Motorcraft Oil Filters - Upgraded Media
- Thread starter Baracoa
- Start date
- Status
The Motorcraft filter comparison is pretty old, perhaps 2004 as noted. Been posted here many times previously. No idea if media has been changed/upgraded.
As for efficiency posted in the comparison, it's what FoMoCo MC has long put out for publication. Wasn't until the Amsoil ISO test of some OEM filters that it tested with significantly higher efficiency, ~93%@20um. Also one reason 'imo' why the Amsoil test has credibility. No reason for Amsoil to show a filter, in this the FL820S, with significantly higher efficiency than that published by Motorcraft.
As for efficiency posted in the comparison, it's what FoMoCo MC has long put out for publication. Wasn't until the Amsoil ISO test of some OEM filters that it tested with significantly higher efficiency, ~93%@20um. Also one reason 'imo' why the Amsoil test has credibility. No reason for Amsoil to show a filter, in this the FL820S, with significantly higher efficiency than that published by Motorcraft.
Where can I get Motor Trend filters?
Originally Posted By: Egg_Head
Where can I get Motor Trend filters?
I don't know but here's a thread on them dating to 2006. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=790827
If you can't find one that says Motor Trend on it and really really want something similar (or same except for can color), judging from the MC comparison, looks like a typical Fram orange can.
Good Luck with your search.
Where can I get Motor Trend filters?
I don't know but here's a thread on them dating to 2006. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=790827
If you can't find one that says Motor Trend on it and really really want something similar (or same except for can color), judging from the MC comparison, looks like a typical Fram orange can.
Good Luck with your search.
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
The Motorcraft filter comparison is pretty old, perhaps 2004 as noted. Been posted here many times previously. No idea if media has been changed/upgraded.
As for efficiency posted in the comparison, it's what FoMoCo MC has long put out for publication. Wasn't until the Amsoil ISO test of some OEM filters that it tested with significantly higher efficiency, ~93%@20um. Also one reason 'imo' why the Amsoil test has credibility. No reason for Amsoil to show a filter, in this the FL820S, with significantly higher efficiency than that published by Motorcraft.
I thought I saw something where MC filters were 96 at 20.
The Motorcraft filter comparison is pretty old, perhaps 2004 as noted. Been posted here many times previously. No idea if media has been changed/upgraded.
As for efficiency posted in the comparison, it's what FoMoCo MC has long put out for publication. Wasn't until the Amsoil ISO test of some OEM filters that it tested with significantly higher efficiency, ~93%@20um. Also one reason 'imo' why the Amsoil test has credibility. No reason for Amsoil to show a filter, in this the FL820S, with significantly higher efficiency than that published by Motorcraft.
I thought I saw something where MC filters were 96 at 20.
^^^Never seen Motorcraft claim that efficiency spec. The Amsoil test is the only one I've seen publish the current ISO test standard efficiency rating noted. Find another ISO 4548-12 rating with that rating post a link, be the first time I've seen it.
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
That Carquest 85372 looks pretty good. Surprising.
Surprising why?
The version shown is Wix / Affinia construction, who no longer have the CQ filter contract. It was passed from Wix to Frampion briefly but around the same time the Frampion relationship dissolved, passed to Purolator where it remains today.
I've still been able to find NOS Wix and Frampion CQ Blue 84899, a very similar filter for Mopar applications, so it should still be possible to find Wix & Frampion NOS CQ Blue 85372 if one hunts.
That Carquest 85372 looks pretty good. Surprising.
Surprising why?
The version shown is Wix / Affinia construction, who no longer have the CQ filter contract. It was passed from Wix to Frampion briefly but around the same time the Frampion relationship dissolved, passed to Purolator where it remains today.
I've still been able to find NOS Wix and Frampion CQ Blue 84899, a very similar filter for Mopar applications, so it should still be possible to find Wix & Frampion NOS CQ Blue 85372 if one hunts.
Last edited:
I have three questions concerning some of the replies above and would appreciate some feedback.
1) Can cellulose filters be used with confidence for up to 10,000 miles and/or 12 months? In other words, are they durable enough for that many miles and/or months in all types of weather conditions?
2) Is there current evidence that the Purolator filters are still having tear problems? Wasn't the tearing problem an issue prior to 2015 when Purolator introduced the Purolator Boss line and may have also made improvements to their other two filters, the Classic (red) and Pure One (blue)? What about recent Motorcraft tears?
3) Are cellulose filters prone to develop moisture in the media that could possibly contaminate the oil? Is that a known issue with this type of media? Are synthetic/blend or full synthetic media filters better in this regard?
1) Can cellulose filters be used with confidence for up to 10,000 miles and/or 12 months? In other words, are they durable enough for that many miles and/or months in all types of weather conditions?
2) Is there current evidence that the Purolator filters are still having tear problems? Wasn't the tearing problem an issue prior to 2015 when Purolator introduced the Purolator Boss line and may have also made improvements to their other two filters, the Classic (red) and Pure One (blue)? What about recent Motorcraft tears?
3) Are cellulose filters prone to develop moisture in the media that could possibly contaminate the oil? Is that a known issue with this type of media? Are synthetic/blend or full synthetic media filters better in this regard?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Baracoa
I have three questions concerning some of the replies above and would appreciate some feedback.
1) Can cellulose filters be used with confidence for up to 10,000 miles and/or 12 months? In other words, are they durable enough for that many miles and/or months in all types of weather conditions?
2) Is there current evidence that the Purolator filters are still having tear problems? Wasn't the tearing problem an issue prior to 2015 when Purolator introduced the Purolator Boss line and may have also made improvements to their other two filters, the Classic (red) and Pure One (blue)? What about recent Motorcraft tears?
3) Are cellulose filters prone to develop moisture in the media that could possibly contaminate the oil? Is that a known issue with this type of media? Are synthetic/blend or full synthetic media filters better in this regard?
1) Depends on how clean your engine is and your driving style. I'd run a cellulose filter to 10K if most of my driving was long highway trips and my engine was nice and clean inside. Probably not go that far if lots of short city driving trips - more like 5K~6K.
2) No, see the link in my post above of Motorcraft filter made Feb 22, 2017 with tears used under gentle conditions. And there have been other Purolator made filters reported torn hear recently. You just don't see as many because 80~90% of the people who use to buy them just don't anymore.
3) No, but they can absorb some moisture that's in the oil if you're short tripping the drives. If you're driving you car pretty far at a time (like 30+ minutes) and the oil gets to full operating temperature for awhile then moisture in the crankcase will burn off and get sucked out via the PCV system. Nothing to worry about, and shouldn't be a reason to chose on filter over another.
I have three questions concerning some of the replies above and would appreciate some feedback.
1) Can cellulose filters be used with confidence for up to 10,000 miles and/or 12 months? In other words, are they durable enough for that many miles and/or months in all types of weather conditions?
2) Is there current evidence that the Purolator filters are still having tear problems? Wasn't the tearing problem an issue prior to 2015 when Purolator introduced the Purolator Boss line and may have also made improvements to their other two filters, the Classic (red) and Pure One (blue)? What about recent Motorcraft tears?
3) Are cellulose filters prone to develop moisture in the media that could possibly contaminate the oil? Is that a known issue with this type of media? Are synthetic/blend or full synthetic media filters better in this regard?
1) Depends on how clean your engine is and your driving style. I'd run a cellulose filter to 10K if most of my driving was long highway trips and my engine was nice and clean inside. Probably not go that far if lots of short city driving trips - more like 5K~6K.
2) No, see the link in my post above of Motorcraft filter made Feb 22, 2017 with tears used under gentle conditions. And there have been other Purolator made filters reported torn hear recently. You just don't see as many because 80~90% of the people who use to buy them just don't anymore.
3) No, but they can absorb some moisture that's in the oil if you're short tripping the drives. If you're driving you car pretty far at a time (like 30+ minutes) and the oil gets to full operating temperature for awhile then moisture in the crankcase will burn off and get sucked out via the PCV system. Nothing to worry about, and shouldn't be a reason to chose on filter over another.
Thank you ZeeOsix for the helpful information you provided to my questions.
One more question if I may. On filters that are clamped where the two ends of the media meet, are they clamped only or are they glued and also clamped? Thanks.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Baracoa
One more question if I may. On filters that are clamped where the two ends of the media meet, are they clamped only or are they glued and also clamped? Thanks.
I would think if they are clamped there is no glue. If there was glue there wouldn't be a need for a clamp IMO.
All the filters I've cut open are glued with no clamp, so I can't provide any first hand info. Maybe someone here who's cut open a lot of filters with a clamped seam has removed the clamp to verify if the seam is also glued.
One more question if I may. On filters that are clamped where the two ends of the media meet, are they clamped only or are they glued and also clamped? Thanks.
I would think if they are clamped there is no glue. If there was glue there wouldn't be a need for a clamp IMO.
All the filters I've cut open are glued with no clamp, so I can't provide any first hand info. Maybe someone here who's cut open a lot of filters with a clamped seam has removed the clamp to verify if the seam is also glued.
Originally Posted By: tig1
MC filters media is called "cellulose phenolic resin". Is this the material all filters with cellulose have, or is this MCs own media?
I think its common to a lot of cellulose oil filters. They will include some resin amongst the wood fibers.
MC filters media is called "cellulose phenolic resin". Is this the material all filters with cellulose have, or is this MCs own media?
I think its common to a lot of cellulose oil filters. They will include some resin amongst the wood fibers.
- Status
Similar threads
