Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The distinction I make is that of intent; in regard to M/M coverage vs. benefits (a slew of which may or may not be realized).
When one uses a filter that is not approved by the maker for the application, you take on the risk of burden of proof unto yourself. Given that there's no proof of any real tangible benefit in terms of wear protection, it's a ruse. I don't chastise people for using what they "want"; I deride them for the foolish assumptions they make in regard to a theortical advantage that is not proven to materialize. And this choice comes with a risk; that of warranty coverage denial or (at the very least) delay, along with a mound of paperwork and fiscal costs. Using a larger (or smaller) filter really isn't a risk to the engine; it's a risk to your WALLET.
OTOH - in this case of this thread, the "niece" didn't choose to use the wrong filter, therefore the risk is not hers to bare. The QL facility takes on this burden as they are the ones that made the mistake (or cognizant choice) to install what we are all presuming is a "wrong" filter.
I have never said that using a "different" (non-approved) filter is typically a risk to the equipment. I have repeatedly stated that the unrealized theoretical benefit is outweighed by the real risk of warranty denial or delay, should the equipment fail and filter be blamed as a root cause.
For example, you quest to see if the larger filter would fit the Edge ...
There's a benefit to you; that of less garage stock via commonality. But the engine isn't going to be any better or worse off. It helps you, not the engine.
Most folks mistakenly thing that a larger filter will provide these benefits (or conversely, a smaller filter would generate harm otherwise based on these traits):
- oil is cooler
- oil is cleaner; wear protection increased
- more capacity for "cheap insurance" that the media won't blind off
I'll discuss these in detail ...
The oil will be cooler, to some stupidly micro-incremental degree you'll never be able to measure accurately, and is as likely just as easily argued to be a detriment in winter where excess cooling would be undesirable. Plus, most all modern engines use liquid cooling for the engine, and many also add liquid cooling to the oil, so that fractional increase in filter size adding "cooling capacity" is a total farce. The engine and oil temps are generally controlled by the cooling system of the equipment, not the size of the filter can! If one subscribes to this "use a larger filter for better cooling" theory in summer, then the opposite corollary should be their mantra in winter; they should advocate for a smaller filter to reduce heat loss.
The oil will be "cleaner" some theorize, because the velocity of the lube through the media is a tad slower, and slower flow makes it easier to catch particulate. This is base on the concept of surface area and flow. Meh ... Maybe. But there's not one study I'm aware of that proves less wear comes from a big more media; not even been broached in the lab as far as I know. Again - theory is not manifesting into reality. Presuming that larger filter is catching more particulate due to slower flow, then we'd expect to see lower wear rates as a tangible result. And yet we don't; not to a discernible degree. No one here has shown reliable proof that running a FL-400 vs. FL910 (or similar such endeavor) has produced any statistically significant data. None whatsoever. I challenge this every time the issue comes up (which is frequently) and to date, after more than 10 years on this site, not one person has been able to point to conclusive evidence. Theory? Yes. Evidence it really happens? None whatsoever. While I can accept the theory as potentially viable, the nuance is that it's so freakin' tiny that it's just plain moot.
The filter will last "longer" using a larger filter. There are a few of us who do longer O/FCIs; further than those stated by the OEM. Using UOAs to track wear data, I've run up to 5x the OEM stated OFCI for "severe" use conditions, and yet the UOA data showed wear rates were very favorable. Not just once did I do this; I do it most all the time. There is already a LARGE amount of reserve capacity in a "normal" filter for the approved application. One does not "need" a larger filter for "cheap insurance". That's just a emotional justification to employ the use of something "wanted", but not "needed". If your engine lube is so filthy that you have a honest credible fear of the media blinding off, then you've got far larger problems than filter choices. Normal engines that run clean and are in good mechanical condition never come close to blinding off the media. So why would you need more of something that you're already not coming even close to utilizing the current capacity of? Does it hurt the engine? No. Does it help? No.
The risk of warranty denial/delay is very real, although admittedly remote and only induced if the filter would be a suspect for failure mode. The M/M act places the burden of proof upon the maker, IF the user follows the maker's recommendations. However, if not, then the user is placed in a position to prove his/her choice is valid. Given that most companies have far more money, time and lawyers that we do as individuals, and mounds of engineering data to boot, then we are at a distinct and very real disadvantage. They can deny coverage until they would be otherwise ordered by a judge/arbitraor to pay, and that would only happen if you were able to convince the authority that you knew better than Wix/Purolator/Fram/etc as to filter applications. (good luck with that, BTW ...)
So my points boil down to these:
When you CHOOSE to venture off the approved reservation, it may be for a matter of convenience to you, but your equipment will see zero REAL TANGIBLE benefit in this topic of filters. And that choice comes with a very real, albiet remote fiscal risk. If you didn't make the mistake/choice to use an unapproved filter, then don't sweat it because someone else may have to pay up, even though this would also be a remote possibility of failure.
Smaller/Larger unapproved filters are not generally a risk to the equipment. They are a risk to your money and sanity, should a failure happen. This is why I say in this thread, for folks to quit worrying. There no proof that anything untoward happened here. The engine didn't blow up. The theoretical damage didn't manifest into reality. And it was a one-time non-choice of the niece, so she would not have had to pay anyway.
But that is different from folks who purposely choose to use filters in unapproved applications. The claimed benefits never really materialize, but the risk is very real, although remote.
For me, it's not a matter of "larger or small", but one of "approved vs unapproved". Size doesn't matter in this topic, at least to me. What matters is intent and M/M warranty coverage.
And I do use "unapproved" filters upon rare occasion, but I do so knowing the risks I take are measured against a matter of convenience and will not result in better "cooling, cleaning, needed capacity".
The use of a slightly smaller filter on the neice's Focus is no more apt to harm the engine than the unproven claimed theories of larger filter benefits. Because the engine is not really at risk, we then turn our attention to that of M/M warranty. Given that the girl didn't make the choice here, she's absolved of any fiscal risk. So no harm to the engine and no harm to her wallet. THAT is why I am telling folks to calm down and forget this. That is FAR different from folks who CHOOSE to use the "wrong" filters repeatedly, gaining nothing for the engine but taking a real risk upon themselves, should the remote actually happen.
Does that help explain the difference of my position here?
+1000
Best post I have read in many years here.
