Afternoon all.

Ijust got an 00 F250, and I'm trying to find the best oil and filter to use for it. Reading through the posts, it sounds like Castrol is pretty good, so I'm going to stick with that until I get more difinitive info otherwise.

So which filter? I already bought a fram TG, with the previous knowledge that these were the best. I've always used Frams before in my Civic, without a prob.

After reading through some of these posts, though im starting to question. So i decided to do my own test. I'm, going to do my first oil change with a fram, and the next with a Motorcraft, and cut them open to check the difference. The question is, what am I looking for? I've never done this before; I have neither expensive shop equipment nor the trained eye to be able to look at dirty oil and determine what wrong with it

What should I look for?

 

Here's a start at looking at oil filter guts--note especially the low-end Frams as being a bit scary:

http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/index.html

Some commentary on differences, discussion of anti-drainback and relief valves.

Also you can go to www.bobistheoilguy.com and read all you want on oil and filters....Castrol is fine; stick with recommended weights--either 5W-30 which was likely the original recommendation, or 5W-20 which was back-specced for the 5.4.

I prefer Motorcraft filters (FL820S) for bang for the buck, but for apps where there is not a silicone anti-drainback valve in the Motorcraft filter, would probably choose NAPA Gold (made by Wix) or something like that. The Fram probably won't kill your engine. If you cut filters apart, you won't see much unless the engine is spewing a ton of metal, or the filter has failed (torn or separated from the endcaps).

 

I believe the recommended weight on the engine is 5W-20, which is what I'm going with. I had a feeling that disassembling filters wouldnt yield many conclusive results considering my limited experience and facilities.

That mindspring site is great though. Qualitative measurements leading to sound reasoning on most of the major oil filters on the market today. This is the site where people should begin their research on oil filters. Although it is not 'scientific' (which is explicitly expressed), it does provide a reasoned evaluation from a consumer's perspective.

I think im going to go with motorcraft. Thanx.

 

The main complaint about Fram is poor anti-drainback valves causing dry starts. In Chevy-like applications, its no problem because the filter is mounted vertically. Internal construction, overall, looks cheesy, which may or may not be bad, but there are better constructed filters out there for the same or less money.

By far, the most impressive filter I have cut open is the made-in-Japan Denso. Unfortunately, Toyota dealers no longer can get those and instead sell repainted Purolator at a higher price.

Jim

 

I read all the posts and info from the experts and am sticking with Motorcraft Synthetic Blend 5W-20 ( 5 quart jug $10.36 Walmart ) and Motorcraft FL820S for my Expedition. Walmart carries both at the lowest prices. For me, no more reading up on oil and filters.

 

answered in white paper at http://systems-engineering-associates.com/avocation

 

There are only a handful of the filters "rated" and the others get failing marks based on the unavailability of data. Most filters get bad scores because the companies chose not to provide data to the author.

 

That's one nice truck, Sasquatch!

 

I don't worry about what filter to use or what oil,just use motorcraft oil and filter and be confident you have something that will work just find.

 

yep,

This is the sticky wicket. After I and others have exposed the filter advertisements for the hot air that it is, you have two choices.
a) go with the crowd like a faithful lemming, after all, if billions of flys like manure, it must be good,
or,
b) only buy from companies that believe enough in their product to tell you the facts.

your choice...but you CANNOT plead ignorance any more.
Specializing in Real Time Systems Engineering Solutions

 

For your paper to have any integrity, rather than presenting all your results in a single table and burying your real intent in footnotes is an attempt to make it appear scientific when, in fact, it is just your rant on the unavailability of data to you, you would show results for the three filters you actually have data for, and list the others separately indicating "no data provided". Nobody reads all the fine print these days; our attention span is too short...we like the pretty tables, but I expect those pretty tables to have meaning.

It's kind of like your doing a 20 car "road test" and scoring three cars the highest, and failing every other car in your fancy table with little green and black globs, and then burying in some gobbledygook text the fact that 17 manufacturers did not make test vehicles available to you, or the fact that 17 manufacturers did not make data available to you about the machined texture of their cylinder walls or something. It's funny that you keep telling people to "read all of the test" to elevate your self importance or to waste our time. Just say NO DATA next to 17 filters and we wouldn't have to waste our time or yours.

There have been plenty of cars and trucks that have gone hundreds of thousands of miles on your failing-score filters that, in the end, all you have is a rant disguised as a scientific test of some sort. Your post of this same test on the Bob is the Oil Guy page gets similar criticism to mine--you may have a semi-valid crusade for disclosure of data going, but your approach to presenting it makes it pretty useless.

 

X 2

Can't go wrong with an Fl-820s and MC oil.

 

my, such passion over a simple study on oil filters. <http://systems-engineering-associates/avocation >

My choice was to assume that anyone really interested in the truth about filters would have no problem reading the entire study before leaping to conclusions or misinterpret the graphics. In other words, I did not talk down to the thumb-typing 10-second attention span generation.

My second choice is to not trust any company that uses marketing and "millions of cars have not blown up" logic in lieu of releasing simple, basic test results.

If you cannot stand the data-driven study, your choices, as I see it.
a) do your own study, but include all the assumptions as I will ask (drat! those footnotes!)
b) use the logic "If 10 million [flies|mechanics|owners] [eat|recommend|buy] [manure|it|it], then it must be good."

whatever your choice, it is yours, and you are welcome to it.