Champion oil filter (?)

[Dimitris]

Hi,

 

Are there any Champion filters, that are suitable with the V11 LeMans 2002? I think a dealer in my city sells Champion filters, and it would be easier for me, instead of ordering UFI filters from abroad.

 

 

Thanks

 

Dimitris

[Guest ratchethack]

Dimitris, many oil filters sold under different names are made by Champion. I do not know the availability in Greece.

 

My personal choice for the V11:

 

SuperTech (Wally World, aka Walmart) ST3614

Made by Champion Laboratories

98% single pass efficiency

99% multi-pass efficiency

patent pending combo nitrile relief and anti-drainback valve

High quality, high reliability.

The high value choice

~$2, USD

 

Champion oil filters are packaged and sold under the brand names:

 

Mobil 1

Bosch

Lee

Lee Maxi

STP

Deutsch

Car & Driver

Champ

AC Delco

SuperTech

Kleener

Luber-Finer

(many other names, including those for aviation applications, not listed)

 

I did some research on this a year ago. Details here: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=105211

[antonio carroccio]

Champion C305.

[Dimitris]

thank you very much for youe replys!

[dlaing]

Don't forget to put a hose clamp on your filter!!! and read the threads on hose clamps and gasket compression...

I personally prefer Ryland's filter recommendation.

[antonio carroccio]

Champion C305.

Don't forget the O rubber ring. Put a couple of drops on the filter where the O ring suppose to be and go with your finger around the filter. After that put the O ring in it.

Don't forget to take the old O ring off!!! Always check this if you are taking the old filter off!!!

[dlaing]

The Purolator (Pure Oil Later)? I'm curious b/c I'm bailing from the UFIs...

Ryland did some testing of the UFI, SuperTech and Purolator and determined that the gasket design allowed for better compression under torque such that it is less likely to unscrew itself while riding. It is also one of the best filters you can buy for other reasons.

[Guest ratchethack]

Ryland did some testing of the UFI, SuperTech and Purolator...

Oh, but I beg you differ, Dave.

 

This is the exactly the kind of confusion so often suffered by those who have difficulty with such terms as evidence, proof, and truth. . .

 

Ryland did NO FILTER TESTING whatsoever.

 

As pointed out previously, and (again) as I'm sure John will be more than happy to confirm, with regard to various oil filters' tendency to loosen spontaneously, he did some extremely interesting, highly educated empirical analysis, and postulated a qualified hypothesis -- which, as such, while entirely valid and interesting, remains inconclusive, is absent any proof, and is yet unsupported by any form of evidence derived from significant data (as would be expected from qualified testing).

 

No proof, and no conclusions are ever possible to extract from hypotheses alone.

 

This IS NOT simply semantics. It's an important distinction to anyone sincerely interested in the previously discussed oil filter "auto-loosening" phenomenon -- that is, to anyone capable of making the distinction.

[Ryland3210]

Oh, but I beg you differ, Dave.

 

This is the exactly the kind of confusion so often suffered by those who have difficulty with such terms as evidence, proof, and truth. . . <_>

 

Ryland did NO FILTER TESTING whatsoever.

 

As pointed out previously, and (again) as I'm sure John will be more than happy to confirm, with regard to various oil filters' tendency to loosen spontaneously, he did some extremely interesting, highly educated empirical analysis, and postulated a qualified hypothesis -- which, as such, while entirely valid and interesting, remains inconclusive, is absent any proof, and is yet unsupported by any form of evidence derived from significant data (as would be expected from qualified testing).

 

No proof, and no conclusions are ever possible to extract from hypotheses alone.

 

This IS NOT simply semantics. It's an important distinction to anyone sincerely interested in the previously discussed oil filter "auto-loosening" phenomenon -- that is, to anyone capable of making the distinction.

[Ryland3210]

Oh, but I beg you differ, Dave.

 

This is the exactly the kind of confusion so often suffered by those who have difficulty with such terms as evidence, proof, and truth. . . <_>

 

Ryland did NO FILTER TESTING whatsoever.

 

As pointed out previously, and (again) as I'm sure John will be more than happy to confirm, with regard to various oil filters' tendency to loosen spontaneously, he did some extremely interesting, highly educated empirical analysis, and postulated a qualified hypothesis -- which, as such, while entirely valid and interesting, remains inconclusive, is absent any proof, and is yet unsupported by any form of evidence derived from significant data (as would be expected from qualified testing).

 

No proof, and no conclusions are ever possible to extract from hypotheses alone.

 

This IS NOT simply semantics. It's an important distinction to anyone sincerely interested in the previously discussed oil filter "auto-loosening" phenomenon -- that is, to anyone capable of making the distinction.

 

Ratchethack,

 

Contrary your assertion as to my position (which itself is an unsupported hypothesis), I cannot agree with your conclusion. I agree that no conclusions are possible from hypotheses alone. However, measurements and tests were indeed made of various O-Ring groove designs and O-Rings. Conclusions were drawn but not simply from hypotheses. In fact, I drew no conclusions without measurement testing.

 

In order to discount the conclusion that the Purolator design is less likely to loosen than the UFI, which I continue to stand behind, one would have to discount, IN GENERAL, the validity of accurate measurement, proven physical relationships between durometer, compression percentages and sealing capability and prevailing frictional torque generated thereby, as well as known good industry practice in the design of O-Ring grooves.

 

This same disagreement between you arose before, and this is the second time I have had to correct your mischaracterization of my work. I like you and respect your knowledge and dedication to this forum Ratchethack, but you give me the impression that your zeal to debate with dlaing has clouded your judgment in this particular case. <_>

[Ryland3210]

The Purolator (Pure Oil Later)? I'm curious b/c I'm bailing from the UFIs...

 

It's the L10241.

[Guest ratchethack]

This same disagreement between you arose before, and this is the second time I have had to correct your mischaracterization of my work. I like you and respect your knowledge and dedication to this forum Ratchethack, but you give me the impression that your zeal to debate with dlaing has clouded your judgment in this particular case.

I respectfully submit that I HAVE NOT mischaracterized your work in the slightest, John. For what it's worth, I like you and respect you also, my friend. But whether we like each other or not, and whether or not you think I'm "fair" to Dave is not important here. Please try to get beyond any such influence and hear me out. Oh, and please keep open to the possibility that the "cloud" you referred to above may well be in your own weather system. . .

 

I would ask you to take another look at what I've stated above and what I state below, and point out exactly what statement(s) you disagree with. I'll gladly stand by them all, and if you're interested, I'll take your disagreements on one at a time.

 

Impresssions notwithstanding, John, I AGAIN re-state my point, which I believe you have missed for the second time.

...measurements and tests were indeed made of various O-Ring groove designs and O-Rings. Conclusions were drawn but not simply from hypotheses. In fact, I drew no conclusions without measurement testing.

I stated above that you did not actually test oil filters and this is, of course, true. You measured some -- but I suggest not all -- of the applicable components which may contribute to loosening. I'd be pleased to list several variables that you did NOT consider, which are both at least as numerous and as likely to contribute to loosening as any of the variables you measured.

 

The conclusions you had drawn were simply conclusions about empirical observations (measurements), as I said. In no way do I (and should you) consider measurements of oil filter components either "testing" of actual tendencies to loosen, nor is any such kind of a conclusion possible from physical measurements alone -- without testing of the tendency of each filter to loosen. To state otherwise would be a mischaracterization of what you did, valuable though it was.

 

Please consider: Simple measurements of the o-rings and grooves, while POTENTIALLY INDICATIVE of many variables relevant to the tendency of a filter to loosen, ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE of the tendency of each filter to loosen. At best, such measurements are hypothetical ONLY with respect to the tendency of a filter to loosen.

 

Please consider (Part II): If it were possible to predict with accuracy the performance of filters (or even motorcycles for that matter) on the basis of measuring their components, (as you're evidently suggesting here) manufacturers could do away with most of their R&D budgets, and just bring new stuff to market completely untested in the field -- just on the predicted performance extrapolated from measurements of the components that make up the product. That'd be quite a risk in a competitive market, n'est-ce pas? Think about it. . . Testing is NOT simply measuring components!!

 

I submit (again) that TESTING of oil filters' tendency to loosen, which you did not do, in the pursuit of proof of differences between various oil filters as to how they may vary in their tendency to spontaneously loosen in situ, would have to include significant numbers of monitored trials of examples of each filter over controlled conditions, either in situ or in a carefully designed and controlled test environment, and an analysis of directly measured loosening.

 

With the direct measurement of loosening, you would have a set of data points to back up your hypothesis, and should you be able to demonstrate significant data points (evidence), a conclusion (proof) may be correctly drawn from that evidence.

In order to discount the conclusion that the Purolator design is less likely to loosen than the UFI, which I continue to stand behind, one would have to discount, IN GENERAL, the validity of accurate measurement, proven physical relationships between durometer, compression percentages and sealing capability and prevailing frictional torque generated thereby, as well as known good industry practice in the design of O-Ring grooves.

I do not discount the validity of the measurements you have done, as I stated previously. Neither may your measurements be properly considered conclusive of a filter's tendency to loosen, without testing as described above.

 

-- Dr. Hatch Scratchracket, GPh.D., Esq., YMM(not likely)V

[Ryland3210]

I respectfully submit that I HAVE NOT mischaracterized your work in the slightest, John. For what it's worth, I like you and respect you also, my friend. But whether we like each other or not, and whether or not you think I'm "fair" to Dave is not important here. Please try to get beyond any such influence and hear me out. Oh, and please keep open to the possibility that the "cloud" you referred to above may well be in your own weather system. . .

 

I would ask you to take another look at what I've stated above and what I state below, and point out exactly what statement(s) you disagree with. I'll gladly stand by them all, and if you're interested, I'll take your disagreements on one at a time.

 

Impresssions notwithstanding, John, I AGAIN re-state my point, which I believe you have missed for the second time.

 

I stated above that you did not actually test oil filters and this is, of course, true. You measured some -- but I suggest not all -- of the applicable components which may contribute to loosening. I'd be pleased to list several variables that you did NOT consider, which are both at least as numerous and as likely to contribute to loosening as any you measured.

 

The conclusions you had drawn were simply conclusions about empirical observations (measurements), as I said. In no way do I (and should you) consider measurements of oil filter components either "testing" of actual tendencies to loosen, nor is any such kind of a conclusion possible from physical measurements alone -- without testing of the tendency of each filter to loosen. To state otherwise would be a mischaracterization of what you did, valuable though it was.

 

Please consider: Simple measurements of the o-rings and grooves, while indicative of many variables relevant to the tendency of a filter to loosen, are NOT CONCLUSIVE of the tendency of each filter to loosen. At best, such measurements are hypothetical ONLY with respect to the tendency of a filter to loosen.

 

Please consider (Part II): If it were possible to predict with accuracy the performance of filters (or even motorcycles for that matter) on the basis of measuring their components, (as you're evidently suggesting here) manufacturers could do away with most of their R&D budgets, and just bring new stuff to market completely untested in the field -- just on the predicted performance extrapolated from measurements of the components that make up the product. Think about it. . . Testing is NOT simply measuring components!!

 

I submit (again) that TESTING of oil filters' tendency to loosen, which you did not do, in the pursuit of proof of differences between various oil filters as to how they may vary in their tendency to spontaneously loosen in situ, would have to include significant numbers of monitored trials of examples of each filter over controlled conditions, either in situ or in a carefully designed and controlled test environment, and an analysis of directly measured loosening.

 

With the direct measurement of loosening, you would have a set of data points to back up your hypothesis, and should you be able to demonstrate significant data points (evidence), a conclusion (proof) may be correctly drawn from that evidence.

 

I do not discount the validity of the measurements you have done, as I stated previously. Neither may your measurements be properly considered conclusive of a filter's tendency to loosen, without testing as described above.

 

-- Dr. Hatch Scratchracket, GPh.D., esq., YMM(not)V

 

It's simple. Measurements showed that the Purolator design allows the O-Ring to act more like a spring instead of extruding out of the groove. Therefore prevailing friction torque of its O-Ring would decrease less per turn of loosening. Just to be sure, the durometer of the UFI and Purolator O-Rings was tested and found virtually identical. The pitch of the thread, which is another factor affecting the tendency to loosen is identical on both filters. There are other advantages in terms of sealing efficiency of the Purolator filter's groove unrelated to loosening.

 

Whether using the turns method or torque method of tightening, reliance on Hooke's Law, Coulomb friction, and other laws of physics predict results will be consistent with measurements, leading to the conclusion that the Purolator design is less likely to loosen.

 

I have no wish to beat this dead horse any further.

[Guest ratchethack]

I have no wish to beat this dead horse any further.

Well then. There you have it.

[BRENTTODD]

If you install the hose clamp properly on the oil filter you really dont have any thing to worry about do U ? I think a lot of people would be really surprised at how many big name parts suppliers are reboxed items. I only speaking from my knowlege of automotve world but i cant belive that the motorcycle world is much different. Lets face it its all about the loot no mater what it is.