How does PL14610 differ from PL14459

[ThirdeYe]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
BTW, many Hondas can use the 20073 without any leaks


A little off-topic,

I'm confusing about oil filter for '04 Honda S2000. I still have 3-4 Honda OEM filters PCX-004 made by Toyo Roki which is supposed to be best match for it. The PCX-004 is larger (diameter) than the standard filter for most other Honda, I would like to find a replacement with the same diameter and longer if possible. The two 14610 14459 are too small for S2000.

When I run out of my filter stash and my dealers don't have it in stock, which filter(s) are best replaced the PCX-004 made by Toyo Roki ?

Are these filters will do:
Motorcraft FL-1A ?
Purolator 24458 or 20073 ?
WIX 51344 or 51347 or 51568 ?
Bosch 3323 or 3312 ?
Mobil1 M1-110 ?


I thought the 14459 was what was recommended for the S2000?

 

[Gary Allan]

It is. 51334

These might work too - I didn't bother with the details (bypass and whatnot)

P550158 - 51324


P550173 - 51381

 

[txgp17]

Originally Posted By: rewote500
PL 14610 is 99.9% efficient at 40 microns.

PL14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns.

You can read that on the box the filter comes in........

I realize this is an old thread, but google sent me here when I was searching out the differences of the two filters.

 

[Richtrashman]

Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: gtx510
I'm not buying the different efficiency ratings. Shouldn't they be the same? If it'll fit you can also use the mondo-sized ZR-1 filter, PL14619.


Given the production variances, there is no real difference between a filter rated at 12-15 psi on the bypass and one rated 14-18 psi. As far as efficiency ratings, you'd need to see the efficiency over a range of micron sizes to assess the filtering differences.



is the psi difference due to the circumference of the can? kind of like hooking up a garden hose to a faucet or a fire hose? same amount of water will come out just at a different psi? I am also considering running the pl14610 on my kia which specd the 14459, got one for $3 at kmart.the 14459 is much wider

 

[Richtrashman]

didn't realize this thread was resurrected from the dead from over three years ago til just now. wow my bad

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Richtrashman
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: gtx510
I'm not buying the different efficiency ratings. Shouldn't they be the same? If it'll fit you can also use the mondo-sized ZR-1 filter, PL14619.


Given the production variances, there is no real difference between a filter rated at 12-15 psi on the bypass and one rated 14-18 psi. As far as efficiency ratings, you'd need to see the efficiency over a range of micron sizes to assess the filtering differences.


is the psi difference due to the circumference of the can?


No, the bypass valve setting might be slightly higher or lower based on the flow performance and area of the filter's media compared to another filter.

Originally Posted By: Richtrashman
I am also considering running the pl14610 on my kia which specd the 14459, got one for $3 at kmart.the 14459 is much wider


The 14610 has more media area than the 14459, but the 14459 is rated at 20 microns instead of 40 microns for the 14610.

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Richtrashman
Originally Posted By: Wilhelm_D
Originally Posted By: gtx510
I'm not buying the different efficiency ratings. Shouldn't they be the same? If it'll fit you can also use the mondo-sized ZR-1 filter, PL14619.


Given the production variances, there is no real difference between a filter rated at 12-15 psi on the bypass and one rated 14-18 psi. As far as efficiency ratings, you'd need to see the efficiency over a range of micron sizes to assess the filtering differences.


is the psi difference due to the circumference of the can?


No, the bypass valve setting might be slightly higher or lower based on the flow performance and area of the filter's media compared to another filter.

Originally Posted By: Richtrashman
I am also considering running the pl14610 on my kia which specd the 14459, got one for $3 at kmart.the 14459 is much wider


The 14610 has more media area than the 14459, but the 14459 is rated at 20 microns instead of 40 microns for the 14610.


I'm curious if it's still the same today, since the thread is a bit old!

I'd rather have 99% @ 20 microns than @ 40 microns even though, I use the 14610 and only use the 14459 in a pinch!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

The 14610 has more media area than the 14459, but the 14459 is rated at 20 microns instead of 40 microns for the 14610.


I'm curious if it's still the same today, since the thread is a bit old!

I'd rather have 99% @ 20 microns than @ 40 microns even though, I use the 14610 and only use the 14459 in a pinch!


It was the same with the last 14610s that I bought about 6~8 months ago. Too bad that the 14459 doesn't have as much or more media area than the 14610. I looks like it does from the outside (ie, the can is wider a little shorter), but when you cut them both open that's when you find out the media area is less in the 14459.

This also proves that less media area means less efficiency, because if it did, then the 14459 wouldn't be rated at 20 microns.

 

[CharBaby]

[Quote: ZeeOSix] This also proves that less media area means less efficiency, because if it did, then the 14459 wouldn't be rated at 20 microns.

I actually think that we're saying the same thing but, this is what puzzles me!

More media should mean lower micron rating(depending on pore size)...Right?
20 microns is better than 40 microns. It's particulate size, i.e., 20 micron is smaller than 40 micron! The smaller the particulate size the more efficient the filter would be at trapping dirt...and what we'd want!

The 14459 has less media overall but, traps a lower micron particle than does the 14610, which has more media but, a larger miron rating.

10 micron would be even better(smaller particulate). But, may plug up sooner(maybe?)

Where I used to work, we'd filter plasma down to .2 micron using ultrafiltration. The filters would plug quickly causing us to replace the filters often/quickly just to achieve the liters needed for the customer.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Char Baby
[Quote: ZeeOSix] This also proves that less media area means less efficiency, because if it did, then the 14459 wouldn't be rated at 20 microns.

I actually think that we're saying the same thing but, this is what puzzles me!

More media should mean lower micron rating(depending on pore size)...Right?
20 microns is better than 40 microns. It's particulate size, i.e., 20 micron is smaller than 40 micron! The smaller the particulate size the more efficient the filter would be at trapping dirt...and what we'd want!

The 14459 has less media overall but, traps a lower micron particle than does the 14610, which has more media but, a larger micron rating.


What I meant to say was:
"This also proves that less media area does not mean less filtering efficiency, because if it did, then the 14459 wouldn't be rated at 20 microns."

So to clarify, the 14610 is rated at 40 microns and the 14459 is rated at 20 microns - it's on the box of each filter showing the filtering efficiency rating. The 14610 has more media area than the 14459 (105 vs 85 sq-in). So the "theory" that more media area means better filtering efficiency doesn't follow this theory. If it did, the 14459 would be rated worse than the 14610 ... but it's rated better.

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

[Quote: ZeeOSix] This also proves that less media area means less efficiency, because if it did, then the 14459 wouldn't be rated at 20 microns.
Quote:


I actually think that we're saying the same thing but, this is what puzzles me!

More media should mean lower micron rating(depending on pore size)...Right?
20 microns is better than 40 microns. It's particulate size, i.e., 20 micron is smaller than 40 micron! The smaller the particulate size the more efficient the filter would be at trapping dirt...and what we'd want!

The 14459 has less media overall but, traps a lower micron particle than does the 14610, which has more media but, a larger micron rating.


What I meant to say was:
"This also proves that less media area does not mean less filtering efficiency, because if it did, then the 14459 wouldn't be rated at 20 microns."

So to clarify, the 14610 is rated at 40 microns and the 14459 is rated at 20 microns - it's on the box of each filter showing the filtering efficiency rating. The 14610 has more media area than the 14459 (105 vs 85 sq-in). So the "theory" that more media area means better filtering efficiency doesn't follow this theory. If it did, the 14459 would be rated worse than the 14610 ... but it's rated better.


Gotcha'
I understand your point better now!

Thanks,
CB

 

[kyoo]

apologies, i'm bumping this...

which would be the better application for an evo that is autoxed regularly? a lot of races and a lot of cold starts.. frequent oil changes. do i want the filter with higher bypass (610) or lower bypass (559)

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Between those two, I'd go with the 14610 due to you racing the engine a lot. 14610 has more media and less filtration, which means it probably wouldn't go into bypass as much either.

But personally, I'd go with the Ultra XG7317.