If the Magnefine lasts about 30,000 miles and are $20 and the spin on are $175 by my math that would be 262,500 miles before the cost savings would be beneficial to go with the spin on. I purchased my Magnefine off EBAY about a month ago. I figured it wouldn't hurt anything and for how much I drive the $20 investment will last 2-3 years. That was just my reasoning though.

In another thread, someone took the time to actually cut open one of the Magenefine filters that he had used and it was pretty impressive to see the fine metal particles that were captured by the magnet.

 

Therein lies the problem. Even if left completely stock the 7.3 is a medium duty engine stuffed into a light duty chassis. The 4R100 was designed and engineered as a light duty transmission.

Simply loading an F-550 to is factory rated capacity is beyond what the 4R100 was designed to handle. Apply a similar load to an F-250 with a little more than stock power and a little taller than stock tires and you are signing the 4R100's death warrant. Any and all of us that are beyond stock in any respect have to address the transmissions shortcomings.

That was, and is my question. I don't believe there would be an appreciable difference between the two.....but as you know "overkill" is the norm around here rather than the exception. It is certainly not my place to sit in judgement of those that chose to go above and beyond what might actually be necessary.

 

What's the filtering specs on the Magnefine filter verses the Dieselsite spin on?
If filtering out most of the fine particles AND keeping the fluid real cool throughout it's life will the tranny last longer? My understanding is that improving both aspects, better cooling and better filtering, promotes longevity in any autotranny. I'll bet Brian at BTS can give us some ideas as to the filtering effects of these filters.
Nut

 

Then people need to qualify their questions and answers don't they?

For someone running a big lift wth a big chip, the answer to the "Do I need . . . " likely will be very different from a soccer mom who uses a 7.3 X to haul the kids around.

The problem, of course, is that the Big Chip people are the ones who post. And there are certainly a lot of those types of trucks. But I also see a whole bunch of the soccer mom variety, or people pulling one horse trailers or light TT and boats around. They are in a whole different league.

So when soccer mom askes "Do I need extra XYZ", the answer is routinely "The stock Ford ABC is a piece of crap. Definitely buy XYZ. The bigger the better. Buy two if you can."

So now soccer mom is convinced that the stock ABC is a piece of crap and can only be fixed by load a whole bunch of stuff on the truck. Worse, soccer mom is now an "expert" and starts also posting that "the stock Ford ABC is a piece of crap. You gotta get XYZ. The bigger, the better. Buy two if you can". So the cycle self-perpetuates and after a few generations, it is no longer one person's opinion, it's a fact. That's great, if you happen to sell XYZ's, but objectivity in the advice goes out the window.

So what we need to do from time to time is a reality check. And thankfully, that is what this thread has become. Pros and cons are aired and people can make up their own minds.

At the end of the day, it really makes no difference to me if you put an XYZ on your truck. Just don't try to tell me that I need XYZ without being prepared to tell me why. And no, I don't believe that everything Ford does is absolutely the best. But I also don't believe that Ford ignores its own testing and warranty costs and cheapens every part to utter uselessness just to save money.

 

A spin-on transmission filter doesn't cost anywhere near the $175 quoted above if you know what you're doing. Especially if one just takes it off the last truck and transfers it to the next one.

At most, the spin-on adapter is $20. Fittings and the short piece of transmission fluid rated hose is around another ten. Thirty bucks, guys.

I forget what the Baldwin BT111's cost me, because I buy them a half-dozen at a time (four to five years worth), but they can't be a lot more than a B2 at around $5. They are hydraulic system rated, not lube oil, so are more appropriate to the job. The neodymimum rare-earth high-gauss magnets that I stick inside the filter flange are a couple of bucks at All Electronics. And yes, they do get some black "fuzz" on them between filter changes.

The payback is much shorter than the 262,500 above, and the filter media area is a lot larger, giving me a much less restricted flow.

The reason I add filtration to systems is that I can be a little more lax attending to my maintenance schedules than I might otherwise be. That gives me peace of mind.

Your milage may vary. So may your inclination toward additional filtration. Your call. All I know is that it works for me.

Pop

 

Jschira...U have some good points here in Post #49. We obviously have a diversified crowd. Some people may make wrong recommendations and many make good recommendations to those looking for help with their 7.3L. Many folks get good advice here and save lots of cash on fixing and maintaining their PSD.
Some folks just love overindulging and modifying things. It's just plain fun!
Nut

 

The Motorguard MG-60 (1/2" NPT fittings) TP filter is $130 plus shipping and hose/fittings.After initial install the TP elements are extremely cheap and filter submicron.

 

I am weary of the "if you don't need it anyway, then spend $30 instead of $200" argument.

Let's look at something new...

1) The Magnefine is designed to remove ferrous metal contaminants in transmission oil with powerful magnets. That sounds pretty good and may be very effective. I've seen no studies done on it.

But abrasive contaminants are not all ferrous metals and the magnets will have NO EFFECT on non-ferrous contaminant particles. In fact, since the Ford engineers decided to use aluminum valves in aluminum sleeves, relatively soft abrasives can cause considerable harm in some valve body areas.

The Magnefine also claims to be able to filter non-ferrous particulates by using a more typical filtration medium.

2) Spin on filters use typical filtration technology to remove small particulates. They do not preferentially remove contaminants based on contaminant chemistry - just anything larger than limits of the particular filter medium.

Which is better?

Magnefine - IF IT WORKS as advertized (studies? evidence of any kind? someone cut one open?) than it should be very good at removing ferrous particles from the trans oil. That is good. But, to remove non-ferrous particles by using conventional filtration media leaves it at a disadvantage - that is, the small size of the canister limits the amount of filtration medium, the filtration surface area, and the quantity of contaminants it can hold before it becomes worthless.

Spin-on filter - Proven, old-technology. The limitation is the size of particulate that can be removed by the given filter. IF the Magnefine works as advertized, it SHOULD be better at removing very small ferrous particulate matter from the oil than a conventional filter. However, the spin-on filter (due to its size) would contain substantially greater filter area for the conventional filter media, compared to the Magnefine. That means, it should be much more effective at removing non-ferrous contaminant particles than the Magnefine, and do so for a longer period of time.

Which is better? If your spin-on filter is removing down to about 2 microns, then it is removing the ferrous particulates AS WELL AS the non-ferrous particulates in the size range shown to be the most damaging. Studies have shown little damage from sub-2 micron particulates.

If your spin on filter only filters down to 20 microns, then the Magnefine should do a better job of removing ferrous particulates in the sub-20 micron range, though it probably is still not as good as the spin-on with regards to non-ferrous materials.

Which is better? Take your pick. Only you can answer which fits your needs, because the Ford Marketing Surveys surely don't hold answers there.

 

Yeah, I already knew I was undiciplined as well as an idiot, yes, I have to be made to do practically anything, you don't need to keep pointing those things out, my wife does that plenty as it is. No one has to follow my advice, I'm probably a bad example anyway.

But that's not my point. The gauge on my filter gives me a reason to get under there and look. I also know if the filters start plugging up when it shouldn't, something is wrong. I can provide no empirical evidence that my filter will prolong the life of my transmission.

It the magnafine filter good for 30,000 miles regardless of the use of the pickup? Can you just throw it in there and forget about it? How do you know when to change it?

If you are inclined, you can build your own spin on filter for probably $50. Would that make it a better alternative?

I'll also say (once again) no one said a transmission filter is required. You certainly don't have to install one.

You don't have to change your crankcase oil filter. My Briggs lawnmower engine has run for years without one.

You don't have to change your air filter. In fact, research shows that most air filters become better at removing dirt the dirtier they get.

I've already blown the money on a transmission filter, so it's too late to save me. But perhaps now you can provide your evidence that proves a transmission filter won't prolong the life of my transmission? I'll be patiently waiting..................

Good luck.

 

We are not talking about Ford Marketing surveys. Any manufacturer does statistical analysis on its warranty claims and non-warranty repairs too.

Among other inputs, during the design of a new piece of equipment, generally at least these 4 inputs are of significance:

1. The R&D engineers saying "what do we wish we had done better the last time. What can we improve";

2. Manufacturing engineers saying "can we design it to make it more manufacturable and cheaper to manufacture";

3. Marketing types saying " what does it have to have to be competitive";

4. Tech Services, or the warranty people, saying "what parts are causing us high warranty costs? Let's fix those so that our warranty costs are reduced".

 

What part of this process would one logically assume led Ford to include a remote transmission filter on the 5r100?

Did the marketing department say "We gotta have a transmission filter to be competitive!"? Or did the manufacturing engineers say "Adding a remote transmission filter will make the 5r100 cheaper and easier to manufacture!"

Hmmmm, from my dim witted, undiciplined point of view seems like it could either one to me

 

The 5R110 is a completely different tranny to the point that it even uses different fluid. Was it an R&D engineer or a warranty guy making the recommendation? Probably so, but who knows.

Maybe the different clutch materials required the filter.

Maybe the Marketing guy said "the Allison has an external filter, so we do too".

I don't know, neither do you and Ford is not talking.

 

No, we aren't. You are.

You brought it up in order to rationalize your stand that, since Ford engineers didn't include one, it is completely unnecessary - based on marketing research that says people only expect transmissions to last a certain length of time.

Obviously, as the 4R100 enjoys such a stellar reputation for longevity and reliability, your stand is completely justified - as is your derision of any who dare to disagree with your superior knowledge and rock solid opinions based on complete faith in Ford's production cost decisions.

So, if YOU think it is a waste of money, then don't put one on. Easy.

If you have something useful to help someone make a decision, that would be great. But proclaiming that Ford always made correct decisions with regard to how to build this vehicle and that any and ALL modifications defeat the grand plan of the engineers, does not help make any decisions about transmission filtration.

Just because they left it off does not mean adding one won't be beneficial - just as the decision to remove the engineered and regulated fuel return has most certainly not been beneficial. Yet, according to the claims you have made, Ford would only have removed the regulated fuel return to make the PSD more competitive and better for the consumer.

 

good quote.

I paid 60 with a temp guage and all fittings. The magnetic factor is nice and useful, but you are paying 25 every 30k vs 6 every 20k or so.

 

Or, maybe Ford got tired of the perception of their trannys as 'weak' and 'unreliable' and decided to use any method to improve - including one that would cost them a few million dollars per year. I don't know, and neither do you, and Ford is not talking.