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

[dlaing]

OK, here's wot came back from the Lab:

 

(All measurements accurate to +/- .001" via vernier dial caliper/depth gauge)

 

ST3614 Oil Filter

gasket thickness = .250"

gasket width = .155"

groove width = .155"

TPI = 16

gasket compression per turn = .0625"

 

Oh boy, it is even worse than I thought.

With a little more care in measuring, the groove depth measured somewhere between 0.145 and 0.150 instead of the 9/64 that I got earlier (earlier I measured across the inner and outer rail of the groove. The depth at the inner rail is less at about 0.135. The outter rail is the critical measurement, and it is greater than 0.145

Measurements of the gasket were a much more consistant, but the gasket depth or thickness was very different than your .250" measurement:

gasket thickness = 12/64" = 0.1875" (looking at the photo, maybe a hair more, but I am probably compressing the rubber a hair as I pose for the camera)

gasket width = a little less than 0.150" (not measuring nubs)

groove width = a little more than 0.150"

 

 

Here is another shot, but please don't use it to judge my measuring technique. I was posing for the camera, not trying to hold it level...

[Guest ratchethack]

Dave, I don't want to embarrass you here (really) but you must be new to dial vernier calipers? Wot you've got on the dial in the photo is .219".

 

The linear scale visible in y'er photo on the beam is mm. You should have a scale below it on the beam in inches, but I don't see it -- looks like it's missing?? The dial is clear enough.

 

Hm. The mm scale on the beam in the photo reads wot looks like dead-nuts on 5 mm, which is the same as .197"

 

Is this a wonky caliper? Have you zeroed it out correctly??

[Ryland3210]

 

 

(All measurements accurate to +/- .001" via vernier dial caliper/depth gauge)

 

ST3614 Oil Filter

gasket thickness = .250"

gasket width = .155"

groove width = .155"

TPI = 16

gasket compression per turn = .0625"

fom contact to achieve industry standard 70% of uncompressed dimension = 1.2 turns

 

Hi Ratchethack:

 

I don't see a groove depth number above.

The 1.2 turns implies a depth of 0.175. If that is correct, it's the same as the Purolator, except for the groove width of 0.155". If that is correct, there is no room for the gasket to flatten under compression, which would lead to extrusion outside the groove-not desireable.

 

The '05 UFI groove cross sectional area is barely large enough to avoid extrusion, whereas the Purolator design provides ample space, and has metal tabs to hold the gasket in place and against the outside of the groove, which is preferred.

 

I'd like to know the groove width and how the gasket is held in place. Based on that, and whether the filter media and area are as good as the Purolator's, as you have indicated before, I'd switch to the SuperTech.

 

 

 

 

Oh boy, it is even worse than I thought.

With a little more care in measuring, the groove depth measured somewhere between 0.145 and 0.150 instead of the 9/64 that I got earlier (earlier I measured across the inner and outer rail of the groove. The depth at the inner rail is less at about 0.135. The outter rail is the critical measurement, and it is greater than 0.145

Measurements of the gasket were a much more consistant, but the gasket depth or thickness was very different than your .250" measurement:

gasket thickness = 12/64" = 0.1875" (looking at the photo, maybe a hair more, but I am probably compressing the rubber a hair as I pose for the camera)

gasket width = a little less than 0.150" (not measuring nubs)

groove width = a little more than 0.150"

Here is another shot, but please don't use it to judge my measuring technique. I was posing for the camera, not trying to hold it level...

 

Note the metal sliver on the thread? I've seen this on other brands of filters too. I take a cloth, stick my finger in these, and unscrew the filter off my finger to clean out the threads. It's suprising what sometimes comes out.

[Guest ratchethack]

I don't see a groove depth number above.

The 1.2 turns implies a depth of 0.175. If that is correct, it's the same as the Purolator, except for the groove width of 0.155". If that is correct, there is no room for the gasket to flatten under compression, which would lead to extrusion outside the groove-not desireable.

 

The '05 UFI groove cross sectional area is barely large enough to avoid extrusion, whereas the Purolator design provides ample space, and has metal tabs to hold the gasket in place and against the outside of the groove, which is preferred.

 

I'd like to know the groove width and how the gasket is held in place. Based on that, and whether the filter media and area are as good as the Purolator's, as you have indicated before, I'd switch to the SuperTech.

John, I didn't measure the groove depth before, but I'm on it now. As Dave noted, it's different on the inside than on the outside. I read .155" on the outside and .130" on the inside. The gasket has six "nubs" around its inside diameter that project a few thou, giving it a weak "interference" fit in the groove, just enough to clamp it in place.

 

CORRECTION: Don't know how I slipped up before (using a different caliper) , but the thickness of the gasket is .208" (+/- .002") -- NOT .250"! Will EDIT previous posts!

 

Of course I had to recalculate the turns required to achieve 70% of uncompressed thickness. It works out to close enough to 1 turn not to quibble over a few degrees.

 

Thanks f'er stickin' with us, John -- obviously, we need adult supervision here.

 

Any further comments are more'n welcome, and probably necessary!

 

EDIT: Hey John -- The filter I just opened has a different sticker than any one I've ever opened before. It's got a universal sign on it with an outline o' the filter with a spin arrow that says "+ 3/4"

 

Wot d'you make of it, Chief?

[todd haven]

Man,

Don't tell me there may actually be an inconsistency in the universally revered ST3614?

 

There aren't many bridges near my house, and I will certainly need a place from which to jump.

 

Use the filter of your choice, put a clamp on it if it makes you feel safer.

 

Have a beer, and try to relax.....

 

Any tests of the effect of sunspots on oil filter gasket thickness?

No such thing as too much data.

 

How will we KNOW if we don't test?

[Guest ratchethack]

Hey Todd -- Don't jump, man! I got a beer right here, thank you very much.

 

This here's a Technical Forum. There seems to be enough evidence gathered here that the very lives of our motors may be at risk.

 

Have you noticed that we do nerdy stuff here lots o' the time and really stupid stuff the rest o' the time?

 

Some of us like prickly heat too.

[dlaing]

Dave, I don't want to embarrass you here (really) but you must be new to dial vernier calipers? Wot you've got on the dial in the photo is .219".

 

The linear scale visible in y'er photo on the beam is mm. You should have a scale below it on the beam in inches, but I don't see it -- looks like it's missing?? The dial is clear enough.

 

Hm. The mm scale on the beam in the photo reads wot looks like dead-nuts on 5 mm, which is the same as .197"

 

Is this a wonky caliper? Have you zeroed it out correctly??

Look again at the photo. It is not .219. It is less than .200. You can verify with the scale in 64ths.

It reads ~12/64" and 12 divided by 64 is 0.1875".

It is not the best caliper. The rule scale is in mm increments and inch increments, but the dial is in both hundredths and sixty-fourths of an inch increments.

But is good enough to get the job done.

I'll take a better photo, as that has parallax on the dial, and I think I am squishing the rubber, as I had mentioned...

I guess we got a different batch of SuperTechs.

[Guest ratchethack]

Look again at the photo. It is not .219. It is less than .200. You can verify with the scale in 64ths.

It reads ~12/64" and 12 divided by 64 is 0.1875".

Dave, I understand the scales involved very well. If you don't want to accept wot I've said, get the opinion of a Pro who uses one o' these every day f'er his livlihood. You are incorrect. There's no way to read the dial in the photo in inches other than .219".

 

It seems to be missing the scale in inches on the bottom of the beam, as I mentioned -- though strangely enough, at the depth gauge end, I see "inches".

 

Wot happened to the rest of the "inches" scale going back toward zero?

[dlaing]

Notice the one inch increments <_>

[Guest ratchethack]

Notice the one inch increments

EGAD! Where are the tenths gradients between inches?? It means you either have to guess, count rotations of the dial, use millimeters or 64ths and convert!

 

Let me guess -- Made in China?

 

That is without question the most user-antagonistic dial caliper I've ever seen.

 

I'd learn how to use it by counting dial rotations, Dave, but the way you've tried to read sixteenths and convert will lead you into trouble just as it has here.

 

If you count dial rotations backward from where it is in the photo, you'll find it has two full rotations on it plus the 19 increments on the dial. This is .219".

 

Please do get another opinion.

[dlaing]

get the opinion of a Pro...

Would someone please lift the burden of embarassment from me and load it on Ratchet's shoulders?

[BrianG]

Would someone please lift the burden of embarassment from me and load it on Ratchet's shoulders?

 

Looks to me like that dial reads 1.00" per revolution.................

 

by 100ths" on the outer scale and

 

by 64th" on the inner

 

Very strange unit!!

 

I'd say current reading is somewhat shy of 0.190" or spot on 12/64ths" (3/16")

 

0.19" X 25.4 "/mm = 4.826mm ~ 5mm as shown on the metric scale.

[dlaing]

To help understand how this caliper works, here is a photo of it reading the width of the gasket.

It is > .150" and

 

Very strange unit!!

My wife says the same thing

 

 

Looks to me like that dial reads 1.00" per rotation.................

Exactly!

Thanks!

[dhansen]

Dave, I understand the scales involved very well. If you don't want to accept wot I've said, get the opinion of a Pro who uses one o' these every day f'er his livlihood. You are incorrect. There's no way to read the dial in the photo in inches other than .219".

Its late and I'm beat but it looks like .190 inches or so to me.

 

Two full rotations of the dial would equal 2.000 inches.

 

Ratch, you musta inhaled too much of that pacific ocean sea breeze and clouded your brain.

[Guest ratchethack]

Please please tell me that this doesn't actually have one rotation of the dial per inch?!?!?

 

I've never seen anything remotely like it. If this is true, it has to be the most inaccurate dial caliper available, not a serious tool by any stretch. I saw the .01" on the dial, but figured this HAS TO BE a Chinese-English mis-translation and slip o the decimal point??

 

If it is true, I apologize in full and I am at fault. Did this come from Kids-R-Us?!

 

Dave, if this is truly the case, I'd get myself a proper dial caliper and give this to the neighbor kids to play with.

 

You CANNOT accurately measure precision Guzzi parts with this!!

 

You need a dial caliper with one rotation per tenth inch, with a .001" increment on the dial.

 

BAA, TJM & YMMV

 

The more I thought about it, the sixteenths inch thing was troubling me. I figured it was designed by someone using an abacus.