996Outpost.com

Just got a marketing email from ECS tuning. I've never used one, what's the consensus?

Magnetic Prefiltering sounds handy.

https://www.ecstuning.com/Search/SiteSe ... il_Filter/

That looks cool. I haven't heard of anyone using one. However, I know a lot of guys want to cut open the paper filters and look for shiny tidbits after an oil change, so that would be out with one of these.

1 reply? Come on guys, do I have to post this on Rennlist...??

Never used one, but I'm not sure I'd want to.

As KC mentioned, much more difficult to inspect for debris.

Some other concerns I would have:

If it's porous enough for easy cleaning, then a lot can slip through. If it's tight enough to be an effective filter, then cleaning is likely to be difficult and may result in old particles left in which reduce flow over time.

Somewhat related, the cleaning process could allow debris to migrate to the wrong side of the filter and then get flushed back into the engine.

Over time I would also be worried about the element getting damaged in the process of installing/removing/cleaning which could cause bits of the filter itself to get back into the engine.

My concerns may be unfounded, but paper filters do their job well enough that without a clear functional benefit I'd be hard pressed to consider it.

I looked up the ss filter on the ECS website for my 99 C2 and all I see is a reusable ss filter that goes in the stock oil filter can. No way do I consider that better than the LN full flow oil filter adapter and a throw away spin on filter changed at every oil change. I never go for the gimmick of "lifetime"...whose lifetime? Mine or the car? I'll take a disposable/replaceable spin on oil filter over anything "lifetime and reusable" in a heartbeat. How the heck do you clean out micron sized holes?

Cool, just the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I personally thought "no way" but thought other opinions and perspectives are typically worthwhile.

This 'Ad' tries really hard to sound technical, without actually being technical at all, and that's what's concerning. An ASTM spec is listed as well as a flow rate, but nothing regarding fluid viscosity or other important variables are listed. Referencing the scope of the spec (here: https://www.astm.org/Standards/F316.htm) you'll find the test uses steam and a "bubble point test" for indicated maximum pore size. Was their advertised flow rate listed based on this test using steam as a fluid? Obviously, oil has a far higher viscosity and would not flow nearly as well. (Think of viscosity as not just a fluid's thickness, but a fluid's resistance to flow)ASTM also goes as far as to state "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."

Some systems we've design at work utilize stainless filters, but not because we thought "It's in aerospace, so it must be the best!." There are other design constraints that forced us to select that material (shock/explosion requirements, the fluid, environment, etc) for its application. I'm not a specialist in filtering medias, but I know I would rather have an application specific designed part, versus a "this works in aerospace, so it should work for me" type of part.

Given how susceptible some M96's are to bore scoring, oil starvation, etc., I'm reluctant to tinker with something as fundamental as oil filtration. One of the benefits of paper filters is that the entire medium is essentially permeable, rather than having a fixed number of "pores."

That said, I know that LN makes(or sells) a similar product, but I believe Charles recommends it for track use.

Maybe if oiling wasn't already a weak point for the 996 I'd be interested...but...paper filter elements have been road-tested over how many hundreds of billions of cumulative miles? I'm all about adopting "newer and better," but I want to see the evidence supporting "better."

There have been huge discussion threads on some of the motorcycle forums I have spent time on in the past discussing stainless filters...

Consensus always was that a top quality paper filter is a better choice, with the possible exception for moto world travelers who might have difficulty sourcing (or carrying enough) replacement filters when they are riding to, say, Tierra del Fuego.

In short, no. Just by a Mann or Mahle oil filter.

ElSchnell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:21 pm Given how susceptible some M96's are to bore scoring, oil starvation, etc., I'm reluctant to tinker with something as fundamental as oil filtration. One of the benefits of paper filters is that the entire medium is essentially permeable, rather than having a fixed number of "pores."

That said, I know that LN makes(or sells) a similar product, but I believe Charles recommends it for track use.

Maybe if oiling wasn't already a weak point for the 996 I'd be interested...but...paper filter elements have been road-tested over how many hundreds of billions of cumulative miles? I'm all about adopting "newer and better," but I want to see the evidence supporting "better."

If it ain't broke, don't break it.