I think yours would work just fine. I put mine in pre-coolers and with no bypass on purpose. If the transmission goes, hopefully the filter will catch the metal pieces BEFORE I have to replace the coolers and the torque converter. The gauge on the filter is under the truck and it just makes me feel better to check the pressure at idle every once and a while. If the transmission temp gauge shot up for no reason I can look under the truck and check the pressure. It just makes me feel a little better. The filters I use only cost $3 or so. I can change them out very cheaply and often.
Joe

 

Ford, GM, DCX all run long term durability testing on these engines using only factory equipment and fluids. Maintenance is per the manual.

Life expectancy for all three is in the 250,000-350,000 mile range.

 

LOL

Jschira I might would have been with you until your last statement

when is the last time you saw a factory Ford OR Dodge go 350,000 miles

why do you think the timing retards near shifts on a factory truck ........because ford knew these trans were a POS and could not handle the power of the engine during shifts

HIggins

 

That must mean that Ford put a remote filter on the torqshift because they considered it fun.

 

Engines? Sure. Transmissions? Uh, no.

Besides, if these companies tell you that their, in-house study shows that their transmissions last 250,000-350,000 miles, what value is that? Do you actually believe it?

How do they define "life expectency?" Does this mean that up to 0.5% of their trannys will last that long? 5%? Average? (well, we know THAT isn't true) How did they set up their tests? Did they play non-stock games with the setup, as they used to in the past to arrive at inflated horsepower numbers?

Sorry. In house studies are meaningless for us normal people. Real-world studies by uninvolved 3rd parties give more reliable information (though even that can be a problem - for example, any company that sues Consumer Reports tends to get much better reviews afterwards).

 

I thought most canister type filters have built in bypass function for the people that never change their oil. So, the question is, do you really need a bypass on the filter housing?

 

No. And yes.

While I believe you may be correct - that many canister engine oil filters do have a bypass function - I'm not certain. Even if they do, I'd prefer to have redundancy in that regard. Remember, if your trans oil circulation is blocked, it'll overheat very, very quickly.

And, I don't think an external filter is necessary. I don't think a bypass engine oil filter is necessary, either. Nor is a coolant filter. None of these things are on stock Powerstrokes, and stock ones still manage to live a long time.

But PMS has nothing to do with what is necessary. It has everything to do with what is desired to improve performance AND longevity.

That is why I added those things. Not need, want. PMS.

Instead of Powerstroke Modification Syndrome, it should be Perceived IMprovement Syndrome.

 

That's a load of crap too. Reducing engine power makes for a smoother shift, which is what market research indicates people want (OK maybe not YOU, but the vast majority of people).

Look, you can put a filter the size of a friggin' freight train on if you want. I am sure that you can come up with some excuse why it is absolutely necessary that it be done. "Ford does this, Ford does that . . . ". Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah.

If these Fords are such pieces of crap like everyone seems to believe, why are Ford owners so loyal? Year after year, truck after truck, You keep buying these POS Fords.

Are you just that stupid?

No, it's probably because you know so much more than the Ford engineers. All that college. All that seat time in test mules. All those tests in the lab. And yet, they are still soooo stupid when it comes to building trucks.

 

Yep, in fact my stupidity is so great in bredth and depth that most people fear to even begin to explore it.

Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps you can do your small part in narrowing the void of my stupidity by explaining exactly what difference between the 4r100 and 5r100 that led Ford engineers, through all their schooling, testing, and seat time, to believe that a remote filter was unnecessary on the 4r100 but required on the 5r100?

Patiently waiting for a ray of knowledge to shine into my dim wit.................

 

I don't have the faintest idea. I don't do that for a living.

One of the OEM did a survey and found that the average new car/truck buyer spends $1200 on add-on doodads for their new purchase. So if you want to put stuff on your truck, go ahead. You are mainstream America.

But people come to this board for advice, and far too many times I see the "advice" being

"Oh, you simply have to have this $1000 thingamajiggy"

or

"Ford engineers haven't a clue as to what they are doing, so you have to fix every system on the truck. The headlights aren't bright enough. The horn sound stupid. The wheels aren't big enough. The transmission doesn't shift right. The seats are uncomfortable. So you need to buy X. You need to install Y. You need to unclip Z and plug in W."

That's just bad advice.

I won't let your paranoia spend my money.

Just lay out the facts. What you believe the problems in the system to be, the available "solutions" and what you chose and why. Then, if for whatever reason the reader decides to do something, then it is an educated (or at least well-financed) decision.

So the facts are that Ford decided that an in-line filter was not necessary for the 4R100. You disagree with that, although you really have no technical basis for you position. That's just what you believe. So let's go with that anyway.

So there are 3 avaliable "solutions":

1. Do nothing;
2. A relatively inexpensive and easy to install in-line filter; or
3. A remote spin-on filter.

Obviously, solution #1 is not for you, so let's just deal with solution #2 and Solution #3.

What are the benefits of #3 that justify its cost and installation difficulty over #2?

 

That would also indicate to me that you don't have the faintest idea why Ford didn't put a remote filter on the 4r100.
Nobody here said that you have to have a transmission filter or Ford engineers are idiots. The OP asked what transmission filter everybody was running. Several posters responded that they used external spin-on filters. Posters were basically laying out the facts. then you came along.
I never said that a remote filter system is needed or requied for this transmission, those are your words. I also would never discourage anyone from adding new or additional filtration to any fluid systems on their pickup. It's just a good idea on principle if you want thing to last a long time.

In response to #1, I use my pickup for work, I need it to run relatively free of major breakdowns for about 350,000 miles in order for it to pay out. I knew that most transmission related failures (other than those caused by stupidity) are caused by problems with the transmission fluid. I have also seen stock transmission filters and know that they are pretty much just a screen.

In response to #3, at the time that I buoght Bob Rieley's filter system, it was much less expensive than it is now. If you think it is difficult to install then you have obviously never installed one, it is an entirely "bolt-on" system that took about 20 minutes to install. Finally, since I intend to keep this pickup for a lot of miles, the $5 replaceable spin on filters seemed like a better choice for me than the disposable inline's.

 

I don't quite understand why the extremely unfriendly tone. People come here to share ideas and advice - and opinions. That someone else has a different opinion in no way should be taken as an insult.

That having been said, I also have to say something about Ford engineers and why some features are on the trucks, and some aren't.

I know one GM engineer, and I'm guessing Ford engineers are exactly the same. IF they had their way, there would be external trans coolers, bypass oil filters, coolant filters, regulated fuel returns, and a host of other things that people on this forum add to their trucks to improve performance and/or longevity.

So, why aren't these things on the trucks?

NO ONE is saying they know more than the Ford engineers. But final construction of these trucks is NOT up to the engineers. It is up to the bean counters.

The engineers design, the bean counters cut costs. At some point, the engineers are forced to remove things that the vehicle can live without (even if it would be beneficial to the performance and/or reliability) in order to make sure that ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY things are done right. And sometimes it isn't the bean counters that force changes, sometimes it is law (mostly bean counters, though).

For instance, Navistar engineers designed the engine (not Ford engineers) and they designed it with a regulated fuel return and a 203 degree thermostat. Does this mean Ford engineers know more than the people who designed the engine? No.

It means that 1) the bean counters, said "we have to cut construction cost. Find something to change. And the engineers figured it could live without the regulated fuel return. 2) the 203 degree theromstat would cost the same as the 195 - why change? This time it was because of the EPA - a cooler running engine makes less NOx - a big problem with diesels.

So - no. No one here knows more than the engineers. BUT - just because a particular feature was used - or NOT used - in the truck does NOT mean that it is because the engineers believed that was the best way to build it.

In fact, every engineering decision is a compromise between the best solution, and the least expensive solution. Sometimes it works out fine - other times it results in severe problems that take recalls, lawsuits, and sometimes government intervention to fix.

If the engineers had their way, the 7.3 would have had 50% more power, been equipped with filtered everything, regulated fuel supplies, double fuel pumps, bulletproof trans, etc.

AND it would have cost $80,000 or more. Don't believe that? Than take a close look at any vehicle that is built entirely to engineers specs - a HumV? An Acura NSX? A Ferrarri?

I hate most of what the bean counters do, but they do serve a purpose.

PLUS - that gives those of us with terminal PMS an opportunity to improve things that the engineers had to compromise on in order to get the thing built for the price.

 

I've been wondering the same thing.

 

arninetyes,

Wish I could award you additional rep points for your post, two above.

It was well thought-out, and covered the subject at hand very well.

But, the system tells me I gotta' "spread 'em around first".

Good post.

Pop

 

OK. So now we have some facts and opposing opinions and the basis for those opinions. The reader has the information that he/she needs to make up their own mind. That's all that I was trying to drill down to.

You already answered your own question.

The general tone on this (and other) boards is the more doodads, the better, and expensive doodads are the best.

When standly (nearly) alone in a crowd, you have to be loud to be heard.

PS -

This is not entirely true. R&D, Marketing and Tech Services (warranty group) determine the customer requirements. That will include performance specifications. If the R&D deliverable is a 100,000 (or a 200,000. etc.) tranny life, that is the target for the design. R&D does what it has t to hit the target. If the target is too high and not achievable at the desired COGS, the target can be lowered or eliminated.

F&A does not tell R&D what can and can't be included on an engine. R&D has to build the tranny to meet the agreed upon specs and at the agreed upon price. If they can't, then either the spec or the price changes.

If R&D determines that the tranny needs a filter to meet the durability spec, F&A can't just take it off to save $5.