Narrow QS Filter vs. wider size

[XtraRevsSurely]

I usually use a Puro Classic L14670 for my 06 Pacifica. Recently, I put on a QS 3600 which according to Quaker State is the correct size. I've read that QS filters are typically narrow and that's the case vs. the Puro Classic.

At the mounting point, the QS 3600 leave some of the surface exposed where the Puro has an additional lip that covers. The inner gasket circumstance is identical on both. Does anyone see this as a problem?

 

[Flareside302]

No not a problem just a difference in design

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: XtraRevsSurely
.... The inner gasket circumstance is identical on both....

And that's the key here, as mentioned no problem. This application is likely one of the consolidated/downsized applications that commercial and quick lube filters use. The 14610/7317 down to the shorter (in this case) 14612 is another example of the practice.

But, no worries.

 

[salv]

The QS3600 is equivalent to an L20195 or an FL400S. Purolator does the same thing with their Group 7 line of filters where they spec the V195 for L14670 applications.

 

[XtraRevsSurely]

Originally Posted By: salv
The QS3600 is equivalent to an L20195 or an FL400S. Purolator does the same thing with their Group 7 line of filters where they spec the V195 for L14670 applications.


Does that mean the QS3600 is not the equivalent of the L14670?

 

[Sayjac]

^^^^Depends what you mean by "equivalent". If you mean same size and efficiency rating as the L14670, then no. The L14670 is rated more efficient and is obviously larger than QS3600.

If by equivalent you mean, Quaker State's filter equivalent of the L14670, then yes.

And just to be clear, Purolator makes Group7 primarily for commercial accounts applications, so it's spec and application sizes are designed for those uses and cost savings is a factor. The QS is also made by Purolator to QS specs. I would say the two are likely very similar spec wise, as would be the Puro made ProMotive (commercial) and PepBoys ProLine.

But, your question does anyone see "a problem" with using the QS, my answer while having a preference for the larger spec size, again is no.

 

[XtraRevsSurely]

Thank you for clarifying and answering!

 

[KCJeep]

Yep! Typical of the value lines. They offer one of the acceptable "crosses" to the actual spec filter because they don't offer an exact duplicate so suddenly then it's just fine. It's an FL-400s equivalent which will work just well on anything that takes the spec L14670.

Cross them yourself though and suddenly they won't give you any warranty!

I do it anyway the liklihood of a problem (if done properly) is akin to being hit by a meteorite IMO.