Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com
Message-ID: <42023EB7.3060700@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:09:43 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristl@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Filters
References: <list-656988@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-656988@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:

> No big surprises here.  From this simple test, I feel very good about 
> my decision to go with the larger remote filter.   
>  
>  
> I guess the real question is what real benefit we get from this extra 
> size?  I don't think we'll fill up the small filter in the short times 
> that we go between oil changes, so I don't see that as a factor.  The 
> larger filter will certainly flow more oil on a test rig, but since 
> we're forcing all the oil through about a 1/4" hole in the engine 
> anyway, will a super flow filter make any practical difference?


IN THEORY...

You want the oil to move as slowly as possible through the filter.  The 
harder you push it through, the more particle will be forced through.  
The extreme case is the 'toilet paper roll' filters I here about every 
now and again.

IN PRACTICE...

My guess is that if you're so strapped for cash that you have to run oil 
dirty enough to make a difference, things are already beyond the point 
of precipitous drop-off.