Reusable(washable) spin on oil filters

[Pat Conlon]

Hey, it's raining and I'm bored so I went to the mailbox and got my Feb. copy of Motorcyclist, and I saw on page 88 something interesting:


http://pcracingusa.com/store/index.php?cPath=13_5&&page=1

Anyone try one of these on their spin on filters?
I don't even know if they have a model that would fit our FJ spin on conversions.  They look kinda small. (Randy?)
A Washable/reusable oil filter would be cool if you could put up with the mess. The Mfgr. claims filtering down to 35 microns, I don't know how that compares with a high quality disposable spin on filter. (Ed?)  Mfgr. also claims oil flow is up to 7 times more than oem paper filters.

Looks to me to be more hassle than they are worth ($110)

Cheers!    Rain, Rain go away....

[simi_ed]

Paddy, All I can tell you is I WOULD NEVER use that on anything of mine.  It's a SCREEN!  Think sieve   An Amsoil EAO 20 (for FJ) filter will filter 98.7 percent at 15 microns.  A typical paper filter will do 40 to 80 percent efficiency at 15 microns.  I'd bet that screen is not as good as a typical paper filter.
Of course, it's not my motor, so you're free to do as you will. 

[Marsh White]

Anyone try one of these on their spin on filters?
I don't even know if they have a model that would fit our FJ spin on conversions.

Pat, I have had one in my 89 FJ for 5 years now.  I am using just the cartridge filter in the stock OEM oil filter housing.  No problems and I like it!  Very well made and high quality.  Easy to rinse out with dishsoap in the sink during oil changes and keeps me from always running to a Yamaha dealer.

I got mine here: http://www.bikeeffects.com/proddetail.asp?prod=S1%2DY
Price is $86.00 after our 10% club discount.

[Marsh White]

I'd bet that screen is not as good as a typical paper filter.

Ed, some specs for you to digest here:
http://www.scottsperformance.com/products.php?PartType=3

And here:
http://www.hardracing.com/OilFilters.htm

[jimmyboy]

 :shout:They have definately gone up in price since you purchased yours.  I just ordered one.  I dont mind the messw but be aware to always keep an extra o ring on hand.

[Marsh White]

:shout:They have definately gone up in price since you purchased yours.

Yes they have - I just looked up my old post to the Yahoo group in February 2006 when I purchased mine and I only paid $79.00.

Posted February 18th, 2006:

Well, I shelled out the money (nearly double the spin-on filter adaptor cost
at $79) for one of these lifetime oil filters:
http://www.sportbikeeffects.com/proddetail.asp?prod=S1%2DY

It wasn't so much for any perceived cost savings (none really), but I don't
EVER have to buy another oil filter! The main reason for the purchase
however, is it filters to 35 microns, whereas paper filters are in the
neighborhood of 90 (best) to 300 (worst) microns. So in other words, it
filters particles more than HALF as small as the best paper filter on the
market while flowing MORE oil! Here are more specs:
http://www.hardracing.com/OilFilters.htm

Now, if I really wanted to get the trick ticket, I could buy the spin-on
legends adaptor, and the billet aluminum spin on casing for this filter...

Marsh White
http://www.FJRally.com
89 FJ1200 & 86 FJ "Streetfighter"

[the fan]

Years ago when I worked in a KTM shop we sold similar filters under the scotts brand. The then new RFS four strokes had a very short service cycle on oil changes and it seemed like a good deal. 2 of the part time employees used them as they rode quite a bit (hare scramble and MX racers) and it seemed like a very cost effective option. It may have been coincidence but after a year the motors in their bikes showed considerably more wear than those of other customers who ran conventional filters. Too small a sample size for an objective test, but I have been leery of the stainless filters ever since.

We offered 2 free oil changes using OEM filters on each of the 25 or so bikes we sold and only one of the bikes had noticeable wear in the same time frame (520EXC, very active enduro rider). IIRC the filters cost around $110.00 in 2000.

Dirt bikes generally have a much tougher life than street bikes and as long as you are using high quality oil it should not be an issue.

[racerrad8]

Just for everyones information, I have contacted both Scotts and PCR in regards to a filter that will fit the spin-on oil filter adapter I sell.

I will post when I have further information on the filter that will fit the adapter.

Randy - RPM

[simi_ed]

This thing filters to 35 microns???  Why bother? If the oil filter has to filter out pieces of sand, your bearings are T-O-A-S-T!  And that's where you are getting your oil pressure from.  

Amsoil filters filter to at least 15 microns, regardless of what anyone else claims for 'Most other filters".  They (Amsoil) even credit the 'typical filter' as being at least somewhat efficient at 15 microns, not the 100-ish microns that Scott's put out.



Further, as I understand, most wear occurs with particles from 4 to ~ 20 microns.  By the time you get to 35 micron particles, the party's over.  And for the record, most of the contaminants in the oil arrive through the air filter.

This is the Amsoil air filter media, but it is very similar to the oil filters.  Now do you REALLY think a piece of 304 stainless screen is going to filter out more crud than this media?  And who cares if the media is good to 600ºF?  By that time, even Amsoil is cooked, let alone ANY dino-oil.



More info on Amsoil oil and air filters ...
https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eao.aspx
https://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eaa.aspx

Marsh, you're my friend, but you're wrong!  This may be a money saver in the short run, but you're going to wear out a motor a lot sooner.  Now, if your '89 isn't worn out yet, your just not riding it enough

I stand on the same piece of ground: It's not my motor, so you're free to do as you will.

[Mark Olson]

Anyone try one of these on their spin on filters?
I don't even know if they have a model that would fit our FJ spin on conversions.

Pat, I have had one in my 89 FJ for 5 years now.  I am using just the cartridge filter in the stock OEM oil filter housing.  No problems and I like it!  Very well made and high quality.  Easy to rinse out with dishsoap in the sink during oil changes and keeps me from always running to a Yamaha dealer.

Marsh, so you don't need a detergent oil then.

washing an oil filter out in the sink just seems wrong , the air filters are trouble enough.

[Marsh White]

Marsh, you're my friend, but you're wrong!

I'm wrong?  When did I ever say I was right?  These micron filter specs are all over the place.  I was just simply quoting the Scotts information.  You are just simply quoting the Amsoil information.  Scotts is trying to sell their product, so let's rule that information out.  Amsoil (and you because you are a die hard Amsoil rep) is trying to sell their product, so let's rule that information out.

Perhaps someone with a little more time on their hands than I have can do some research and pull together some stats from various 3rd party sources regarding this subject and post their findings and links.

Example questions: what micron size particles occur in oil that can actually damage our engines?  5?  25? 85?  What micron size particles rub off of our clutch discs and get in the oil?  What micron size particles get through our air filters and can damage our engine? etc.

[pdxfj]

 

[Pat Conlon]

Ok seeing as though I started this, here's what I found via a quick search:

What micron size is harmful? It appears that Ed has a vaild point. A oil filter capturing particles 35 microns or larger is not good.

The following is a summary of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
Paper Number 881825 Entitled:

"Correlating Lube Oil Filtration Efficiencies with Engine Wear"
Written by David R. Staley of General Motors Corp.

AC Spark Plug and Detroit Diesel Corp. performed a joint study of the relationship between the level of engine oil filtration and Engine wear rates, and found finer filtration reduced the rate of Engine wear.

Diesel and Gasoline Engine wear rates were established by building a Diesel and Gasoline Engine with fully inspected wear components and inspecting them after the test. In both Engines, the upper and lower main bearings, oil rings and compression rings were inspected. In the Diesel Engine, the cam lobe profile and cylinders were also inspected, while the piston pin bushings, piston pins and cylinder liners of the Gasoline engine were inspected.

The total test duration was eight hours. To accelerate wear, 50 grams of AC Fine Test Dust was added, in slurry form, to the crank case every hour.

Diesel Engine wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes: 40 Microns, 8.5 Microns and 7 Microns.

Gasoline Engines wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes of the following sizes: 40 Microns, 30 Microns and 15 Microns.

ANALYSIS

The researchers found clearances in the Diesel and Gasoline Engines varied between 2 and 22 Microns during engine operations. That means particles in the 2 to 22 Micron size range are most likely to damage Engine parts. Particles smaller than 2 Microns will slip through the clearances without damaging bearing surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

The researchers drew the following conclusions:

Abrasive Engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in single pass efficiency. Compared to a 40-Micron filter, Gasoline Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30-Micron filtration. Likewise, wear was reduced by 70 percent with 15-Micron filtration. Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the range of 2 to 22 Microns in the lube oil is necessary for controlling Engine wear.

"The Micron rating of a filter as established in a single pass efficiency type test, does an excellent job indicating the filter's ability to remove abrasive particles in the Engine lube oil system."

The smallest particles most popular "full Flow" filters capture with high efficiency are sized 25 to 40 Microns, depending on the filter brand.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The following is a snip from Motor Oil World website regarding oil filter efficiency vs. engine wear:
http://www.motoroilworld.com/choosing_an_oil_filter.html

"......Three technical papers (SAE 881827, SAE 881825 and SAE 95255) were written on how ultra-fine oil filtration affected an engine's performance. These papers described the results of micro-micro filtering crankcase oil to determine the affect of by-pass filtration in the 3- to 10-micron range. Five engine components were tested: rod bearings, bushings, compression rings, oil control rings and main bearings. The emphasis of the test was to control particles in the 3-to 10-micron range. The test proved that removing additional particles in the 3- to 10-micron range will have the greatest effect in reducing engine wear. Particles in this range have traditionally been ignored, but this size range is very significant as a long-term wear factor.

Some interesting findings of this research are as follows:

* Micro-micro filtering gravimetrically reduced the particulate contamination from 0.016 percent to 0.0025 percent, which reduced the number of particles by a factor of 6. It also reduced normal engine wear by a factor of 14.

* Fuel economy was increased 0.9 percent. This may not seem like much, but is a considerable amount over the life of the engine.

* Particles in the 3- to 10-micron range create a significant amount of unforeseen wear.

* Particles in the 3- to 10-micron range create friction and power loss.

* Particles in the 3- to 10-micron range increase fuel consumption.

* Particles in the 3- to 10-micron range micro-erode engine rings.

* Particles in the 3- to 10-micron range micro-erode soft seals on the crankshaft.

* Particles in the 3- to 10-micron range micro-erode rolling surfaces.

* Particles in the 3- to 10-micron range cause the engine to wear about six times faster than it would if these particles were removed.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And finally here's a website called Auto Education.Com
http://www.autoeducation.com/autoshop101/oil-change-7.htm
which also supports Ed's position i.e. 60% of engine wear comes from particles from 5 to 20 microns in size...
Look at this article and see what they list as their top 3 filters.......

PART 7: EFFICIENT OIL FILTRATION RECOMMENDED  

    Now, on to oil filtration. Even having taken care of all other issues relating to oil contamination, there is still a certain amount of dirt and debris in your oil which must be taken care of. Hence, there is a necessity to maintain adequate oil filtration in order for a lubricant to remain viable. Even though the extra dispersancy additives keep dirt and debris surrounded and impede contact with engine components, those contaminants must still be removed. This is where your oil filter comes into play.

    First of all, the statistics previously mentioned regarding engine wear haven't changed. 60% of all engine wear is caused by particles between 5 and 20 microns. Unfortunately, most oil filters on the market today are lucky to remove even a small percentage of particles under 30 to 40 microns. This, again, leaves most of the harmful debris in your oil.

    The actual filtration efficiency of a particular filter really depends upon the filter manufacturer, and it is sometimes very difficult to get any specific numbers from them regarding their filters' actual filtration efficiency.

MICRON LEVELS NOT GREAT FOR COMPARISON

    If you do any research on your own, you'll find that most manufacturers no longer use micron levels to rate their filters. This is a result of some manufacturers' shady representation of their filters using micron ratings. You see, some filter manufacturers would indicate that their filters would remove x micron particles and leave it at that ("x" being whatever arbitrary number they chose to print). Of course, consumers would take this to mean that all particles larger than this micron level would be removed, which is not necessarily the case.

    The truth is that chicken wire will remove 5 micron particles. It will even remove 1 micron particles. BUT, it will not do so with very good efficiency. The key is, how efficient is the filter at removing x micron particles. If you don't know how efficient it is at a certain level, the micron rating means nothing.

    So, most companies have gotten away from micron ratings (to avoid the confusion) and have gone to an overall efficiency rating. In other words, an industry standard test is used in which oil is contaminated with a certain number of particles of varying micron sizes. At the end of the test, there is a measurement taken to determine the total percentage of ALL of these particles that were removed by the filter. That percentage is then stated as the overall filtration efficiency of the filter.

    Some companies use a single pass test, others use a multiple pass test. Both are perfectly valid and will give you an excellent way of determining how well a filter will do its job, but you should not try to compare results from a single pass test to results of a multiple pass test. You'd be comparing apples and oranges. In either case, high efficiency filters will rank in the low to mid 90's for filtration efficiency. Off-the- shelf filters will rank in the mid 70's to mid 80's for filtration efficiency.

IF MICRON LEVELS ARE TO BE USED

    Nevertheless, you may still want to compare filters using micron ratings. If this is the case, the following is a good rule of thumb. A filter is considered nominally efficient at a certain micron level if it can remove 50 percent of particles that size. In other words, a filter that will consistently remove 50% of particles 20 microns or larger is nominally efficient at 20 microns.

    A filter is considered to achieve absolute filtration efficiency at a certain micron level if it can remove 98.7% of particles that size. So, if a filter can remove 98.7% of particles 20 microns or larger, it achieves absolute efficiency at that micron level.

     Most off-the-shelf filters are based upon a cellulose fiber filtration media. Most of these filters are, at best, nominally efficient at 15 to 20 microns. They won't generally achieve absolute efficiency until particle sizes reach 30 microns or higher.

    High efficiency oil filters have filtration media made of a combination of at least two of the following: glass, synthetic fibers and cellulose fibers. Those that use all three are generally the best in terms of filtration. Those that use only two will fall somewhere in between. The best of these high efficiency filters will achieve absolute efficiency down to about 10 microns and will be nominally efficient down to 5 microns or so.

HOW IMPORTANT IS BETTER EFFICIENCY?

    The fact is, you would probably be amazed at how much engine wear could be eliminated simply by using more advanced oil filtration. In paper 881825 the Society of Automotive Engineers indicates that a joint study was performed between AC Spark Plug and Detroit Diesel Corp. The study found that finer oil filtration significantly reduced the rate of engine wear.

    According to the paper, the tests regarding engine wear within a diesel engine were performed using four levels of oil filtration. They chose filters whose efficiency rating was very high for particles of 40 micron, 15 micron, 8.5 micron and 7 micron sizes.

    The same was done for gasoline engines, except that the relative sizes were 40 microns, 30 microns, 25 microns and 15 microns.

    To make a long story short, the researchers had this to say:

    "Abrasive engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in filter single pass efficiency. Compared to a 40 micron filter, engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30 micron filtration. Likewise, wear was reduced by 70 percent with 15 micron filtration."

    By combining this type of oil filtration with the superior protection and cleanliness of a premium synthetic oil, you will virtually eliminate engine wear.

EFFICIENCY IS NOT THE ONLY IMPORTANT FACTOR

    Of course, filter capacity and quality of construction are also important considerations. If a filter has low capacity and high efficiency, it will clog up quickly. As a result, your oil will begin to bypass the filter completely and will become contaminated very quickly. Filters with high efficiency and low capacity should definitely be changed at 3,000 to 5,000 miles or 3 months - without question.

     Filters which have high capacity but low efficiency will last longer without becoming saturated, but will not protect your engine as well. Of course, filters with low capacity AND low efficiency are at the bottom of the barrel and should be avoided. Generally, you can call a filter manufacturer and ask them specifically what their filtration efficiency and capacity ratings are for your filter. They should have that information.

    If they give you a micron rating, ask them how efficient their filters are at removing particles of that micron size. You might also ask them at what micron level their filters are nominally efficient (50% removal) and at what level they achieve absolute efficiency (about 99% removal). If they can't or won't provide you with a straight answer, I wouldn't purchase their filters.

    If they give you an overall percentage efficiency rating, ask them if that is for a single pass test or a multiple pass test. That will be important if you are to compare those ratings with other manufacturers so that you'll be comparing apples to apples.

I DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THAT

    For those of you who just want to know what's best, here's a breakdown of the top 3, in my opinion. Mobil 1, Pure 1 and AMSOIL provide the greatest filtration efficiency in the tests I've seen. Mobil 1 and Pure 1 both achieved 93% overall filtration efficiency on the SAE HS806 test. AMSOIL scored a 94%.

    In regards to filtration capacity, the AMSOIL outscored them by a wide margin. In a comparison of filters recommended for the same application, the AMSOIL could hold 21 grams of particulate matter. Comparable filters from Mobil 1 and Pure 1 held 18 grams and 15 grams respectively. So, the AMSOIL filter held 17% more than the Mobil 1 and 40% more than the Pure 1.

    The AMSOIL also appears to have a little heavier construction, but everyone seems to have different criteria they use to judge this. You'd have to cut the filters apart for yourself to make your own judgements in this matter.

    The AMSOIL company recommends changing their filters at 12,500 mile or 6 month increments. Based on their numbers, this seems reasonable. They have better capacity and stronger construction which should allow them to achieve longer change intervals. Since AMSOIL filters have been recommended for these intervals for about 20 years, it seems reasonable that they know what they're talking about.

    Mobil 1 and Pure 1 recommend changing their filters at your vehicle manufacturer's recommendations. That generally means change the filter at each oil change which amounts to changing the filter every 3,000 to 7500 miles depending upon driving conditions. Because of the lower capacity of the Pure 1 filters, I'd recommend changing them closer to 3 to 5,000 miles. The Mobil 1 would probably last 5,000 to 7500 miles with good results.

     As a side note, you can determine if your oil is bypassing your oil filter by touching your filter after at least 45 minutes to an hour's worth of driving. If the filter is hot, you're probably in good shape. If it's not, the oil is likely bypassing the filter, and it is time for a change.

WHAT ABOUT THE PRICE?

    Let's assume you drive 25,000 miles per year. The Pure 1 is about half the price of the AMSOIL or Mobil 1 in most cases, and runs about $5.00 for a filter for a 96 Ford Taurus 3.0L. However, I recommend that it be changed more often due to a lower filtration capacity. With changes at 5,000 miles you're looking at 5 filters x $5 = $25. If you decide to play it a little safer and change at 3,000 miles (which I'd recommend), you're looking at about 8 filters x $5 = $40 for the year.

    The Mobil 1 and AMSOIL filters will run you roughly $10 for a filter for that same application. If you take the Mobil 1 to the high end at 7500 miles, that amounts to about 3 filter changes or $30. Playing it a little safer at 5,000 miles puts you at 5 filter changes or $50 for the year.

    If you use AMSOIL's recommended filter changes (12,500 miles), that amounts to 2 $10 filters or $20 for the whole year. Seems to me this is the better buy. You get slightly better filtration efficiency and fewer filter changes for less money. Can't see how it gets any better than that.

WHAT ABOUT OIL STARVATION?

    Of course, the first question that comes to mind when most people hear of high efficiency filtration is oil starvation. How can an oil filter remove particles that much smaller and still provide adequate oil flow to critical engine components?

    Well, again I refer back to the high efficiency foam air filter we talked about earlier in this eBook. You'll remember that it is designed to have a much thicker filtration media that will trap particles throughout the entire media instead of only on the surface as with a paper air filter.

    This is also how high efficiency oil filters work. Instead of trapping all of the oil contaminants on the surface of a paper (cellulose) type filtration media, high efficiency oil filters have a depth type media which will trap contaminants throughout the entire filtration media. This, combined with the different type of materials used for the filtration media allows high efficiency oil filters to remove more and smaller particles without restricting oil flow - just as high efficiency foam air filters remove more and smaller particles without restricting air flow.

    There is also the option of using magnetics to help with filtration. Some filters are magnetically charged so that they hold all engine wear particles within the filter, no matter what the size. These are not necessarily a bad idea, but they do not remove other oil contaminants which are not metallic in nature. Therefore, if possible, you might want to consider some combination of magnetic filtration AND high efficiency filtration media.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted with Permission from "The Motor Oil Bible" eBook
Copyright 2000 Michael Kaufman ("The Motor Oil Bible" Author)
Download it from: Here!
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Marsh White]

My limited research draws the same conclusions.  Here is a good link:
http://www.calsci.com/motorcycleinfo/Filters.html

They specifically talk about the Scotts filters and say:

There's a new type of filter being marketed, the "laser cut stainless steel filter," which we're told is "good for the life of your vehicle."

These filters typically have 35-40 micron holes, which is really not acceptable. They typically have 30-40 square inches of filter material, which is really not acceptable. A paper based element is a 3 dimensional filter - when a particle gets stuck deep in the filter element, oil can still flow around it. The stainless steel elements are 2 dimensional - when a particle gets caught, one of the holes is clogged up.

I don't see how you can assure that all the holes get cleared out when you clean these. Certainly simply soaking the filter in kerosene is not going to release particles that have been jammed into a hole at 60psi. Blowing the filter out with air sounds good, but a motorcycle filter is too small to let an air hose inside.

These stainless steel filters cost about $120, about 25 times what I pay for a Pure One. Since I use my filters for about 8,000 miles, that means I have to go 200,000 miles to break even. I've never put more than 60,000 miles on a vehicle.

I don't think this technology is ready to use yet. When the holes get down to 20 microns, and the surface area up to about 100-150 square inches, then I think I'll consider using one. Meanwhile, "good for the life of your vehicle" is not an impressive claim if the device shortens the life of your vehicle.

This Amsoil website has some interesting information: http://www.pecuniary.com/faq/micron-rating.html

Of note:

Micron Ratings are arbitrary values assigned to filters or media. Although a "micron" is a length (1 millionth of a meter), a "micron rating" is not actually a measured value. The micron rating for a filter quotes a particle size without establishing the filter's efficiency at removing that size of particles. A window screen will remove some 1 micron particles, but it will not be very efficient. Since a micron rating cannot be verified, filter manufacturers are safe in assigning any number that they want. AMSOIL does not recommend comparing filters based on micron ratings.

[Pat Conlon]

Ok   Thanks Marsh, I've bookmarked that website. Looks cool. Lot's of info. there.

OTOH, here's a spin on billet filter with a replaceable cartridge that the Mfgr. claims to filter oil down to 8 microns......

http://www.cmfilters.com/

Naaa, nevermind.

Marsh, you know right about now, Ed is chuckling to himself.
Everything we read keeps bringing us back to Amway, uh, or Am....something.