[Joel Koontz]

I am running dual remote oil filters on my car. The filter housing will accept Chevy or Pontiac filters and I could probably change the threaded portion so it would take Ford and/or Chrysler filters also.

I currently run a Mobil One filter(# 203) and a very large Chevy Filter(forget brand/#) My thinking is that the big filter has very little flow restriction and the M1 filter will probably filter smaller particles.

There is another post here discussing the benefits of a bypass filtration system and I am wondering it I could improve my arrangement by using a different filter instead of the M1 filter.

In my arrangement the oil can go through either filter, so I don't need to be concerned with how restrictive the filter is, I would just want a filter that will filter to the smallest micron level.

What stock type filter would filter to the smallest micron level. The larger the better as I have pleanty of clearance around the filters.

[74Grandville]

Originally Posted by Joel Koontz

I am running dual remote oil filters on my car. The filter housing will accept Chevy or Pontiac filters and I could probably change the threaded portion so it would take Ford and/or Chrysler filters also.

I currently run a Mobil One filter(# 203) and a very large Chevy Filter(forget brand/#) My thinking is that the big filter has very little flow restriction and the M1 filter will probably filter smaller particles.

There is another post here discussing the benefits of a bypass filtration system and I am wondering it I could improve my arrangement by using a different filter instead of the M1 filter.

In my arrangement the oil can go through either filter, so I don't need to be concerned with how restrictive the filter is, I would just want a filter that will filter to the smallest micron level.

What stock type filter would filter to the smallest micron level. The larger the better as I have pleanty of clearance around the filters.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I have a feeling both small or large they both filter at the same micron. One will handle more volume then the other, that is all.

[Joel Koontz]

I don't know the flow rates or the micron filtering level of either filter, but over the years I have read that the M1 filter, filters finer microns than MOST filters so I think it will probably filter out smaller particles than my large filter. I feel certain that the larger filter will have less flow restriction because it has MUCH more filter area.

I think the filters I am running now are doing what I want them to do, I'm just wondering if there is a better filter than the M1 for getting the really small debris out.

[JoePapa]

Have you looked at Amsoil?

http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g1092.pdf

I've never used this but heard nothing but good things about their dual filter setups.

[Steve C.]

The nominal micron rating for the popular WIX 51258 is 19 and the WIX 51049 is listed as 25 microns. Both listed 9-11 gpm for max flow rate.

Here is a e-mail response I recieved from K&N regarding their filters:

"Our synthetic-cellulose blend filter media stops particles as small as 10-20 microns, while still allowing high flow rates (between 12-16 gallons per minute, depending on filter size)."

A phone call to Mobil-1 tech service produced no information regarding flow rate and micron size, they informed me the information was proprietary.

I saw this posted on another forum regarding the Mobil 1 & K&N filters:

"... also help shed some light, is that persons were getting BETTER UOA results with the K&N (which had poorer filtration but better "flow") than they were with the better-filtering Mobil-1. In essence, the extra filtration of the M1 didn't overcompensate for its reduced oil-flow, and the engine was actually seeing more comparative wear then as a result. The K&N, allowing easier flow, ended up with reduced engine-wear (UOA comparison) despite the lesser filtering media."

According to one source apparantly both the K&N and Mobil 1 filters are made by Champion Labs. Also stated the construction is beefy on both, they may not be using the same filtering media.

[Steve C.]

Micron Rating: How important is this in filter consideration?

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums...&Number=351799

MICRON LEVELS NOT GREAT FOR COMPARISON ......

"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."

http://www.carjunky.com/news/motor_oil/mom7.shtml


.

[Sirrotica]

Joel, there is nothing to fit your description that I'm aware of. The bypass filter is probably going to be your best bet on keeping oil clean because when you filter it to the 1 micron range or less it has to be done at a slower rate than any full flow system is capable of.

Previously the car manufacturers offered oil filters as an option that were added on and they were of the bypass type. Back then you either changed oil very frequently (1000 miles or less) and ran with no filter, or you opted for the optional bypass which would buy you some more miles between changes. Undoubtedly it also bought you a little longer engine life too.

Later on the car manufacturers came out with the full flow system and it was standard on all engines, it was a compromise at best and the aftermarket then came out with auxiliary bypass filters which did a much better job of filtering the oil than the full flow systems do. Anyone that is close to my age or older will remember the older chevy straight sixes having a canister that was mounted on the engine and not all of them had that option. The bypass system is much superior to the full flow system because when you filter to such a fine micron standard it must be done slowly. A full flow system is the standard today from most all engine manufacturers but because it cannot filter small particulate out it is wasteful because of the compromise the oil builds up sub 20 micron particles which cause the majority of engine wear and because the full flow system is incapable of ever removing them. As a result the contaminated oil must be drained before it becomes really harmful to the engine and fresh oil must be introduced to the system. If your vigilant and keep this practice up the engine survives pretty well, neglected we all know how that turns out. It's also becoming quite expensive and wasteful to continue using the less than perfect full flow system the manufacturers have blessed us with. Consider this, the average spin on filter has less that 2 feet of paper in it approximately 4 inches wide, the Frantz filter has about 300 feet of paper in it. Is there any question on which filter will do a better job while being efficient at trapping the small particulate? Change filters and save your oil, we have been programmed to do the exact opposite by the car manufacturers, as well as the oil companies. Both want you to continue buying what they're selling.

Hope I have enlightened you about your question.

[Joel Koontz]

Thanks for the replies.

I already have four "oil filters" under the hood, two for the transmission fluid and two for the engine oil, so I don't plan to add yet another filter.

If I could find a more efficient "stock style" filter I would probably use it , but perhaps not right away since I have an existing stock of the M1-203 filters and from what I have read they are "among the best" in terms of filtering efficiency.

I already own an Amsoil bypass filter that I purchased(and used) back in the 80s that I could use, but I don't like the looks of it. I may put it on a truck or something, but probably not on a classic car.

If I could find a very efficient stock style" filter it would function much like a bypass filter, since it would not flow as well as my large filter it would only take a small portion of the oil on each pass through the system, but over time all of the oil would be filtered to the micron level of the efficient filter. I think it would rival the efficiency of a bypass filter if the filter were efficient enough.

Please let me know if you are aware of any "stock style filters" that filter to a very small micron level.

[lust4speed]

The oil is always going to take the path of least resistance, so your more restrictive filter won't be doing much good when run in tandem with a high flow filter. The remote dual oil filter has plenty of capacity to run any pair of filters without the filters' bypass opening - so why not forget about the high capacity filter.

[Joel Koontz]

Originally Posted by lust4speed

The oil is always going to take the path of least resistance, so your more restrictive filter won't be doing much good when run in tandem with a high flow filter. The remote dual oil filter has plenty of capacity to run any pair of filters without the filters' bypass opening - so why not forget about the high capacity filter.

Because the high efficiency filter will get out smaller particles than a "regular filter" and cleaner oil is better oil.

[Sirrotica]

If you don't want to put another filter under the hood there is a location that this Honda owner used for his bypass filter, see link: http://www.wefilterit.com/1990%20Honda%20Accord.html

Actually you could completely do away with a full flow filter and gut it to remove any restriction in that side of the system and let the bypass filer do all the cleaning. When Frantz filters first came about they had adapters to actually put in place of the full flow system filter and eliminate it completely using only the Frantz unit for cleaning the oil. This goes back to the type system that the car manufacturers used pre full flow with only an auxiliary filter doing the job of cleaning the oil.

Mick is correct when 2 filters are run in parallel the oil is going to seek the path of least resistance and little if any oil will be diverted through the high efficiency filter, most if not all will go through the standard full flow system filter.

[Steve C.]

Here is an interesting and informative comment I found while looking into micron ratings on oil filters, it might be of interest while we search to remove that last little teeny-tiny micron particle from the oil .....

"Any debris that manages to pass by the air filter becomes the enemy of your oil filter. The less effective your air filter is, the harder your oil filter must work. So, it is in your best interests to maintain proper air filtration. Once that is done, you must focus on finding the proper oil filtration for your vehicle."


.

[HWYSTR455]

Very good point Steve, knew someone would eventually spit that one out.

How far do you need to filter down to? Well, where are your clearances at? Pointless to filter down to a fraction of the clearance the particle needs to pass between. New car clearances are tighter than ever, some running 0-20W oil, and they go 200k+ miles, pretty much regardless of the filter used.

10 micron filters are not recommended for street use because they need to be changed frequently. FYI

You could run the System1 or Professional Products screen-type filters, they make race-only ones that go down to like 10 or less. May run into the same issue though, the appearance.

Moroso filters I hear are pretty good for filtration, many racers use them, religously.

.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by HWYSTR455

Very good point Steve, knew someone would eventually spit that one out.

How far do you need to filter down to? Well, where are your clearances at? Pointless to filter down to a fraction of the clearance the particle needs to pass between. New car clearances are tighter than ever, some running 0-20W oil, and they go 200k+ miles, pretty much regardless of the filter used.

10 micron filters are not recommended for street use because they need to be changed frequently. FYI

You could run the System1 or Professional Products screen-type filters, they make race-only ones that go down to like 10 or less. May run into the same issue though, the appearance.

Moroso filters I hear are pretty good for filtration, many racers use them, religously.

.

You keep coming back to the same thing over and over, A full flow system cannot filter to a fine standard and still keep the internal engine parts lubricated at the same time. Fact is that filtering down to a fine standard has to be done slowly, slow filtration and a full flow system will never be able to be done well together, your going to compromise one or the other.

The alternative is to do as most everyone does, when the small particulate that a full flow system cannot remove contaminates the oil you throw it away and replenish it. That practice is no longer a cheap fix, it's getting more expensive every time I buy oil. It used to cost about $12-15 to do my own oil changes, It's now about double that. When I am at the point of saving money by not doing 7 oil changes with better filtration, I am at the break even point, and after saving 7 oil changes I'm saving money from there on out.

[HWYSTR455]

I keep coming back to the same thing over & over again? It's my first post on this thread. Or do you mean the thread keeps coming back to the same thing?

Filtering down to a fine level doesn't have to be done slowly, especially when using thinner oils. Or higher pressures for that matter. You force a liquid through medium that only allows X particle size to pass through, and there you go, filtered. Not fast enough? Add pressure!

The real issue is contaminates that are liquid, not solid. And the additives in oil that burn off, evaporate, or in some other way get used up. That's technically when you NEED to change the oil, and that's going to happen way before particles will contaminate oil. If it weren't for that, you would never have to change oil.

.

[Joel Koontz]

I am aware that "when 2 filters are run in parallel the oil is going to seek the path of least resistance".

I agree that if a high efficiency filter is used with a high flow filter, most of the oil will go through the high flow filter, but SOME will go through the high efficiency filter on each pass through the filter housing and over time ALL of the oil will be filtered to the level of the high efficiency filter.

I am not interested in adding another filter in another location, I just want to find a high efficiency, stock style filter to run in the system that I currently have.

[Steve C.]

And how often is a car really driven ?? Daily driver with a expected ton of miles or a hobby car that gets driven once a week or once a month ?? In many instances a person may change their oil and filter once or twice a year. Can we not get carried away and worry too much about a micron or so ??

Sort of related....
Cold start issues can be hard on 'dry' bearings especially when it sits in the garage for awhile and not used often. Inorder to help in that situation I have my bearings coated, some may say that is overkill for a street car. Many sides to the various situations.

[Joel Koontz]

I certainly don't think I NEED improved filtration as my system, IMO, is currently better than stock, and stock has been fine for millions of vehicles.

BUT, just because I don't need it, does not mean that it does not make sense to improve the system (for free, or nearly free) if I can.

[rolling money pits]

does amsoil still make their stand alone by-pass filters? if so, that might be the hot-lick set up for what youre looking to accomplish.

as a real world experience with them here....a buddy of mine, about 20 years ago, put one on his Gutless Cutless. prior to putting it on the oil, after a fresh change, would turn a nice shade of black after about 1500 miles. doing nothing other than adding the by-pass rig, the oil after the same amount of miles and driving conditions, was LIGHT YEARS cleaner. rather than looking like molasses, it looked more like light maple syrup.

so, in a very unscientific determination, the by-pass set up was doing exactly what it was supposed to. no change in oil pressure either.

since have a dual remote set up now, for engine oil, you could dump that in favor of the remote amsoil by-pass and go back to a quality spin-on in the factory location?

[Steve C.]

Again related, and a situation I personaly have with low oil tempature....


Tale Of Two Temps
Q: My '68 Camaro's 327 engine has a mild build-up of '69 302 heads, a Comp Cams 292 cam, an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, flat-top pistons, a block deck, balanced, a four-speed, and 4.10:1 gears out back. What is the ideal temperature for the engine for performance and durability? Thank you.

Charles Creed
Mount Airy, NC

A: Great question. For performance you want the engine temps to be low. For longevity and wear you want high temperatures. Go figure. Let's find a compromise.

When you're looking for maximum performance you need to have low engine temps because the heat that is transferred from the cylinder heads and intake manifold into the fresh fuel and air charge lowers the power potential of every cylinder firing. Also, the cooler the combustion chambers, the more spark advance the engine will tolerate before reaching detonation issues.

As for wear and durability, higher engine temps are favorable to boil all the moisture out of the engine oil. When you run lower engine temps and short-duration engine run time, the engine oil doesn't get over 212 degrees F. When the moisture isn't boiled out of the oil it creates acids that attack the metal of the engine and destroy the oil's lubricity. A nice engine oil temp is around 230 degrees F. This is a very safe operating temp for the oil and it can take away the heat from the rotating assembly and pistons. Most of us don't want to know how hot our engine oil is running down the road. A normal passenger car running down the freeway at 70 mph will commonly see a 250-degree oil temp.

For a nice compromise on street driven engines, I like 180-degree thermostats. This is a good balance between engine wear and performance potential. Hope this gives you a little insight into engine temps.

( from Chevy High Performance magazine )