Scotts re-usable oil filter


19 replies to this topic
  • Dre907

Posted March 08, 2006 - 08:11 PM

#1

I hear conflicting opinions on these types of micro filters. Is the genuine Yamaha paper filter best for my 06 YZ450F? I hear that the stainless filters change the pumping pressure of the motor due to it's tighter filtration causing higher pumping pressure. Any advice?

  • black_n_blue_thumper

Posted March 08, 2006 - 10:40 PM

#2

This is a 'Chevy/Ford' battle. You may want to do a search here and the WR forums. There is a ton of info out there on the subject. Most of it over my head. I love the stainless filters. I had around 4000 miles on my WR with no problems at all. I have one on my YZ too. I am not saying it is the absolute best, but it is the best for me. :thumbsup:

  • Radbuster

Posted March 09, 2006 - 03:24 AM

#3

I bought one for my WR400, used it later in my WR250 and now in my YZ450 since the fall of 03.

Total cost for oil filters during this time= $60
Total amount of oil changes? No idea, but a whole lot.

The stainless fabric flows more and filters smaller particles. Paper is fine, but stainless doesn't wear out. I inspect it closely every change, and it's like new every time.

:thumbsup:

  • ovrrdrive

Posted March 09, 2006 - 03:58 AM

#4

Ok you guys talked me in to it... :thumbsup:

I've been meaning to buy a Scott's for a while now but have just been too lazy. Now I'm overdue for an oil change so I went ahead and bought one.

If it filtered as good as an OEM paper filter it would be worth the price, but supposedly they filter particles about half as large as the OEM paper lets through so it should be a win/win product.

  • Dirty_Sanchez

Posted March 09, 2006 - 04:19 AM

#5

I can't believe folks still use the paper filters.

May be wrong, I've heard they'll flow 60ish gallons per minute which is considerably more than paper and filter finer particles than their paper counterparts.

Plus, they're sorta like shampoo, Repeat if neccesary.

What's your beef again?

Dirty

  • SoCalrider21

Posted March 09, 2006 - 06:59 AM

#6

I really like the SS filters. Because they are reusable and they filter better. And on top of it all you save a crap load of money.

  • Raven1911

Posted March 09, 2006 - 07:22 AM

#7

A quick question....

Why spend that much money on an filter when you are changing the oil every other ride or every ride? You are getting rid of the particles when you change the oil and put fresh stuff in. I guess for some people that leave the oil in longer they need the extra filter but for the person that maintains their bike and changes the oil frequently, why do you need the stainless filter?? Just wondering how you guys feel. :thumbsup:

  • Serenity Now

Posted March 09, 2006 - 07:48 AM

#8

I have 2 stainless steel reusable ones on my KTM (if you don't know already KTM's have 2 oil filters-short & long). I have never had any problems with them and am considering 1 for my newly acquired 450f. My friend has 1 from a 426... so...
do you guys know if it is the same or are the filters different from the 426's to the 450's? The one oil filter cross reference table I found through a search did not say. :thumbsup:

  • unkle_george

Posted March 09, 2006 - 07:56 AM

#9

Yamaha went from brass to paper between the 426 and 450, but they are interchangeable.

The Scotts stainless is worth every penny

  • grayracer513

Posted March 09, 2006 - 08:45 AM

#10

Dre,

Nothing could be farther from the truth. A single square inch of the mesh used in a Scotts filter will flow 1.9 gallons of 90 weight oil per minute at only 1 psi pump pressure at 70 degrees F. The element for a YZF contains just over 14.5 square inches of media, and even allowing for the increase in flow resistance caused by the pleated construction, this will still give the filter the capacity to flow more than 20 gallons of cold 50 or 90 weight oil per minute. This is a rate higher than that delivered by the gas pumps down at the corner station, and one the your oil pump could not match on its best day. Oil delivery losses? Ridiculous.

In fact, it is paper elements that are guilty of this. Their resistance to oil flow almost universally leads to oil bypassing the filter during warm up, especially with heavier grades of oil. The bypass valve is built into any well designed filter, or elsewhere in the oil system, to prevent precisely what you asked about. When the pressure drop over the filter exceeds a fairly low level, the bypass opens, allowing oil to pass on the theory that contaminated oil is better than none at all. The Scotts filters flow so well that this basically never happens if they are at all reasonably clean.

The differences in filtration are a little more complicated. There are two different methods of filtration used, and they are rated two different ways. The mesh filters are pretty simple to understand. They are rated with "absolute" numbers. In the case of the Scotts, the mesh filters to 35 microns "absolute". That means that NO spherical particle larger than 34 microns will pass through the filter; it stops everything larger. Theoretically, this would mean that the filter could allow a sliver of steel measuring 34 microns by half an inch to pass, but such particles are fairly rare, and because of the way oil flows around the filter, it is more apt to be trapped than passed.

What is 35 microns, exactly? One micron is one-millionth of a meter, or one thousandth of a millimeter, or 39 millionths of an inch. The numbers are .001mm and .000039". 35 microns, then, is .035mm, or .0013" (one point three thousandths of an inch). Pretty small. Your hair is at least twice that thick. A white blood cell approximately 25 microns. Sand is about 125 microns to start with, and finely ground, dusty sand is about 62 microns on average. Those of you who like the OEM brass screen filters should know that they rate at only about 80 microns absolute. :thumbsup:

Anyway, paper media is not a neatly gridded screen with uniform holes in it. It's a mash of fibers pressed together in a fairly random and porous arrangement. The pores in the media are of different sizes, and to pass through, oil must zig-zag between the various layers of fibers. Debris is caught more often by getting stuck in the corners of intersecting fibers or simply snagging on them than by being too big to fit through the pores. As a result, they have to be rated differently.

Paper filters are rated in "beta" numbers. A known amount of debris of a consistent and uniform size is pumped through a filter and the amount that gets through is measured. A number like 85/25 would mean that the filter is expected to stop 85% of all 25 micron particles. Paper filters do have the ability, because of the nature of the media to stop SOME stuff as small as 10 microns, but by no means all. The marketing types will gleefully present this to you as, "stops dirt as fine as ten microns", which is somewhat misleading at best. The real trouble is that paper filters will commonly let some debris as large as 150 microns or more get past them, and a filter that rates an 85/25 may not actually do any better than 85/45 on 45 micron debris.

So, it is a little like apples and oranges, but in my opinion, the Scotts filters filter better overall, and are certainly less expensive over even one year's time than the least expensive (and least effective) paper filters.

Visit the ThumperTalk Store for the lowest prices on motorcycle / ATV parts and accessories - Guaranteed
  • grayracer513

Posted March 09, 2006 - 08:49 AM

#11

Why spend that much money on an filter when you are changing the oil every other ride or every ride?

You are aware that the Scotts is re-usable, and has a usable life of (I don't know exactly, I've never worn one out), right? I do upwards of 20 oil changes a year, and I clean the filter every single time. With budget bulk paper filters, that would cost me $80-100 a year. My Scotts cost me $65 two years ago.

  • ditchound

Posted March 09, 2006 - 02:40 PM

#12

Scotts put a neodine magnet in the filters they make for sport bikes, I wish they would put one on their dirt bike filters.

  • ditchound

Posted March 09, 2006 - 03:04 PM

#13

Even if you change your oil every ride and remove the metal particles it would still be better to trap the metal as soon as possible with a good oil filter.

  • Pukeballs

Posted March 09, 2006 - 04:31 PM

#14

I just got a Scotts Oil Filter a couple months ago. Ive cleaned it about 4 or 5 times with Carb Cleaner. Is this cool to do or should I clean it with something less harsh?

  • grayracer513

Posted March 09, 2006 - 05:06 PM

#15

Carb cleaner is OK. Solvents of most any kind work, as does hot, soapy water. Be sure to avoid getting things from outside into the inside when cleaning.

  • Pukeballs

Posted March 09, 2006 - 06:20 PM

#16

Carb cleaner is OK. Solvents of most any kind work, as does hot, soapy water. Be sure to avoid getting things from outside into the inside when cleaning.


Thanks Gray. You the man. :thumbsup:

  • ethan

Posted March 09, 2006 - 06:33 PM

#17

I´m all for ss fliters, and trapping particles so small is great. But how do you know you are cleaning it all out everytime? I fear that SS filter will still have all these small pieces in it, where a new paper filter is just that; new.

  • grayracer513

Posted March 09, 2006 - 06:54 PM

#18

... how do you know you are cleaning it all out everytime? I fear that SS filter will still have all these small pieces in it, ...

So? If the filter has trapped them, they can't get past that point. Ever.

Remember the filter screens out all particles larger than a given size, and all the engine oil has to flow through the filter (unless it goes into bypass). If the stuff is big enough to get caught, it can't then later wriggle free an sneak by, although that is possible with paper. If you use compressed air under enough light, you can be pretty certain as to how clean it is, anyway.

  • SureBlue

Posted March 09, 2006 - 09:08 PM

#19

Ok you guys talked me in to it... :thumbsup:

I've been meaning to buy a Scott's for a while now but have just been too lazy. Now I'm overdue for an oil change so I went ahead and bought one.

If it filtered as good as an OEM paper filter it would be worth the price, but supposedly they filter particles about half as large as the OEM paper lets through so it should be a win/win product.


Yes, grayracer has had me convinced too, just got mine from TT store. :thumbsup:

  • 450_rider

Posted March 09, 2006 - 09:09 PM

#20

[quote name='grayracer513']With budget bulk paper filters, that would cost me $80-100 a year. My Scotts cost me $65 two years ago.[/QUOTE

I agree, although i didnt buy a Scotts (my dealer didnt know what a "Scotts" was) I think i got a ctr or something on that line. My point, at $25 canadian for a oem from my dealer, that was getting expensive and i only payed $80 last summer; so more money saved is better perfomance mods bought.





Related Content

Forums
Photo

yz250x vs 450 4t comparisons (preferably desert riding) needed by JakeNorthrupYZ450F


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   Yamaha   Yamaha 2-Stroke
  • 9 replies
Wiki
WR Camshaft Swap Info - last post by jamesm113

WR Camshaft Swap Info


Articles
  • 0 replies
Forums
Photo

Megabomb Fitment by 288yz450


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   Yamaha   YZ 400/426/450
  • 1 reply
Forums
Photo
Motocross

Thinking about Yamaha 250... by Arctic Pride


Dirt Bike   Special Interest Forums   Pro Racing
  • Hot  491 replies
Forums
Photo

YZ450F 03 Sparks driving me crazy by SirAttard


Dirt Bike   Make / Model Specific   Yamaha   YZ 400/426/450
  • 5 replies
 
x

Join Our Community!

Even if you don't want to post, registered members get access to tools that make finding & following the good stuff easier.

If you enjoyed reading about "" here in the ThumperTalk archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join ThumperTalk today!

The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the author, and have not been reviewed or approved by ThumperTalk.