Initial Oil Filter size???

[Frenchy]

Not agreeing or disagreeing... Just curious. What makes you say that? Is there something to the internals that we aren't considering?

It really comes down to two things. For starters technology has come a long way vs way back when befor i was even thought of. Engine oild had been refined, internal combustion engines having tighter clearance resulting in less blow by. Really its to a point that unless the manufacturer did a horrible job in the manufacturing process that there really is more reason to not need as much filtering media for the oil. As for reason two, Ford did thier testing with the 910S. If that trsting isnt good enough why bother with the truck in the first place?

Get where im coming from?

Sponsored

 

[puckdodger]

I can confirm the initial oil filter change was a huge PITA, that filter was on super tight. I think the three jaw thingy would be beneficial for sure. The oil filters on all GM engines i've owned were relatively easy to reach and get a grip on compared to this beast. Or maybe the guy installing filters the day my engine was built hated the world and put em on extra snug.

 

[Big Blue]

Not agreeing or disagreeing... Just curious. What makes you say that? Is there something to the internals that we aren't considering?

There maybe differences, I don’t know. Do you? Is the valving in those other filters designed properly for the horizontal mounting orientation on our trucks? Is the spring in the valve the correct tension?

I will stay with the factory speced filter.

 

[Dgc333]

It really comes down to two things. For starters technology has come a long way vs way back when befor i was even thought of. Engine oild had been refined, internal combustion engines having tighter clearance resulting in less blow by. Really its to a point that unless the manufacturer did a horrible job in the manufacturing process that there really is more reason to not need as much filtering media for the oil. As for reason two, Ford did thier testing with the 910S. If that trsting isnt good enough why bother with the truck in the first place?

Get where im coming from?

I have been an engineer for the past 46 years and every single engineering decision is a compromise of some sort and the single biggest compromise driver is cost.

Did Ford do their testing on the 2.3 with the FL-910S spec filter? Absolutely, and it met the MINIMUM requirements to be certified for production. Can you do better? absolutely. Can you show objective evidence that you are doing better? probably not. It's just like the 2.3 being tested and certified with synthetic blend oil but most everyone agrees that synthetic is better and there are great debates as to which synthetic is the best, yet no one can show objective evidence that their engine will last longer on synthetic verse blend.

A larger filter has several advantages; 1) more filter media means less pressure drop resulting in less likelihood of the filter bypassing and allowing unfiltered oil to circulate through the engine. 2) a larger filter has more surface area to dissipate heat lowering the likelihood of over heating the oil. 3) the increased volume of oil means each molecule of oil has to do less work extending it's life.

When you go to the store and buy a filter an FL-910S, FL-400S, FL-300 and FL-1A are all going to be the same price. But when Ford goes out for quote for a million filters there is going to be a price difference based on size from the material content. Since the FL-910S is the smallest it is going to be the least expensive. That cost savings goes straight to the bottom line. Hence, the engineering compromise is to use the least expensive filter that meets the minimum requirements.

 

[Dgc333]

There maybe differences, I don’t know. Do you? Is the valving in those other filters designed properly for the horizontal mounting orientation on our trucks? Is the spring in the valve the correct tension?

I will stay with the factory speced filter.

FWIW, The same filter is spec'd for the 2.3 Ecoboost Mustang and the filter is vertically orientated. Also, as I previously mentioned the FL-910S filter is not even a Ford design, it was first spec'd in 1982 on the 2.2 Mopar 4cyl.

 

[Old NaCl]

I used different filters, just cause at the time it was easier to keep a Fl1a on the shelf for the cars we owned.
92 super duty, 68 galaxy, 84 tempo, 88 topaz, 86 country squire, 98 wangler, 72 f250.
All would use a Fl1a filter .

Now I kept a 400s on the shelf as it worked with both my wife's car and mine. No longer the case as she got a Nissan and I picked up this ranger I have 2 fl400s in stock I'll burn those up over the next 2 years then maybe switch to the 910.

Just nice knowing if you have to do a oc, you have options if a 910 is not available when your time is .

Recall when manufacturers would list several oils you could use now it's you must use xw-xx.

 

[Big Blue]

FWIW, The same filter is spec'd for the 2.3 Ecoboost Mustang and the filter is vertically orientated. Also, as I previously mentioned the FL-910S filter is not even a Ford design, it was first spec'd in 1982 on the 2.2 Mopar 4cyl.

None of which means anything. Due you think Ford designs their own filters? They spec them for the application.

 

[Big Blue]

Really have to wonder why Ford would spec the 910S filter if they already had three other filters that would work. Unless there is some difference other than capacity.

Anyone see an interchange chart that says they equivelent?

 

[HeavyDuty]

So I find this interesting. On my 2022 Ranger the top 3 fasteners on the drivers side splash guard, to be removed so you can flap down, are 10mm.
The passenger side are all phillips type.

 

[HeavyDuty]

Here is the passenger side on my 2022

 

[Big Blue]

So I find this interesting. On my 2022 Ranger the top 3 fasteners on the drivers side splash guard, to be removed so you can flap down, are 10mm.
The passenger side are all phillips type.

It was a change made for the 2022 models. Some of us have moded ours with rivnuts and thumb screws to get rid of the plastic pins.

 

[Dgc333]

Really have to wonder why Ford would spec the 910S filter if they already had three other filters that would work. Unless there is some difference other than capacity.

Anyone see an interchange chart that says they equivelent?

As I stated before smaller filter less cost. Even if it's only 5 cents that is $50,000 when you are talking a million filters over a year.

 

[Big Blue]

As I stated before smaller filter less cost. Even if it's only 5 cents that is $50,000 when you are talking a million filters over a year.

Ah yes, the bigger is always better and everthing is about cost cutting analogy. What ever makes you happy.

 

[Dgc333]

Ah yes, the bigger is always better and everthing is about cost cutting analogy. What ever makes you happy.

Don't know about bigger is always better but based on your attitude it is obvious you don't work in manufacturing for a publicly traded company where the bottom line is everything.

The key to improving the bottom line is to reduce costs. Reducing costs flows directly to the bottom line and it allows you to increase market share by selling for less than your competition improving the bottom line.

 

[Big Blue]

Don't know about bigger is always better but based on your attitude it is obvious you don't work in manufacturing for a publicly traded company where the bottom line is everything.

Wrong on multie points. I don’t work for anybody at all. I'm a retired engineer with 40 years at a large publicly traded multi-national consumer products company. I know all about stock-holder value.

We also did not design and maintain multiple seamingly interchangeable parts for no reason.

Sponsored