Baldwin Filters - FL1A & FL299 X-Refs (SAE 3/4-16)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
780
Location
Illinois, USA
Mostly for the sake of allowing everyone to be able to see this data all at once, I made a chart consisting of Baldwin filters that are either Motorcraft FL1A or FL299 equivalents. Knowing that the FL1A is a very popular and widely used size, the first 3 filters listed are its equivalents. For anyone who either uses an FL299 size, or if anyone wanted to upsize from an FL1A to an FL299 size, the remaining 5 filters (below the first 3) are FL299 size equivalents. All are SAE 3/4-16 threads.

All of this information was gathered from an email sent directly from Baldwin themselves.



You can open the picture in a new tab to see it larger if you need to.

Here is a link to the Word Document if you wish to download it for offline use:

http://puu.sh/x0LT2/457bf43a45.doc
 
Micron rating/efficiency is FAR FAR FAR more important than "element size"

Out of all these extremely porous filters, the Baldwin B7311-MPG is the only one that filters fine enough.
 
I really wanted to try the B7311-MPG on my truck as I think theres enough room but Amazon was out and then I got a deal on a bunch of Bosch D3500 on clearance so it will be a while before I need another filter.
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Micron rating/efficiency is FAR FAR FAR more important than "element size"

Out of all these extremely porous filters, the Baldwin B7311-MPG is the only one that filters fine enough.


I appreciate the OP's work here and thank you.
I agree with Linctex and Baldwin has some QC issues they need to address before they get me back!
 
I'm pretty sure nominal means 50% and absolute means 99%+ sooo... I don't understand the complaints. Besides, Baldwin gives out more data and is friendlier than Wix. That being said, I have nothing against either of them and wouldn't hesitate to use a Baldwin or a Wix filter on any of my vehicles if the price was right.

The B2 is a cross-ref (and thus a direct competitor) to the 51515:
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=193964

The B2-HPG is a cross-ref (and thus a direct competitor) to the 57515:
http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=1825888

I think a lot of people would have assumed the B2-HPG to be a competitor to the 51515XP, but the XP is touted as an extended drain filter like the Fram Ultra, Purolator Boss, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, and Amsoil filters. The Wix 51515 says "Media: Enhanced Cellulose," the Wix 57515 says "Media: Microglass," and the Wix 51515XP says "Media: Synthetic." If you want to know more details about the differences in those medias, feel free to email Wix, but there's no telling if they'll give you the kind of answer you're looking for.
 
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
I'm pretty sure nominal means 50% and absolute means 99%+


I doubt "absolute" means efficiency at 99%+. You should email Baldwin and find out.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
I'm pretty sure nominal means 50% and absolute means 99%+


I doubt "absolute" means efficiency at 99%+. You should email Baldwin and find out.

Here's their email, if you want to ask them, go ahead: [email protected]
 
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
I'm pretty sure nominal means 50% and absolute means 99%+

I doubt "absolute" means efficiency at 99%+. You should email Baldwin and find out.

Here's their email, if you want to ask them, go ahead: [email protected]

I'll pass, it's not my research project
grin.gif
, but "absolute" efficiency is not at 99+%.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
I'm pretty sure nominal means 50% and absolute means 99%+

I doubt "absolute" means efficiency at 99%+. You should email Baldwin and find out.

Here's their email, if you want to ask them, go ahead: [email protected]

I'll pass, it's not my research project
grin.gif
, but "absolute" efficiency is not at 99+%.

Even though the document is old, Baldwin states beta 75 is absolute. That would be 98.7%.
 
Originally Posted By: WellOiled

Even though the document is old, Baldwin states beta 75 is absolute. That would be 98.7%.


I see that, they say "beta=75 is generally considered absolute". "Generally" the key word. If that's the case then you could say it mesns "99%" if rounded up.
 
ZeeOSix - I agree with you. When you see a free standing micron rating without an efficiency associated with it, it is meaningless. Machinery Lubrication (Noria) says that in their article. The standard is ISO 4548-12 which you pointed out. The test is multi pass and measures particle counts upstream and downstream from the filter. The test is performed with a specific test dirt. So if the test dirt is 20 micron, the upstream particle count is 1000 and the downstream particle count is 30, then beta20=33.3. Efficiency is 97% @ 20 microns.

And, I did not see the word "generally". Good catch on your part.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'll pass, it's not my research project
grin.gif


You kid, but in all honesty, I can't deny that I did thoroughly geek out and enjoy making that chart. For whatever reason, research projects for school or work are such a drag, but research projects done by one's own volition for the sake of spreading knowledge and helping others (especially when automotive related) are pretty fun. I love having this community here that shares my enthusiasm for oil and filters, because I don't have the chance to talk to many people about this stuff in real life. As soon as I try to talk about oil or filters with either my parents, friends, or co-workers, and try to explain why I geek out so much over it, everyone either just gives me the blank "I have no idea what you're saying but I'm nodding anyway" look, or the "I understand most of what you're saying but that sounds boring as heck" look. We're a weird bunch, us BITOG-ers, but that's something to be proud of.
 
^^^ I totally agree! I've done a lot of "research projects" here over the years, hopefully to help people out somehow. Keep up the good work
smile.gif
 
You made up a great chart. I use the 3/4 - 16 size filters on a lot of my trucks.
 
In my observation of dissection of Baldwin/Hastings filters and efficiency info provided, 'generally speaking' they appear well made, but not noted for their efficiency. The latter would appear to be confirmed by the data posted. Also notice that Baldwin uses different micron levels for efficiency data, and iirc SOP for them. They are generally lauded for their responsiveness to customer inquires for data like efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: Sayjac
In my observation of dissection of Baldwin/Hastings filters and efficiency info provided, 'generally speaking' they appear well made, but not noted for their efficiency. The latter would appear to be confirmed by the data posted. Also notice that Baldwin uses different micron levels for efficiency data, and iirc SOP for them. They are generally lauded for their responsiveness to customer inquires for data like efficiency.

Sorry, what does SOP mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top