Good read on Oil Filters...

[DTYZ426]

Any opinions?

http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/Filters.html

[cowboyona426]

Lengthy! But lots of good information in there. I'm interested to see what one of our gurus (that means you grayracer) makes of all that.

[Slowmotion426]

Good info...

[mnm567]

Do I go with the stainless oil filter or not? Figures I have one on order already. The yamaha oil filters at the dealer costs $12! plus they usually bypass the oil at startup. Which is worse a filter that filters particles at 30 microns consistantly or a filter that bypasses itself when filtering is at its most needed time? Huh, I don't know. GRAYRACER?????

Good info though!!!!

Matt

[Vibeguy]

As a lube oil analyst (and vibration) the article was very good and should be required reading by all. During training we looked at the test results of a comprehensive filter test that compared "Beta Ratings" of most of the automotive filters available today and the Purolator Pure 1 was by far the best of all filters. It's the only filter I run in my car and truck.

Filters are generally rated 2 ways, beta or absolute. The SS filters that are on the market today are rated at 30 mu absolute, that means that the largest SPHERICAL object that will pass through the mesh is 30mu in diameter. What about a metal shard that is 25mu wide by 100mu long?

Beta ratings use the multi-pass test system that is done in a lab and measures the numbers of various sized particles before and after the filter. A filter beta rating of 90-10 means that the filter will trap 90% of the 10 micron particles. As you can see this is a much more realistic test than the absolute rating.

My suggestion is to contact your filter mfg and ask them for the test results of their filter and how it is tested, beta or absolute, ask them about it's construction. If they build a filter they are proud of they will openly give you this information if not I would change to a different filter.

[grayracer513]

Well, I have several first impressions, and there is a risk of painting myself into a corner by reacting to the article this quickly, but....

First, I've read the author's work before, and I find some fault with it, but it's essentially accurate as far as it goes. And most people can read him.

I'm a little surprised to see that the numbers on paper filter elements are as bad as they are; I thought they filtered better than the 30 micron level given here. Yet another reason not to use them. Of course, paper can and does remove some of the smaller particles. See the discussion of efficiency and Beta ratings.

He criticizes stainless element filters for having a small amount of filter area, but fails to address the fact that the OEM paper filters have no more than that, and that the OEM brass mesh has somewhat less, in addition to filtering at vastly inferior levels compared with either stainless or paper.

He mentions the problem of being able to thoroughly clean the stainless element, and he is correct in saying that simply soaking the element isn't going to do it.

Like the rest of the article, the discussion of bypass valves is based on the underlying assumption that the filters are of the size and type found on 1 liter road bikes. These are larger by at least 8 than those found in a YZF. Then again, a YZF also moves a much lower volume of oil than a Hayabusa. Still, low temperature bypass activity is a real problem with the small paper filters used in a YZF.

I do wish that there was a better, larger, finer mesh element available for my bike, but there's not. A filter that would have the 100 square inch area the author says he wants is seven times as larger as the paper or Scotts element for a YZF. If I could design the system, I'd do what KTM does; use two filters. Then I could use a Scotts as the primary and a high quality ultra fine paper element as the secondary.

I would say that there is a lot of good information in the piece, but like anything else, you are better off absorbing the information and using it to arrive at your own conclusions, considering, but not necessarily accepting the author's. And yes, that would apply to what I write, too.

On the air filter subject, the thing I notice is that the tests were conducted on big diesel engines. There are two things to think about in that. Diesels have no throttle valves in the intake air tract, so they pump their full capacity through themselves full time, processing as much as a hundred times more air per hour than a similar gasoline engine. Secondly, I think that if you compared the size of the air filter elements relative to the displacement of the engine, you might very well find that even as large as those elements are, your dirt bike has a bigger filter in terms of area per cubic inch. That's an important consideration because it directly relates to the amount of force trying to drive dirt through the element.

On top of that is the fact that there aren't any paper air filters for us to use anyway.

[Ga426owner]

Bah Humbug...I am sticking with what has worked for me on every YZF I have owned...Scotts Stainless Oil filter's......they have worked flawlessly every year. The OEM brass and paper work fine also - just cost more money over time.....

"It ain't no diesel either"

[grayracer513]

I am sticking with what has worked for me on every YZF I have owned...Scotts Stainless Oil filter's......they have worked flawlessly every year.

Me too.

[curtains23]

Politicians only tell you what they want you to know, so do manufacturers

[MotoGoalie]

Sometimes, just sometimes you can overanalyze a situation.

I've used, horror of horrors, FRAM filters on all my cars, the latest a 96 Ranger with 157k miles on it and it runs strong for a weenie 4 banger and doesn't smoke.

I run Fram, Emgo or whatever CHEAP filter I find, once or twice a year on the XR. It still runs like new. Starts on first kick. Bah.

So, sometimes I run my Scotts filter in my YZ, sometimes I run paper. Whatever.

I'm more worried about my high cholesterol.

[Ga426owner]

I'm more worried about my high cholesterol.

Me too ?