Two filters that "fit" but differen bypass psi

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
28
Location
Ky
For added capacity a member of another forum mentioned a different oil filter part number that he says he is now running then puts up these specs.

The stock filter part, FL 500S:

By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 8
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Max Flow Rate: 10-12 GPM

FL 820S:

By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: 16
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Max Flow Rate: 11-13 GPM

Is there a downside to the 820S filter, specifically the bypass valve setting being 16psi vs 8 for the stock filter?

What is the psi representing? Oil system pressure or how much pressure difference between supply side (entry) vs after the oil filter? Or am I totally off? Thanks. Still learning as much as I can.
 
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
What is the psi representing? Oil system pressure or how much pressure difference between supply side (entry) vs after the oil filter? Or am I totally off? Thanks. Still learning as much as I can.


The bypass valve PSI setting is the pressure difference between the outside and inside of the media - or simply "across the filter". Also called "Delta-P" or "PSID" (psi differential).

IMO, having the higher bypass valve setting on the other filter will not hurt. All it means is that there will have to be 16 PSID across the filter before the bypass valve opens. If you compare the two, you would only be losing 8 PSI of oil pressure to the engine if the bypass valve had to open. Most filters never see hardly any bypass events anyway unless you are starting up an engine in Alaska in Jan and revving the thing high with cold oil.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
What is the psi representing? Oil system pressure or how much pressure difference between supply side (entry) vs after the oil filter? Or am I totally off? Thanks. Still learning as much as I can.


The bypass valve PSI setting is the pressure difference between the outside and inside of the media - or simply "across the filter". Also called "Delta-P" or "PSID" (psi differential).

IMO, having the higher bypass valve setting on the other filter will not hurt. All it means is that there will have to be 16 PSID across the filter before the bypass valve opens. If you compare the two, you would only be losing 8 PSI of oil pressure to the engine if the bypass valve had to open. Most filters never see hardly any bypass events anyway unless you are starting up an engine in Alaska in Jan and revving the thing high with cold oil.
Delta P, change in pressure. Thanks!

So it sounds like it might be ok to go for the additional capacity if I choose to.
 
If your vehicle is well maintained you oil system will never see the bypass valve. Years ago we tested Delta values on a couple of engines in a large fleet with a Fox recorder and even as the oci approached it's limit the Delta value never came close to opening the bypass valve. Bigger filter = better filtering, more media a little more oil and it might just pass through the media just that little bit slower and in filtering slower is good.
 
The filter's bypass valve setting is also dependent on the filter's internal design ... ie, the expected delta-P when the media is loaded to capacity, how much delta-P the media can withstand without tearing, etc. The bypass valve setting is not all based on the vehicle it goes on, but that too is a consideration in terms of max expected oil flow volume.

Since one filter usually fits dozens, if not hundreds of cars, the filter designer probably looks at the car with the highest expected oil flow volume and thickest specified oil, then uses that info to set the bypass valve along with the filter's factors as shown above.
 
The FL 500 is a little Taller,but skinnier than the FL 820.
The Duratec 3.0 used to spec the 820.

The Duratec 3.5 Used to spec the FL 400.
Same Filter as the Vulcan 3.0l used - both engines made @ same Factory. (Ford Lima Engine plant)
in Jan 2009, after the Vulcan ended production, they switched filter plate to 22mmx1.5mm threads, from from the 3/4-16 threads of the old FL 400.
around the same time, they introduced the FL 500, which has the 22mmx1.5mm threads, is a slight bit taller than the FL 820(4.06" vs. 3.98") Slightly thinner (2.98" O.D. vs. 3.66" O.D.), but has more densely pleated Media.
now they spec the Fl 500 for both Duratec engines.
 
You are more likely to get start up noise with a filter that bypasses at double what the spec filter does. And since the FL-500S has essentially superseded the FL-820s in this application, I'd be even more suspicious of going back to an FL-820s. Ford would not have done this for no reason. JMO.
 
upon Further investigation, the FL 500 has the same dimensions as the FL 400.
even the gaskets are a few hundredths of an inch from being the same diameters.
the main difference is the threads.
(also the smaller form factor means you can fit more fl-500's on a shelf, or in a parts bin, than fl-820's)
for my filter comparisons, i used the fram catalog, and looked @ the Dimensions of their "comparable" filter.

FL 500/Fram PH10575
Product Type Full-Flow Lube Spin-on
Anti-Drain Valve YES
Gasket I.D. 2.45"
Gasket O.D. 2.76"
Gasket Usage Base
Product Height 4.06"
Product I.D. 22mmx1.5mm Th'd
Product O.D. 2.98"
Relief Valve Setting PSI 9-15

FL 400/Fram PH8316
Product Type Full-Flow Lube Spin-on
Anti-Drain Valve YES
Gasket I.D. 2.41"
Gasket O.D. 2.77"
Gasket Thickness .19"
Gasket Usage Base
Product Height 4.06"
Product I.D. 3/4-16 Th'd
Product O.D. 2.98"
Relief Valve Setting PSI 14


FL-820/Fram PH2
Product Type Full-Flow Lube Spin-on
Anti-Drain Valve YES
Gasket I.D. 2.42"
Gasket O.D. 2.81"
Gasket Thickness .2"
Gasket Usage Base
Product Height 3.98"
Product I.D. 22mmx1.5mm Th'd
Product O.D. 3.66"
Relief Valve Setting PSI 12
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
You are more likely to get start up noise with a filter that bypasses at double what the spec filter does.


Not sure if that would be a huge factor unless the temperature was very low, causing the filter to bypass. Seems start-up noise would be more dependent on if the ADBV works well to keep the oiling system from draining back to the sump.

You bring up a good point though ... why did Ford really superseded the FL-820S with the the FL-500S for this vehicle?
 
one last post from me on this topic, and then i'll **** and leave it be. the only time the filters cost ford continual money, is in the factory.
it looks like Very few "Current" engines still call for the fl-820.
It's Mostly engines that have been phased out, or just gone out of production.

My Prime examples will continue to be the Duratec 3.0l, and 3.5l v6's.
The Ford Lima engine Plant, used to make the 3.0 Vulcan engine, before the Vulcan went out of production, they started making the Duratec 3.5l. Both engines used the F-400s. The equipment @ the factory, that delivers the filters to the assembly point,was set up for that size of filter.

(keep, though know plenty of folks who work @ the engine plant, i have no conformation of any of this, just speculation on my part that makes sense to me @ least.)

after the Vulcan went out of production, they switched the filter mounting to the metric threaded stud, from the 3/4-16.
around the same tie they came out with the new filter(fl-500), that is being used on more of the newer engines.

this filter, with the metric threads, and the same can size as the fl-400, can be used with the same racking and distribution system in the factory as the old one (one less thing to have to re-tool)

at the same time i'm sure some engineer, tested the newer filter(Fl-500), vs the old (fl-820), on the engines where the 820 was specd, and found no ill effects with the newer design, so they passed it along to the dealer networks, whose bean counters would be happy, b/c they could add the new filters, and eliminate stocking the old ones, for a nearly net zero change in their costs, vs the cost stocking yet another model of filter.

Remember, Ford Doesn't make the Motorcraft Filters directly, they have it farmed out, and that manufacturer builds to ford's spec, and pays ford a licensing fee. (Just like the Current Mopar Filters are made by Wix)

They(whomever actually makes the Motorcraft Filters), are free to continue to make the older design if they want, as some folks will stick with the design they know, and there are alot of motors still on the road that originally spec'd the old filter.
Like every Panther[Crown Vic, Grand Marquee,Marauder, Towncar], Mustang GT, and (v8 powered) f-150, from the late 90's until the Coyote came out.
 
Thanks for all the information guys. So, lastly, do you think it's worth it? Which one would be the most restrictive to oil flowing through it? Is it possible for one of these to be the least restrictive AND filter better?

Thanks!
 
I have also noticed that the aftermarket versions of the FL-500S is being specc'd for applications that previously called for the FL-820S style at quick lube places and such.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
Thanks for all the information guys. So, lastly, do you think it's worth it? Which one would be the most restrictive to oil flowing through it? Is it possible for one of these to be the least restrictive AND filter better?

Thanks!


They probably both flow so close to each other that it doesn't really matter to the engine. Your engine isn't gonna care if there is 3 PSID or 6 PSID across the filter because it has a positive displacement oil pump.
 
But it is drag on the oil pump albeit fractional. I'm shooting for fastest 3.7 and at least fastest auto 3.7 mustang this fall. Reaching that goal should be good advertising for my port work.

I wonder which would have the least delta P across the element?
 
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
But it is drag on the oil pump albeit fractional. I'm shooting for fastest 3.7 and at least fastest auto 3.7 mustang this fall. Reaching that goal should be good advertising for my port work.

I wonder which would have the least delta P across the element?


Yes, by about 1/100th of one HP. It only takes about 1/2 HP to pump 12 GPM at 80 PSI. So a few extra PSI delta-P across the filter isn't going to even be measurable with sensitive instrumentation.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
But it is drag on the oil pump albeit fractional. I'm shooting for fastest 3.7 and at least fastest auto 3.7 mustang this fall. Reaching that goal should be good advertising for my port work.

I wonder which would have the least delta P across the element?


Yes, by about 1/100th of one HP. It only takes about 1/2 HP to pump 12 GPM at 80 PSI. So a few extra PSI delta-P across the filter isn't going to even be measurable with sensitive instrumentation.
I asked for learning purposes if someone knew which would have the lowest pressure differential. In my engine building I've seen HV pumps switch to standard volume and regain 4hp-8hp a few times when a customer would bring one in for a refresh. Well, if I'm at a store looking at two filters, I'll at least give it a consideration which will ensure adequate lubrication, filtering, and the least flow resistance using the same viscosity oil in a competitive situation looking for an edge.
 
Originally Posted By: earlyre
one last post from me on this topic, and then i'll **** and leave it be. the only time the filters cost ford continual money, is in the factory.
it looks like Very few "Current" engines still call for the fl-820.
It's Mostly engines that have been phased out, or just gone out of production.

My Prime examples will continue to be the Duratec 3.0l, and 3.5l v6's.
The Ford Lima engine Plant, used to make the 3.0 Vulcan engine, before the Vulcan went out of production, they started making the Duratec 3.5l. Both engines used the F-400s. The equipment @ the factory, that delivers the filters to the assembly point,was set up for that size of filter.

(keep, though know plenty of folks who work @ the engine plant, i have no conformation of any of this, just speculation on my part that makes sense to me @ least.)

after the Vulcan went out of production, they switched the filter mounting to the metric threaded stud, from the 3/4-16.
around the same tie they came out with the new filter(fl-500), that is being used on more of the newer engines.

this filter, with the metric threads, and the same can size as the fl-400, can be used with the same racking and distribution system in the factory as the old one (one less thing to have to re-tool)

at the same time i'm sure some engineer, tested the newer filter(Fl-500), vs the old (fl-820), on the engines where the 820 was specd, and found no ill effects with the newer design, so they passed it along to the dealer networks, whose bean counters would be happy, b/c they could add the new filters, and eliminate stocking the old ones, for a nearly net zero change in their costs, vs the cost stocking yet another model of filter.

Remember, Ford Doesn't make the Motorcraft Filters directly, they have it farmed out, and that manufacturer builds to ford's spec, and pays ford a licensing fee. (Just like the Current Mopar Filters are made by Wix)

They(whomever actually makes the Motorcraft Filters), are free to continue to make the older design if they want, as some folks will stick with the design they know, and there are alot of motors still on the road that originally spec'd the old filter.
Like every Panther[Crown Vic, Grand Marquee,Marauder, Towncar], Mustang GT, and (v8 powered) f-150, from the late 90's until the Coyote came out.


Your wrong about the fords. The 4.9,5.0 and 5.8 all took the same oil filter. The 4.6 and 5.4 took a different filter.
The Windsor filters were longer than the mod filters.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: earlyre
one last post from me on this topic, and then i'll **** and leave it be. the only time the filters cost ford continual money, is in the factory.
it looks like Very few "Current" engines still call for the fl-820.
It's Mostly engines that have been phased out, or just gone out of production.

My Prime examples will continue to be the Duratec 3.0l, and 3.5l v6's.
The Ford Lima engine Plant, used to make the 3.0 Vulcan engine, before the Vulcan went out of production, they started making the Duratec 3.5l. Both engines used the F-400s. The equipment @ the factory, that delivers the filters to the assembly point,was set up for that size of filter.

(keep, though know plenty of folks who work @ the engine plant, i have no conformation of any of this, just speculation on my part that makes sense to me @ least.)

after the Vulcan went out of production, they switched the filter mounting to the metric threaded stud, from the 3/4-16.
around the same tie they came out with the new filter(fl-500), that is being used on more of the newer engines.

this filter, with the metric threads, and the same can size as the fl-400, can be used with the same racking and distribution system in the factory as the old one (one less thing to have to re-tool)

at the same time i'm sure some engineer, tested the newer filter(Fl-500), vs the old (fl-820), on the engines where the 820 was specd, and found no ill effects with the newer design, so they passed it along to the dealer networks, whose bean counters would be happy, b/c they could add the new filters, and eliminate stocking the old ones, for a nearly net zero change in their costs, vs the cost stocking yet another model of filter.

Remember, Ford Doesn't make the Motorcraft Filters directly, they have it farmed out, and that manufacturer builds to ford's spec, and pays ford a licensing fee. (Just like the Current Mopar Filters are made by Wix)

They(whomever actually makes the Motorcraft Filters), are free to continue to make the older design if they want, as some folks will stick with the design they know, and there are alot of motors still on the road that originally spec'd the old filter.
Like every Panther[Crown Vic, Grand Marquee,Marauder, Towncar], Mustang GT, and (v8 powered) f-150, from the late 90's until the Coyote came out.


Your wrong about the fords. The 4.9,5.0 and 5.8 all took the same oil filter. The 4.6 and 5.4 took a different filter.
The Windsor filters were longer than the mod filters.


I don't see where he mentioned the Windsor engines at all Clevy, he spoke specifically of the Modular, which took the FL-820S. The last engine from Ford to take the larger FL-1A was the 302 in the Explorer up to 2001, and it was the only vehicle I know of that persisted with fitment of the Windsor beyond 1995 when the Mustang got the 4.6L starting with the 1996 MY.
 
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
But it is drag on the oil pump albeit fractional. I'm shooting for fastest 3.7 and at least fastest auto 3.7 mustang this fall. Reaching that goal should be good advertising for my port work.

I wonder which would have the least delta P across the element?


Yes, by about 1/100th of one HP. It only takes about 1/2 HP to pump 12 GPM at 80 PSI. So a few extra PSI delta-P across the filter isn't going to even be measurable with sensitive instrumentation.
I asked for learning purposes if someone knew which would have the lowest pressure differential. In my engine building I've seen HV pumps switch to standard volume and regain 4hp-8hp a few times when a customer would bring one in for a refresh. Well, if I'm at a store looking at two filters, I'll at least give it a consideration which will ensure adequate lubrication, filtering, and the least flow resistance using the same viscosity oil in a competitive situation looking for an edge.


Go get a PureOne ... they flow well and filter better than anything else on the self. BTW, you will never be able to see any HP difference by swapping out oil filters. Like I said, the difference if flow resistance can't be detected.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451
 
Originally Posted By: INTENSE
In my engine building I've seen HV pumps switch to standard volume and regain 4hp-8hp a few times when a customer would bring one in for a refresh.


Something else was making up the differnece. Here, do the calculations.

Ref: http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tables/fluidpowerformulas.htm

Horsepower = Pressure (PSIG) × Flow (GPM)/ 1714

Pump Input Horsepower = HP

HP = GPM × Pressure (psi) / 1714 × Efficiency

HP = (Q × P) / 1714 × E

Example:
HP to pump 20 GPM at 100 PSI
HP = (20 x 100)/1714 = 1.17

HP to pump 10 GPM at 100 PSI
HP = (10 x 100)/1714 = 0.58

Gain in HP = 1.17 - 0.58 = 0.6 (not very much!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top