Quick Lubes Using Little Filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the FL500 has different thread sizes then the 400 or the 820s. When I got a 3.7 it took the 500 and the dealer didn't have any, this was in 2011 when they first came out in F-150s. They had to go to Advance and get one. I am sure they had the other popular Ford filters in stock.
 
+1 DSparks

My wife's 3.7L Mustang takes the FL-500S (I actually use the Mobil 1 M1-212). It's 22mm X 1.5 thread, 76 mm diameter case.

My Ram 5.7L takes the Mopar MO-899 (FL-820S cross). It's 22mm X 1.5 thread with 93 mm diameter case.

I *could* use the FL-500S size (i.e. QS173) on both vehicles (but I don't). However there isn't room for the larger diameter case filter on the Mustang's V6.
 
Sadly they keep the smaller equivs. on hand to keep the inventory low.

Just think, if it was a not so popular model, it might not be getting changed at all.
smile.gif
 
Downsizing with consolidation of 2-3 filter application sizes of quick lube/jobber and some value tier filters, is now SOP. It saves $$$ on shipping and inventory costs. Simple as that.

Want the spec size, either need to buy the oem or the standard aftermarket retail brand spec size, which excluding some value tier filter lines, are generally readily available.

Go to a quick lube and some indys, expect the filter to be downsized if there is a smaller equivalent size that will fit.
 
Even some OEM's have shrunk filter size.

Compare a current Motorcraft FL-400S with the older FL-400 (i.e. Fram PH3600 size). The jobber QS3600 matches the current FL-400S.
 
Just wanted to add, it's true that some vehicle manufacturers have downsized the OEM size over time. That's their call.

However to the topic, even though I don't frequent them I don't want a quick lube (or indy) taking it on themselves to downsize the spec filter size on my vehicles. And though it likely makes no significant difference, imo that shouldn't be their call. One example that sticks out the most as posted here is one quick lube/jobber filter that was TWO application sizes smaller, ie., went from spec 3593a/9688/14459 application to the 6607/14612 shorty. That is a fairly big difference imo.

As an aside, for me when it comes to the thimble size 6607/14612 and SAE thread 4967/14476, I would always use the longer 7317/14610/57356 and 4386/14477 where practicable. One member has reported that Toyota has back spec'd the longer 4386/14477 where the shorty 4386 was spec'd. My .02
 
If board trends are believed, what's the problem? Little tiny filters are best for under 30k runs. They are more effishyent. The Jiffies know this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top