The Verdict Is In: Sasquatch Exists, Oil Filters Spin Off, And I'm

[big J]

DAVE NO NO NO

 

FOR GODS SAKE NO

 

DONT DO IT

 

 

Dont recommend a K&N filter

 

 

 

There'll be 25000 word essays about how it's not good for your diesel truck engine with diagrams and graphs and everything

[Guest Gary Cheek]

B b b b b....but they do have provision for safety wiring!

[raz]

And here is an interesting article

http://www.mgnoc.com/article_oil_filters_revisited.html

That is an interesting article, and good written too.

 

In an effort to get more confused I tried to put together the figures in these articles and the specs in my WHB to get the full perspective. The idiot light is allowed to go off at 2.1 psi. The "normal range" of lubrication pressure is 54 - 60 psi. The engine OPRV is supposed to allow about 70 psi before opening. That made me think 8 psi in the internal bypass valve in the filter seemed ridiculously low until it struck me that must be relative to the other side of the filter element - not absolute pressure!

 

Note the difference between 2.1 psi (lamp goes off) and 54 psi (lower end of normal pressure)! Or is that too some relative pressure?

[Guest ratchethack]

That is an interesting article, and good written too.

 

In an effort to get more confused I tried to put together the figures in these articles and the specs in my WHB to get the full perspective. The idiot light is allowed to go off at 2.1 psi. The "normal range" of lubrication pressure is 54 - 60 psi. The engine OPRV is supposed to allow about 70 psi before opening. That made me think 8 psi in the internal relief valve in the filter seemed ridiculously low until it struck me that must be 8 psi relative to the other side of the filter element - not absolute pressure!

Yes, I believe this is a correct analysis, Raz. The 8 psi internal PRV is relative to the variable line pressure.

 

From the article, "Oil is drawn from a reservoir, motivated through a positive displacement pump, forced through a line with a parallel pressure-relief path available, then through a filter with internal relief valve, and then on to the engine proper."

 

So the filter PRV regulates pressure from the dowstream side of the motor PRV to the line pressure that goes to the crank and heads.

 

So if there's ever a +8lb. pressure differential from input of the filter to output, it will bypass.

 

. . . .Errr, I think I got that right?

[Ryland3210]

Until Ryland or someone comes up with anything more conclusive, the conclusion I have for the ST3614:

 

From here

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

I got the following info:

[3] Guzzi V11Sport

These Oil Filters

have 3/4" x 16tpi threads,

8 psi by-pass valve,

anti-drain back valve.

 

That web site recommended the filters below in blue.

They list the ones in black.

I might suggest one verify what they list and recommend <_>

I recommend the ones in red

Be sure to remove any sticker on the filter before you install it.

 

*UFI 2328700

* SuperTech ST3614

* K&N KN-163

* Purolator PL10241 / PL25230

* Mobil1 M1-102

* Bosch 3330

* Baldwin B1413

* Hastings LF576

* NAPA 1348

* Purolator ML16822

* WIX 51348

* AMSOil SMF 133/134/135 but I have Amsoil EAOM132 on my list

* Fram PH6022, PH6065A but I have Fram PH3614 on my list, but I don't recommend

And here is an interesting article

http://www.mgnoc.com/article_oil_filters_revisited.html

 

Caution!

 

The website is incorrect about the 8 psi bypass valve, though it's not a big deal. Purolator's direct replacement ML16822 is at 12-15 psi, and the L10241 is at 12-17 psi.

the Purolator PL25230 is considerably longer than the 10241. I'm not sure it fits.

The ML16822 is listed as correct for the Moto Guzzi.

The M1-102 cross references the PL10241 and Fram PH6022, so according to Mobil it should work.

Fram lists the PH6022 as applicable to the MotoGuzzi.

 

The Chrome plated Fram PH6065A's gasket OD is considerably different from the SuperTech ST3614 I purchased a couple hours ago.

Strangely, the ST3614 lists four equivalents, none of which are on the list above.

I must say that at first glance, I wonder about the accuracy and reliability of the unusual plastic combination anti-drainback/bypass relief valve. No question there is a reduction in manufacturing cost compared to the traditional steel spring based units. I'll be taking a closer look at it in the next couple days.

[Ryland3210]

Many of those are actually made by Champion. My personal preference is the Mobil1 filter. It has given excellent results as the oil analysis confirms. They even stay on! Others may work as well.

 

Using torque specs is next to futile. The resiliency of the gasket varies wildly from temperature, humidity, age and batch to batch. The thread pitch is a constant. By using a "turns-past-contact" (3/4 turn for the Mobil1 filter) method you will get repeatable settings. The whole idea is to control the compression. The square section "O"- Ring does not require or desire extreme compression from a axial loading to form a satisfactory seal. The internal oil presssure does that.

 

BTW, 8.75 turns :!: Meebbee 0.875 ? Or round off to 3/4 turn or 270 degrees?

 

You're preaching to the choir on turns tightening, as far as I'm concerned.

 

I agree that extreme compression is not necessary when internal oil pressure can "self-energize" an "O-Ring" seal. However, that is provided the groove design encourages oil to pressurize the bottom of the seal before it squeezes out between the seal and the mating surface. That's where the percentage squeeze and groove design are important. The other factor in the case of spin on filters is to have enough compression to provide the static friction necessary to prevent loosening.

 

For example, assuming the groove design favor self-energizing, and the extrusion gap is not large in relation to the pressures encountered, very little compression is required to prevent leakage as pressure builds. However, the filter would then be prone to loosening up when pressure is relaxed.

 

Better to round up to 7/8 turns or more. It seems to me that although 3/4 turns (pretty much the universal standard, except for UFI) obviously has worked fine for high quality filters on automobile engines. The V11 vibrates more, which indicates the need for more anti-loosening friction. I also wonder if the constant lubrication of the exterior of the gasket might exacerbate the problem.

 

Yes, I believe this is a correct analysis, Raz. The 8 psi internal PRV is relative to the variable line pressure.

 

From the article, "Oil is drawn from a reservoir, motivated through a positive displacement pump, forced through a line with a parallel pressure-relief path available, then through a filter with internal relief valve, and then on to the engine proper."

 

So the filter PRV regulates pressure from the dowstream side of the motor PRV to the line pressure that goes to the crank and heads.

 

So if there's ever a +8lb. pressure differential from input of the filter to output, it will bypass.

 

. . . .Errr, I think I got that right?

 

Exactly. So a higher pressure setting of the bypass valve will permit the filter element to collect more dirt before it bypasses. On the other hand, if filter maintenance is neglected, oil pressure will be reduced more.

 

On my boat, I use the racing version of the filter, which has a 30-35 psi bypass setting to better protect the engine, but I keep a careful eye on the oil pressure. If I ever see it drop under normal operating conditions, I'll change oil and filter as soon as practical, even if it's not due. I'm working to get an oil pressure guage on the V11 for the same reason.

[dlaing]

Many of those are actually made by Champion. My personal preference is the Mobil1 filter. It has given excellent results as the oil analysis confirms. They even stay on! Others may work as well.

 

Using torque specs is next to futile. The resiliency of the gasket varies wildly from temperature, humidity, age and batch to batch. The thread pitch is a constant. By using a "turns-past-contact" (3/4 turn for the Mobil1 filter) method you will get repeatable settings. The whole idea is to control the compression. The square section "O"- Ring does not require or desire extreme compression from a axial loading to form a satisfactory seal. The internal oil presssure does that.

 

BTW, 8.75 turns :!: Meebbee 0.875 ? Or round off to 3/4 turn or 270 degrees?

OOOoooops! Sorry I meant to type 0.875 which is exactly 7/8 turn.

7/8 turn is exactly in between 3/4 and 1 turn.

3/4 turn is SuperTech's recommendation.

1 turn is where I predict the metal will bottom.

Let me clear up the reason for paying attention to torque.

Given the filter in our bike's propensity to spin off, I suspect that the turns should be increased beyond 3/4 but not exceeding 1 turn. To ensure that this in not too tight or too light, I recommend that some torque specs be used.

The torque specs should be secondary to the turn specification.

If at 3/4 turn you are only getting 5 or 10 or maybe 15??? ft/lbs, you should turn it further and tighter, but no further than one turn.

But if at 3/4 turn you are getting 20? or 30 ft/lbs, you need go no tighter.

I am guessing 7/8 would be about the right turn, but I would not be sure until I torqued it....and even then, only a hose clamp would make me more than 99.9% sure the filter won't come off.

The filter should be made to a consistant spec where the recommended turns provides the recommended torque (temperature and age compensated of course...) but we all know about quality control...especially after reading Ratchet and my disagreeing numbers.

What Ryland said about vibration and the seal getting lubed from both sides as factors for loosening, should be taken into consideration when following the makers recommendation.

[Ryland3210]

OK, here's what I found in measuring the ST3614:

 

Gasket cross section: 0.210 thick by 0.158. These are averages of 6 measurements around the circumference.

The spread was only .002 on the thickness and .004 on the width.

 

Groove cross section: 0.155 deep by 0.155 wide, 0.003 spread on both.

The gasket protruded 0.083 above the lip of the can, which was 0.028 above the bottom of the groove, due to the radii at the bottom of the groove.

 

As the filter was tightened, the gasket makes first contact with it protruding 0.083. At 0.45 turns more, the gasket fully filled the groove. It took relatively low torque to this point, and gasket compression was minimal.

 

Tightening 0.3 turns more to the 3/4 turns from first contact recommended on the can lable compresses the gasket to a little better than 91%, which is not sufficient in my opinion.

 

Tightening to bottom the can out would require 1.33 turns and would result in 74% squeeze, almost optimum. However, this was impossible because the groove is too small. Specifically, the diameter of inner wall of the groove is too large, while the depth is a eight thousands too deep.

 

I decided not to consider using the filter due to doubts I have about the reliability and accuracy of the plastic combination anti drainback/bypass pressure relief valve anyway, so I decided to subject the filter to an arbor press to prove whether the gasket could be compressed enough to bottom out on the can lip.

 

No way! Although I was successful in crushing the filter can with more than 800 pounds of force, I never got close to compressing the gasket anywhere near bottoming out.

 

To conclude, 3/4 turn is not enough to provide ideal squeeze, but getting anywhere near to 70% squeeze is impossible. Once the first 0.45 turns is reached, the gasket fills the groove and the torque required to further compress the gasket climbs extremely rapidly. It has nowhere to go except to begin extruding outside the groove. How much torque can one safely apply to obtain sufficient squeeze and static friction? That depends on the quality of the thread and the strength of the filter base, so I have no way to determine that or any recommendation.

 

Last comment, for those who decide to use this filter: Use a rag to clean out the threads, as is my normal practice. On this filter, that produced a fair amount of dirty black oily substance.

[Guest ratchethack]

To conclude, 3/4 turn is not enough to provide ideal squeeze, but getting anywhere near to 70% squeeze is impossible. Once the first 0.45 turns is reached, the gasket fills the groove and the torque required to further compress the gasket climbs extremely rapidly. It has nowhere to go except to begin extruding outside the groove. How much torque can one safely apply to obtain sufficient squeeze and static friction? That depends on the quality of the thread and the strength of the filter base, so I have no way to determine that or any recommendation.

John, once again, I believe the entire Forum owes you thanks for your diligent analysis.

 

I have one remaining question. This was not mentioned in your analysis, but I believe it could considerably impact your conclusions. Did you get a durometer measurement on the Shore A scale on the ST gasket? Seems to me that variabilities here will call for deviation to the "industry standard" 70% squeeze that is in fact, only a "rule of thumb".

 

Comments?

[Ryland3210]

John, once again, I believe the entire Forum owes you thanks for your diligent analysis.

 

I have one remaining question. This was not mentioned in your analysis, but I believe it could considerably impact your conclusions. Did you get a durometer measurement on the Shore A scale on the ST gasket? Seems to me that variabilities here will call for deviation to the "industry standard" 70% squeeze that is in fact, only a "rule of thumb".

 

Comments?

 

It appears to have the same durometer as the other gaskets I've tested. The 70% is more than an "rule of thumb". Not too many years back, I researched O-Ring groove designs, durometer, and O-Ring cross sections as they affected long term leakage, ad nauseum.

 

At the pressures involved in the V11, one could do with a lot less squeeze in other applications. However, in the V11, there is the need not only to seal against leaks, but to provide prevailing static friction to prevent loosening. That's the primary reason I'm seeking 70% squeeze factor so that the gasket acts as a spring.

 

To take an extreme example, if 70% squeeze were obtained at 2 turns, that would be better than if it were obtained at 1 turn, simply because one degree of loosening would reduce the force by half as much and be less likely to loosen farther.

 

In the case of the ST3614, the design creates a situation where number of degrees of tightening effective (that is, past the initial 0.45 turns to push the gasket to the bottom of the groove) at squeezing the gasket is considerably less than other filters. That's my concern in this case.

[big J]

To follow on and tie in with the other thread where the fella made a depth guage,why not just glue in a big lump of rubber into the manhole cover?

 

He's got the right idea if you're worried about it,maybe just different materials?

 

It would compress against the bottom of the filter and stop it unscrewing.

 

Obviously it would have to be the right shore rating to avoid torsional issues,be oil resistant,have repeated compressibility tolerance and be easily replaceable

[helicopterjim R.I.P.]

I was thinking of putting a ratcheting lock on my filters so that they could never come off. Then I would cut a hole in the bottom of the filter and make an access port where I could put replaceable cartridge filters.

 

I think there is merit to the piece added to the access cover but has anyone measered the variations of the lengths of different make filters? I would imagine there could be some drastic differences there.

[Guest Gary Cheek]

Guzzi, being the great under-funded manufacturer of intentionally quirky motorcycles for neurotic riders did the right thing. Oh sure , they could have easily installed a strain gauge filter seal compression analysis feedback microcontroller below the oil filter seal. Complimented that with a photo-reflective bar coded reading system to monitor the filters radial and axial movent , used the information gathered by these two systems to link your motorcycle to an earth orbiting On-Star system. They could then notify you that you forgot to properly tighten the filter. If the rider failed to shut the engine down, the computer, would again kick in and using oil particulate evaporative spectography determine when to overide the rider and shut down the engine with brilliant brinksmanship.

But then, some folks only buy Guzzis to obsess over what may fail next. Perhaps some even subliminally leave the filter loose for the added thrill factor.

[dlaing]

I think there is merit to the piece added to the access cover but has anyone measered the variations of the lengths of different make filters? I would imagine there could be some drastic differences there.

There are some drastic differences.

I think somebody said the UFI is bigger than the SuperTech.

The strategy would probably demand sticking with one model, but even then there could be trouble with production variations.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps some even subliminally leave the filter loose for the added thrill factor.

Weeeeeeehooooooooo!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ryland3210]

Guzzi, being the great under-funded manufacturer of intentionally quirky motorcycles for neurotic riders did the right thing. Oh sure , they could have easily installed a strain gauge filter seal compression analysis feedback microcontroller below the oil filter seal. Complimented that with a photo-reflective bar coded reading system to monitor the filters radial and axial movent , used the information gathered by these two systems to link your motorcycle to an earth orbiting On-Star system. They could then notify you that you forgot to properly tighten the filter. If the rider failed to shut the engine down, the computer, would again kick in and using oil particulate evaporative spectography determine when to overide the rider and shut down the engine with brilliant brinksmanship.

But then, some folks only buy Guzzis to obsess over what may fail next. Perhaps some even subliminally leave the filter loose for the added thrill factor.

 

Love it, Gary!

 

Bottom line to me and you, if I read you right, is that it's all about proper tightening. I've found that some filter designs make this easy by the turns method, some make it difficult, some make it problematic. In the latter case, hose clamps may be necessay insurance. For me, I'll stick to the former category of filter and use the turns method with confidence as I always have.

 

It's been interesting doing the detailed analysis of the various filter designs and surprising to find so many variations in design concepts in such a mature technology. With Al putting some guidance in the FAQ's, I think it's time to move on and look for another problem to find solutions to.