Oversize filter advice.

[santov]

I'm trying to find a cross reference resource that will tell me which filters are oversized. I'm listing Fram part numbers to make the cross reference easier, even though I use mostly M1s or Fram TGs (I know, I know, I'm getting rid of them). After all the great research here I'm going to use Bosch filters moving forward, but want to get all the part numbers in order and place one huge order from RockAuto.com.

First a few thoughts-
The advantage of going to a bigger filter is the additional filter media does not TRAP more matter, but HOLDS more matter. So with OCI of about 3500miles this isn't really an issue.

The RISK with going with a larger filter changes the spring rating of the bypass valve, which may increase the oil pressure and/or restrict oil flow, again, not an issue if the OCI is short enought to not completely clog the media and trigger the valve.

The other risk, is of course screwing up size and ending up with crossthreaded filters, or bad seals that squirt oil. I'm tempted to go to Kragens and open boxes and hold the filters against eachother to verify a good seal.

I don't think the anti-drain back valve is affected by a larger filter.
---------------
The first one is for my wife's 2005 Infiniti FX35. When I first saw the tiny filter I realized it's the same size for my 800cc motorcycle filter! The stock filter is Fram PH6607 or Bosch 3300. I'd like to find something bigger, mostly because the engine is higher milage, and now that I'm running Mobil Clean 5k I want to push to 4500m OCI. Compared to my Honda motorcycle I can't believe this size is sufficient for a 3.5L V6.

The second filter I'd consider upsizing is for my Jeep SRT8. The stock filter is Fram TG16. This filter is freaking huge, so I don't think it needs to be bigger. The OCI is 3000mi. I've been using M1s, but $12.50 each is silly, I'm switching to Bosch.

The last filter is for my motorcycle 2002 Honda VFR800. The stock filter is Bosch 3300. I have been using Bosch 3323 with no problems. It doesn't get many miles, so next oil change I'll send a sample to Blackstone.

Thanks for any feedback!

 

[Colt45ws]

For the Infiniti, the next logical upsize is a PH7317. This is what you also know as the Bosch 3323. Its the same diameter, but a bit longer; about 3.4".
If you look, Nissan/Infiniti switches between the 6607 and 7317 size somewhat randomly.
If you have room around it, you could go with a PH3593A. It is shorter than the 7317 at 3.1" but larger diameter; 3.25" as opposed to 2.7". Same bypass, same thread, same gasket.

The Jeep is easy. PH8A. It is the same specifications as the PH16 you have on now, but a little over 5" long.

Same applies for the bike as the infiniti. Looks like you already upsized a bit, the only question is if you can fit the 3593a filter.

 

[Scooter_man]

Sound's like Colt45 completely covered your questions.

In a similar situation (wanting more capacity) I upgraded the filter size in my '99 Metro and haven't had a problem. It factory specs a Fram 3614 (or equivalent) but I discovered that the 3600 is the exact same, only longer.

No problems, have been doing this for a couple of OCI's now. No reason not to have the extra filtration capacity. Plus, now my 1.0L 3-cyl. engine holds 3.5 qt's (woo hoo).


Rob

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
First a few thoughts-
The advantage of going to a bigger filter is the additional filter media does not TRAP more matter, but HOLDS more matter. So with OCI of about 3500miles this isn't really an issue.


You'll get a diminishing increase in efficiency as you go bigger. Velocity has a decent role in that. The bigger the filter, the slower the particles move through it. This would assume that the same media was used in both filters. Yes, the holding capacity would be higher.

Quote:
The RISK with going with a larger filter changes the spring rating of the bypass valve, which may increase the oil pressure and/or restrict oil flow, again, not an issue if the OCI is short enought to not completely clog the media and trigger the valve.


It depends on the application's needs. The generic for a WIX is 8-11. The generic for a Purolator is 11-16. If your application was within that range (8-16), then I'd say your risk is no more than choosing one brand over another. At least the filter man who offers that as an x'ref doesn't see it as a risk if that's the case.

Quote:
The other risk, is of course screwing up size and ending up with crossthreaded filters, or bad seals that squirt oil. I'm tempted to go to Kragens and open boxes and hold the filters against eachother to verify a good seal.


Well, even filters of identical dimensions come in various threads. Gasket sizes tend to be cross compatible and fall into 2 groupings. 2.8/2.6 and 2.5-6/2.2. Some filters from one company where the 2.4/2.2 filter is spec'd will x'ref to a 2.8/2.4 in another brand.

While I'm sure it's happened. I can't recall anyone having a leaking issue with the slight mismatches in gasket size.

If you can handle the other dimensional changes, here's one. I don't think the gasket will be an issue. I wouldn't fret over the bypass valve due to the aforementioned variance from one filter man to another. Your OEM filter in Purolator is a 11-15 rating. 8-11 in Wix. 16 here.

Part Number: 51324
UPC Number: 765809513242
Principal Application: Small GM/Isuzu Diesels (81-83), Chevrolet Corvette (91-95), Ford/Mazda Diesel (83-87), Dodge/Mitsubishi Diesel PUs (83-84), Mitsubishi Fuso Trucks
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 4.354
Outer Diameter Top: 3.663
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 20X1.5 MM
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 16
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Beta Ratio: 2/20=10/25
Burst Pressure-PSI: 280
Max Flow Rate: 9-11 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 21

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.834 2.462 0.200

 

[dnewton3]

Any feedback, eh?

Here's my $.02 ... Please prepare, because I'm going to dissent here.

Not to be rude, but you have zero need for upsizing your filters.

Your wife's car is going to be at 4.5k mile OCIs?
Your Jeep OCI is 3k miles?
Your OCI on the bike is unknown, but I suspect it's very low as well.

Sir, you have ZERO need to upsize your filters. They are well more than capable of the tasks you've set forth.

There are certain situations when a smaller filter actually has a better efficiency; other times, not so. There are times when bigger ones would be excellent, except they may not fit. The "what if" scenarios go on and on. It is so case specific for what filters you consider. At some point, you also have to consider price and availability, right? "Bigger = better" only applies (generally) if other parameters are the same (media type, etc). You cannot assume that a larger filter always has the same media as a smaller one.
Excellent examples:
Wix 51515
Wix 51307
Wix 51311
All use the same gasket size, and are of the same can diameter; only the length varies externally. But the 51307 and 51311 must have different media that the 51515, because they are shorter, but have "better" beta numbers. Now, the taller 51307 does have "better" beta than the shorter 51311 but a tad, but they both blow the 51515 away in efficiency, likely due to different media. But to simply look at the canister and say "bigger = better" is completely false. Of course, as Gary would say, the filtration triangle is in play. The "better" efficience in the smaller cans will not have as long a lifecycle. Size, lifecycle and efficiency all work interdependently. If you hold one as a constant, the other two become inversly affected. You can't fool the physical world.

So, as to your quest for a "lager" filter; do it if you "want" to, but you don't "need" to. And I suspect you'll see zero net affect from the change, regarding useful lifecycle of the equipment that you'd ever put it through.

IMO, you need to define "why" you "want" a bigger filter. Are you seeking more OCI duration? Greater filtration efficiency? Something else? But keep in mind, your current OCIs simply are no where near the danger zone for your OEM spec'd filters. Your desire to "upgrade" will likely do nothing but satisfy your own emotions (although at some point, there is merit in that as well).


That's my comment.

 

[santov]

Wow you guys are great!

I appreciate all your part numbers and recommendations. I'm going to get an order going to stock up on Bosch filters right after I burn through the Frams and M1s I have stocked.

I know my OCI are short, but it's based on UOAs I've read.

Thanks again!

 

[dwendt44]

PH16→PH43→PH8A.

The smaller still Chrysler filter is in the same family.

 

[amptramp]

There are a number of us who drive Miata's who use the Millenia filter which is about a half inch longer but otherwise identical. I would like to find a still larger filter that would fit because the Millenia filter still looks rather puny. The manufacturer faces an economy of scale problem: if you build 100,000 of a certain type of engine per year and the production run is 10 years, you have a million engines that have to be filled with oil before delivery. If the oil filter can be sized 0.1 litre smaller, that means he can save the cost of 100,000 litres of oil or several hundred thousand dollars over the production run.

Let's face it- manufacturers do not always have our best interests in mind. Every car is built to a price. There are times when "good enough" isn't good enough. It is common to upgrade a car from OEM to better tires, for example. Why not better filters as well?

 

[dnewton3]

I worked (past tense) for Ford for 16 years. You're attributing some common sense into a situation that typically does not exist in larger companies.

In your example, you presume that the engineers (who work at some R&D facility in a galaxy far, far away) that spec'd the filter were somehow over-ridden by a purchasing agent (who works at an assembly plant or regional finance center). The engineers could not care less about how much oil the purchasing agent saves by trying to get a smaller filter into any particular application. Now, if that smaller filter can perform the same job as designed and spec'd, it might happen after a lot of corporate haggling over months, if not years. But if you think that the engine engineers got over-ridden in a filtration spec by a bean-counter at an assembly plant, you're flat mistaken.

In the corporate world, we all work towards the common goal; that being to stay employed and do as little damage as possible, whilst doing the most probable good. To that end, most every person in a large company has an "annual performance review" or something similar. I can assure you with 100% certainty that the performance review goals of the engine designer state NOTHING about saving the assembly plant any money. Nor does the purchasing agent who bulk buys oil by the train-car load, care about engine bearing wear rates and fluid flow rates in the cam bearings.

What you suggest makes sense, only to those who DON'T work in a large corporate world.

And I can tell you that same mentality exists in other realms, like where I work now (not the auto industry). Our divisional engineering building is right across the parking lot from the manufacturing plant I work in, but it might as well be 1/2 a world away, because getting them to agree on any change AFTER they bless a project is a deep, long shot at best.

You are correct in that OEMs have their own best interest in mind; they wouldn't stay in business without that mentality. But often, the goal is produce a desireable product at the least cost that can sell favorably in the market place against the competition.

What is most likely the reason for a small filter is that the engineers looked at the particulate load over the expected OCI, the packaging of size, the efficiency ratings, the quality of oils today, etc and decided that filter XYZPDQ fit the bill for the least cost. Did a filter purchasing agent influence the decision? Perhaps. But did an oil purchasing agent influence the deicion? I don't believe it for a second.

So, why not a "better" filter for the OP? Because the OP still needs to define what "better" means to him. He knows how to ask the question, but he has no idea of why he's asking it ...

 

[amptramp]

Thank you for your comments, dnewton3. A colleague of mine worked in a subtier company to the auto industry in Detroit and I agree, what happens there would not make sense anywhere else. He sold identical centre consoles for a Chevrolet and a Buick but GM insisted they be handled as separate purchases. When he brought to their attention that they could get a better quantity discount by buying them together, they said no and they bought two separate lots. Bizarre. And he did mention that when he sold to Toyota, there was none of this nonsense.

Now back to the oil filters: I have seen manufacturers downgrade some production engines from large filters to some incredibly small filters, perhaps to save space but most likely to save money. I am not interested in who made that decision - I am interested in what I am losing as a result.

What I would like in a filter is an extended OCI since oils are getting better but not cheaper and I want enough additional filtration area that the bypass does not open. Many Miata drivers like myself have changed to the Mazda Millenia filter which is about half an inch longer but otherwise similar and most importantly, uses the same 20 x 1.5 mm thread and the same gasket diameter. I do annual oil changes in the summer because I do not put that much mileage on the car. If I could fit a larger filter in the same space, I would, and it appears I can according to the crossreference data at:

http://www.trasko-usa.com/crossref.htm

But I can tell you right now that my Mobil 1 5W-30 has only a slight amount of colouration - enough to see the level on the dipstick and no more. And the engine internals look clean. But I also use Mobil 1 on my Suzuki Esteem Wagon and it gets more mileage and it is beginning to look dark, but it uses a very tiny filter with a 3/4" - 16 thread. I am going to look for something bigger. Incidentally, both cars are 2001 models.

 

[dnewton3]

Well - now you're getting into some more reasonable info.

Extended OCIs, but with low annual mileage? Are you still going to OCI once a summer? If so, then you're extending the chronological age of the OCI, but not the exposure of mileage. That being the case, you can choose either filter. Filters can easily go past the "or one year" mark (and so can oil), but if you're not comfortable with that, then just OCI once a year with the normal or upsized filter.

In the end, you'll never get anywhere close to enough mileage on the vehicle to make any appreciable wear difference either way (filter to filter). If using an upsized filter makes you sleep better at night, that alone might worth the price of admission.

 

[Gary Allan]

It's hard to get the "pliable envelope" view for many. You've got certain counters that are employed from the moment that you put an oil and filter in service. Both have operational ceilings in time and distance.

What's harder to see is the if you're under a self imposed ultra low ceiling in one axis, you can (in some cases) elongate the other substantially.

Beyond that "fundamental", if you will, the same counter of time/distance is being assessed against the vehicle and engine. If you're not using it that much, you'll never reach anywhere near its end of life due to the other plane of the envelope (time = now stretched) taking its toll ..or not. Even if you simulated 10X the alleged wear per mile, the miles are so low that it would take 100 years to reach the equivalent of the normal MTBF mark.

While I'm probably not communicating this in a simple way, "planning" for a lifetime "long run" ..when you'll never manage to ever reach 1/2 that mark, just isn't doing anything for you.

I envision it as a square graph with a line dissecting it. Many live along that line; where time and mileage are equally working at about the same rate. Now some can "squish" that square ..even form it into a trapizoid ..and skew the line, but when they plot out the given multiple axises ...one will extend beyond your lifetime and probably be trumped by one of the other sensible ceilings that you've formed in the distortion.

I know that was way too abstract. Sorry.

 

[dnewton3]

Makes sense to me. It's just difficult to put into words at times.

This is where the OP sits (as do many others that are worried about doing the "best" for their baby), when no amount of baby'ing will make any appreciable difference in the lifecycle. The product is so much more capable past the projected use that it's simply moot. Synthetic fluids and premium filters cannot be made whole conceptually when annual OCIs are low in mileage.

But if one sleeps soundly at night, using these products under these circumstances, I guess that is where the beauty is for the beholder. It's emotional; not logical.

Which is why I am adamant about saying "it doesn't matter". Upsizing a filter for equipment that will likely NEVER see more than 100k miles during the ownership is simply a waste. Perhaps the third or fourth owner may or may not care, but why spend money so that some guy or gal way down the line might have a "better" UOA?

Here's a personal example:
I have a 1966 Mustang convertible with 289 V-8. It has 72k original miles on it. My dad got it in 1978(?) with around 62k miles, as I recall. So in the last 32 years, it's only had 10k miles put on it. Does it really matter what oil/filter the first and second owner's ran? Not hardly. The 289 Windsor is known for eating cam bearings, and no oil/filter is going to stop that. At some point, I might do a rebuild, but it's not in the budget right now. My good friend also has a 1966 Mustang very similar to mine; his has 212k miles on it. He had the engine rebuilt about 1k miles ago. It was high mileage when he got it, in college 20 years ago, and he drove it for about 15 years non-stop. The oil pressure was at zero at every stoplight. But it still ran and ran. Clearly, his car was a daily driver for everyone involved. A 1966 engine with dino oil and the OCOD for 200k+ miles. And kept on running.

Yet some people worry about what's "best" for a car that might see 5k miles a year, with a high-quality, fuel-injected, modern-technology engine running today's oils and filters. I believe this is what Freud might call an "obsession". And it's ok to obsess over a car; that's fine. But in that acknowledgement, one must also confess that this passion over-rides logic. In essence, the "wants" outweigh the "needs".

Once a vehicle goes into "partial use" status, the oil/filter combination is simply moot. The OEM spec's will MORE than suffice for the lifecycle of the equipment. Anything over that is minutia.

The OP's vehicle will not be any better off for using an upsized filter, because in the TOTAL vehicle lifecycle (which will likely last well past this owner) it won't matter one darn bit. And the third or fourth owner won't care what he used because they will either drive it 'til it pukes, or rebuild it with renewed "passion" and put another "bigger is better" filter on it ...

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
So, why not a "better" filter for the OP? Because the OP still needs to define what "better" means to him.

He knows how to ask the question, but he has no idea of why he's asking it ...

Just have to say that I love that last line. I'm going to put that in my 'favorite quotes' book.

 

[[RT] ProjUltraZ]

d you're always a step ahead, i was using the larger PL34631 as an oversize. it says 4.24" H on their site but i think that's a typo, it looks much taller, taller than the old fram PH30 or K&N 2002

the recommended PureOne for my 5.7L is PL20049 but it looks like a mini filter (3.75" H) But since this car sees around 5,000 miles a year...what's the point? i just bought the mini filter and will use it, even tho it's the smallest oil filter i've ever bought for this car.