don't mind, or care, if you run a bigger filter.
I do mind, and object, if you tell others it's "better", with absolutely no proof, and act as if there is no risk to your actions.

dnewton3,

I appreciate your civil responds to this discussion.

The risk of a filter(OEM size or smaller or larger) failure would cause damage to the engine is so small and claiming warranty with filter manufacture is so difficult I'm willing to take that risk.

Again, thank you for your excellent posts in this topic and may other topics. I always enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: KCJeep
The filter companies all hide behind "spec only" warranties and I completely understand they simply have to.

The "risk" however is so tiny IMO as to be akin to being clubbed to death by a Bigfoot. Even the Fram rep who posts on here admits he oversizes on his personal vehicles.

And since it was brought up, his upsize would be the topic'd filters queried, ie., the spec'd 6607 application to the same specs but longer 7317. IIRC that would be in his Nissan Z.