Suzuki Burgman USA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
While idlely crusing through eBay I came across a "Reusable Oil Filter" http://www.ebay.com/itm/REUSABLE-Oil-Filter-Cooler-Suzuki-AN650-Burgman-2003-2009-/321030136236?hash=item4abee321ac&item=321030136236&pt=Motorcycles_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr; a product which I wasn't aware of. Stainless steel seems better than paper and I've had this nagging worry about the aftermarket filter I put on at the last oil change.

Brief web search got me to http://www.kandpengineering.com/index.shtml (K&P Engineering) which seems to have good data to back up their claims.

Anyone have any experience with these stainless steel element filters?

Brian
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,296 Posts
Why take the risk of using anything but OEM?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,227 Posts
I don't see how they can get the holes in a stainless steel mesh as fine as the holes in a paper filter so I can't see how it could filter as well. Even if they could how would just washing it get the particles out of those small holes where the particles have been forced in by oil pressure. Even if you tried to blow it out with compressed air how would you ensure you had cleaned the whole surface of the filter.

Past that at something like $100+ I can buy lots of paper oil filters that I know filter well and hold up well. In the 50 or so years I have been using paper oil filters I haven't had one fail or had a dirty oil related engine failure. Seems to me it is an expensive solution in search of a problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #4

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,331 Posts
Buffalo said:
<<<SNIP>>> that at something like $100+ I can buy lots of paper oil filters that I know filter well and hold up well. In the 50 or so years I have been using paper oil filters I haven't had one fail or had a dirty oil related engine failure. Seems to me it is an expensive solution in search of a problem.
I agree 100%. Man if I wanted to go super cheapskate, I'd just get a "Toilet Paper" filter kit. A Frantz Oil filter WORKS! http://www.frantzoil.com/home.html


Oh yeah I love that Insurance Comercial where the guy is talking to the girl and she says "It was on the Internet. If its on the Internet it has to be right."Then as her boyfriend is coming "I'm meeting my boyfriend I met on the Internet, he's a French Model"....... If its on the Internet (Youtube) it has to be right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
My son's R6 came with a Scotts Performance filter when purchased used...http://www.scottsonline.com/Product_Info.php?PartType=3...seems to be about the same product as yours

He rides over 10K per year...so 2 oil changes a season...the Yammy OEM oil filter is about $14...let's call it $30/year...5 years $150...finally have broke even on cost, if we had purchased :wink:

Very easy to clean...4 oz solvent in a peanut butter jar, the filter's diameter just clears a 40 oz jar opening...let sit for a few minutes...blow compressed air from the inside out...done...spin back on

No issues in 5 years...always have a "new" filter on hand

Would I buy one for the BurgerKing, no...I only get one oil change a year in usually :( ..I use OEM

If you ride hard...think track/dirt...you might want to consider...these guys change fluids frequently and ask everything out of their bikes...if you are a "typical" rider, we tend to not ask much out of our rides :lol: ... stick with OEM

They are very good products...extremely well engineered and machined...and they look really cool also...unfortunately, the body work of the R6, like the BurgerKing, hides the filter...hence no cool effect :lol:

JMHO from a 5 year actual user

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
I use HiFlo filters in my 400 as did the prior owner. Excellent filter. I just ordered 4 from Motorcycle Superstore at a cost of $3.21 each. I also ordered a jacket so the shipping was free. I wouldn't clean a filter for $3.21.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #8

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,545 Posts
I have some experience testing filters LIKE this one, but not actually this filter. As part of my work on a recent project we have been bench testing a new engine designed for a new bike still under development, and later, for use in cars. The filters were custom made to our own very high specs. The project is part funded by a car manufacturer. We found they worked well. We tried two types, one with a cooler built in and one without. The one with a cooler built in was less effective in our engine. But both filters were still great overall. The only problem we encountered was early fouling of the filter element pores when the engines were run on a shorter run cycles, like owners might do if they are taking shorter trips when the oil doesn't fully warm up. The oil becomes thicker and emulsified with lots of contaminants in it. Under those circumstances they definitely blocked up more easily than paper cartridges. For that reason we abandoned that type of filter in favour of paper which overall turned out to be more effective in all types of engine use. If someone is doing mostly long haul trips then they are fine and I'm sure the one being asked about would be ok too. The one other point I must mention is that our test engine was not a petrol engine. While this would make a difference to the result if the same test was carried out on a petrol engine, the outcome would still be similar, just taking a little longer for the pores to block.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,120 Posts
When I first joined the Marines, they taught us how to re use toilet paper, scrape of the thick part and hang it out to dry, fold carefully and store in a dry place, or just use a leaf, most of them opted for the leaf method :lol: not trusting fully in their scraping and drying techniques and someone stealing their recycled paper when it was done 8) . (there's a point in here somewhere but I forgot what while I was typing it :oops: )
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,296 Posts
Well in my early Navy days they recommended the leaf method with a more sophisticated approach.
Fold the leaf in half and at the centre tear out a semi-circle and put the torn out circle between your teeth.
Do your business and then do the wiping with the leaf.
Then use the circle of leaf to clear out any detritus from your finger nail. :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,834 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Why buy one of the reusable filters? Humm. If I have learned anything over the last few days it is that there is absolutely no way of knowing what is inside the filters you are buying unless you cut one open. Some are good, some are not. If, as is the general opinion, the OEM filters from Suzuki are "junk" then what would lead one to the conclusion that the $2.95 filter from the local shade tree mechanic is any better? We pay upwards of $10k for a machine, get all excited over the difference of 25 micron vs 1 micro (and yes stainless steel mesh filter material is available down to 1 micron) then "trust" the engine to the lowest cost provider based only on "faith" that it will do what it is supposed to do?

Some thoughts
(1) Location of bypass valve. If there is no ice on the ground I ride. That means at least two starts with an engine which has cold soaked and the oil viscosity has increased making it highly likely that twice a day the bypass valve comes into play. I believe (not having done actual tests so it is just my opinion/belief) that a bypass valve at the inlet is superior to one at the opposite end. As sixtyfiveford shows in his video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ANmG5PXWMg, with the bypass at the top of the filter the oil will wash over the outside of the filter, through the bypass, and directly into the engine. Kind of like collecting the big chunks of "stuff" and then flushing them into the engine when they can do the most damage - when the engine is cold and tight.

The location of the valve is not advertised for any disposable valve that I have looked at, cannot be known without dismantling the filter, and can change from one production lot to the next without notification.

If one identifies "risk" as probability of occurrence and consequences of the occurrence then "flushing contaminated oil residue into engine at every start" would be high risk; high probability and also "increased engine wear resulting in diminished engine life" as a consequence.

(2) Integrity of filter material. Several of the teardown videos show that the filter material has been breached. In fact, one new filter shows that the material was not glued properly allowing direct passage of oil from inlet to outlet (in the video he pulls the material apart because it is not glued showing the holes of the inner core.

Risk – same as (1) however accelerated

(3) Top/Bottom caps. Paper vs metal. I have a hard time believing that a low cost filter (e.g. less than say $5) will have metal end caps. Reading in other groups (particularly the Suzuki automobile group) there is anecdotal evidence that disintegration of the paper end caps result in engine failure through plugging of the oil passages in the engine.

"End cap failure" would be high risk; low probability with destruction of the engine as a consequence.

(3) Core construction. This would be less of a concern if one assumes that the bypass valve will open before there is sufficient differential pressure to cause filter collapse. However, if the core does collapse there is no way of determining if this has occurred without disassembly of the filter.

Risk – same as (1) however accelerated.

First Conclusion: Way too many doubts about screw-on filters to be really comfortable with using them.

Metal woven mesh filter characteristics: http://www.purolator-facet.com/wiremesh.htm It is possible to use wire mesh to filter down to 9 micro (twilled Dutch weave); however unless the filter material is specified then one is left to evaluate "sales talk" and not data. It's also interesting to note the asterisk at the bottom of the table "all micron ratings are approximations." So if we refer back to the video on how to evaluate filters, "ratings are approximations" is just noise.

HOWEVER: Here's a copy of what I wrote to K&P:
The debate rages between paper and stainless mesh. While I am strongly biased towards a reusable filter (for the simple reason that I can see how the filter works unlike a disposable "install on faith" filter) you do not provide sufficient technical specifications for the mesh used so I don't have "the facts" to refute the "I'd never use one because they only filter to 25 microns and paper will filter to (pick some lower number)".

On your web site you cite that you have used ASTMF316; - HOWEVER this test is (according to the ATTM web site summary) is applicable to membrane material and not mesh and also "The results of this test method should not be used as the sole factor to describe the limiting size for retention of particulate contaminants from fluids. The effective pore size calculated from this test method is based on the premise of capillary pores having circular cross sections, and does not refer to actual particle size retention."

i.e. referencing a test without specifying the results is similar to saying "medical grade 304 stainless" where "medical grade" is totally irrelevant to evaluating the performance of the product.

Mesh size and weave would be very helpful.

As an engineer I like the look (and probably the feel) of your product - however I don't have enough information to properly evaluate it from a cost justification/performance perspective.

You know what I would like to see? your housing which will adapt a non-screw on filter to those of us who are forced to use a sealed screw on filter. i.e. allow the use of a disposable paper element in place of the mesh element you currently use. best of all worlds! If I could buy these I would buy one for each of the four vehicles I own.

regards
Brian


Second Conclusion
So what now? I need a filter, don't have enough data to properly evaluate performance of ANY filter, but still need to use one. <sigh> So what to do? OK; pick up a stock Suzuki 16510-03G00-X07 filter from the dealership ($12.95) then go to a local non-dealer supplier of motorcycle parts (Bent Bike Motorcycle Salvage, Highway 99 Lynnwood WA – a place that I like to shop at; nice people and good stuff) and get the off the shelf no-name filter ($4.50 last one I bought). Then time for some non-destructive testing. I'll let you know what I come up with.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,296 Posts
Brian650 said:
Why buy one of the reusable filters? Humm. If I have learned anything over the last few days it is that there is absolutely no way of knowing what is inside the filters you are buying unless you cut one open. Some are good, some are not. If, as is the general opinion, the OEM filters from Suzuki are "junk" then what would lead one to the conclusion that the $2.95 filter from the local shade tree mechanic is any better? We pay upwards of $10k for a machine, get all excited over the difference of 25 micron vs 1 micro (and yes stainless steel mesh filter material is available down to 1 micron) then "trust" the engine to the lowest cost provider based only on "faith" that it will do what it is supposed to do?

Snipped...

As an engineer I like the look (and probably the feel) of your product - however I don't have enough information to properly evaluate it from a cost justification/performance.

Snipped.......
regards
Brian[/i]
Brian

1. Can you quantify or at least elaborate on the comment ' If, as is the general opinion, the OEM filters from Suzuki are "junk" '. Is there any substantial factual underpinning to this alleged opinion.

2. I am an engineer too and I understand the issues in play but how can, even an informed consumer, carry out meaningful non-destructive testing of filter cartridges?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,795 Posts
A Suzuki OEM filter isn't "junk" if the manufacturer recommends it and is on the hook if you use it and it caused your engine damage.

And you DO GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. I'm sorry but I KNOW why a FRAM filter on the shelf at Wal Mart is sells for $5 or less. BECAUSE Wal Mart told FRAM if they wanted to sell in on their shelf, that's the selling price. FRAM, knowing a good market when they see it (after all, Wal Mart is the largest retailer on the planet), agrees and then outsources construction of the sub-five-buck filter in China, where there is little REAL control over the materials used in the device.

You get what you pay for, period. If you change your engine oil religiously and obsessively at that make or break 3,000 mile 'barrier', you will probably, and I say PROBABLY, have little issue with El Cheap brand filters. But they are El cheapo because they get the lowest cost of production by 1) el cheapo labor and 2) el cheapo materials. El cheapo labor and El Cheapo materials add up to one EL CHEAPO product.

.."Normal filter paper, and a decent amount of it. Cardboard end caps, Little prongy plastic bypass valve. Unconvincing anti-drainback valve. A study in how to make a filter on the cheap.."

Why don't you see NAPA filters or WIX filters on the shelves at Wally World? Why NOT? Because many companies do NOT go the El Cheap route to get their product on a Wal Mart shelf.

Common sense dictates (usually) what you decided to buy. Since I only do a couple of oil changes a year, I prefer NAPA or similar quality oil filters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
QuantumRift said:
Why don't you see NAPA filters or WIX filters on the shelves at Wally World? Why NOT? Because many companies do NOT go the El Cheap route to get their product on a Wal Mart shelf.

Common sense dictates (usually) what you decided to buy. Since I only do a couple of oil changes a year, I prefer NAPA or similar quality oil filters.
Do you even go to Walmart? I get my oem Motorcraft and oem AC-Delco filters from them as well as Motorcraft semi-synthetic oil from them. They also have other brand name filters. Have you noticed that most auto parts stores sell Fram and have done so since before Walmart appeared?

Anyway, most of us change oil and filters more frequently than the manufacturer recommends. I think any filter that meets OEM specs. is good.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,331 Posts
Back in my car racing days I would go thru a few filters a month. I was buying Fram PH8's by the case. After a couple of race days, that would be about 20 to 30 1/4 mile runs shifting at 7200 RPM, I'd dump the oil and pop the filter.. I would always split the filter open, had a "Can Opener" tool for it. On a built 511 cube stroker 440 Mopar I lost oil pressure @7000 RPM on a 1/4 mile run. Wiped the crank and cam. There was all sorts of paper residue all over the insides. Split the filter and it was MUSH. I also had them fail on a roadrace Dodge Demon 340. Went to dual Wix 51515's and no more problems. Sure its a 15 Micron filter but the tighter the filter the less flow.

Over the years I have split a few different filters open, used not new. Wix and Napa Gold were always the best.

If you want the BEST filtering, then put a Amsoil By-Pass filter system on. It will filter out 2 micron size. You run a 10-15 Micron main filter to catch the big stuff and the By-pass catches the smaller stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,795 Posts
..."Advanced media, but not much of it. A flawed superior filter..." according to the motorcycle oil filter dude.... go figure. :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
92 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I wrote - If, as is the general opinion, the OEM filters from Suzuki are "junk" then what would lead one to the conclusion that the $2.95 filter from the local shade tree mechanic is any better?

Ah well, write in haste repent in leisure. Perhaps a more polite way would be "If, as is the opinion of some, the OEM ... " That came from reading in the Suzuki automobile forum of folks complaining of the cardboard end caps disintegrating and plugging up the oil passages of the engine.

The OEM Suzuki filter weights, by the way 198g while the EMGO 10-55660 ($9.95 from my local shop) weights in at 211g. The inlet hole patter is identical (6 hole), however the Suzuki has a reddish/brown backflow seal while the EMGO is black. Both filters appear (again without disassembly) to have "top" bypass valves (e.g. opposite end of the inlet resulting in bypass oil over washing the filter element when the bypass is open. I think that the K&P is also at this location; however the bypass cannot actually be seen from the pictures shown on the K&P website).

The inside surface of both the Suzuki and EMGO filters are a metal tube with holes rather than a plastic support. The EMGO holes show typically either one or two pleats as does the Suzuki although the hole are smaller and on a tighter pitch than the EMGO. An opinion would be that both provide roughly the equivalent flow area.

In a way I was pleasantly surprised. I expected my local shop to stock low cost filters equivalent to those which can be picked up in bulk on eBay for ?? (where are you guys getting your filters for less than $5 that you keep talking about? Cheapest I could find today was a Heliflow HF-138 for $8.94 – awd_motorsports.) and instead I found a filter which, at least cursory appears very similar to the OEM part. So I'm going to stop worrying about using this filter on my last oil change!

More on filter size:
More poking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=floUZGP6NZM discussion of the Royal Purple filter by Champion Labs. Interesting comment at around 4:26 "... and this is also designed to filter down to around 25 microns with over 90% filter capability so it's also a good filter media and not just a longer lasting one." Interesting.

This is collaborated by a web page for Royal Purple Oil Filters http://royalpurpleconsumer.com/products/royal-purple-oil-filters/ "Royal Purple’s filter media uses the latest technology filtration system that filters out particles as small as 25 microns."

Another interesting point made in this video: filters are designed for 3,000 mile intervals. It's common for those of us using synthetic to go longer. While the oil can take it no guarantee that the filter will so running the filter longer increases the risk of a filter failure. (which of course none of us will ever know about because we just toss them into the landfill without looking at the condition of the element.)

At http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klcBRnyCSvo (promotional video so perhaps not an unbiased presentation but still) "Why does the oil remain black? Because a standard oil filter removes with 98% efficiency only those particles measuring approximately 33 microns and above. In fact most efficient full flow filters are only effective at 23 microns and above. The bad news for them is that the most damaging particles are in the 4 to 7 micron range." Even more interesting.

This is collaborated by a technical paper (TSB: AF-2007-07-25) from AMSOIL http://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbulletin/aftermarket/tsb-af-2007-07-25 oil filters particle size and engine wear.pdf which says (with a bit more substantiating data) the same thing.

Medium particles are particles measuring 25? to 1/2”. While they are of greater concern than large
particles because they are more difficult to remove, the threat they pose is diminished since they are still larger than many of the clearances within an engine. Their size will not allow them to enter the contact areas between many components to promote accelerated wear.
Small particles are particles measuring between 5 and 25?. Small particles are of greatest concern because they can penetrate the clearances between wear-sensitive components and promote accelerated wear. And, because they are so small, they are difficult to remove from the oil stream.

So where are we?
(1) Hard data is hard to come by so without a full testing lab the "nominal" (let alone absolute) filter ratings are not available for comparison.
(2) It appears that the typical nominal filter rating of stock filters seems to be in the 25 micron range
(3) However small particles (less than 25 micron) are the ones which cause most engine wear, however these pass through stock filters.
Collaborating evidence – lack of any filter manufacture trying for bragging rights on filtering (except for the AMSOIL site, a filter system which is not appropriate for our use).

Conclusions.
(1) If you are concerned about the quality of the oil filter you use, you can't go wrong by staying with the OEM filter.
(2) If we use 75,000 as the target engine life, this would be 25 filter changes. The cheapest (using the $8.94 – without shipping cheapest on eBay today) would be $223 and $312 for the straight from the dealer $12.50 cost). Not a really big difference
(3) So $200 for a stainless steel filter is not that unreasonable.
(4) Filters are a latent failure – i.e. they will fail without indication of failure. Run a standard filter beyond the recommended change interval and there is an increasing probability of failure and resulting "silent" engine damage.
(5) Oil filtering is too important to leave to a low cost non-pedigree component; use a quality filter.

As for me, if K&P will tell me the mesh size they use and that corresponds to a 25 micron 99.x efficiency filter - I'm going that direction. Mechanical protection for the filter, increased cooling, filter inspection with every oil change.

My thanks to all who participated in this discussion! It's been both educational AND fun.

Brian
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top