BMW oil filter design? (no metal case)

Q#1: What's the reason BMW oil filters (E36 anyway) have no
metal case?

(Perhaps to be "earth friendly" (ie, slightly less landfill mass)?

Q#2: is BMW the only mfg that does this?


Thanks in advance.
-Ted

In article >,
Ted Johnson > wrote:
> Q#1: What's the reason BMW oil filters (E36 anyway) have no
> metal case?

> (Perhaps to be "earth friendly" (ie, slightly less landfill mass)?

> Q#2: is BMW the only mfg that does this?


Used to be the norm. Only with a proper metal body. ;-)

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Ted Johnson" > wrote
> Q#1: What's the reason BMW oil filters (E36 anyway) have no
> metal case?

As Dave said... Also, an inline-6 engine is not particularly
suited to spin-on types, because you have to dedicate some
surface, casting complexity and machining to them. If you
look, you'll notice that there's not a lot of room down there,
especially with the positioning of the motor above the cross-
member.

Floyd

"Ted Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Q#1: What's the reason BMW oil filters (E36 anyway) have no
> metal case?
>
> (Perhaps to be "earth friendly" (ie, slightly less landfill mass)?
>
> Q#2: is BMW the only mfg that does this?
>
A1
To be Earth friendly and for easy change.

A2
No. Most German designed engines use latest inverted replaceable element
filters, including many GM engines. More medium and heavy duty engines are
also going back to replaceable elements for the same reason as answer1.

Huw

Ted Johnson wrote:
> Q#1: What's the reason BMW oil filters (E36 anyway) have no
> metal case?
>
> (Perhaps to be "earth friendly" (ie, slightly less landfill mass)?
>
> Q#2: is BMW the only mfg that does this?
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
> -Ted

Not a direct answer to your 2 questions, but think about the design a
bit and you will see how much sense it makes. Why replace the outside
cannister every time you replace the filer? Does it wear out or
otherwise benefit the engine by replacement? No, of course not. It is
strictly for "ease of replacement". But what could possibly be easier
than the BMW design?

Now think economics: What would you rather be paying for? The whole
can and filter (as with a spin on filter) or just the filter media?
Imagine how much of the cost of a $3 spin-on Fram filter goes into the
actual filter media, which was the point of changing the filter, wasn't it?

Just some points to consider...

-Fred W

Fred W wrote:
> Not a direct answer to your 2 questions, but think about the design a
> bit and you will see how much sense it makes. Why replace the outside
> cannister every time you replace the filer? Does it wear out or
> otherwise benefit the engine by replacement? No, of course not. It is
> strictly for "ease of replacement". But what could possibly be easier
> than the BMW design?
>
> Now think economics: What would you rather be paying for? The whole
> can and filter (as with a spin on filter) or just the filter media?
> Imagine how much of the cost of a $3 spin-on Fram filter goes into the
> actual filter media, which was the point of changing the filter, wasn't it?

Interestingly enough, my '79 528 had one of the worst filters I've ever
had the occasion to change. It was in an extremely hard to reach spot.
I would never call it easy or convenient. On the other hand my '94
530 has one of the easiest filters to change. It's right on top of the
engine. Just unscrew the lid, pull it out and pop in a new one.

As for cost, the filters seem to be more expensive than those that have
the outer canister built in. Go figure.

Vern

Vernon Balbert wrote:
> Fred W wrote:
>
>> Not a direct answer to your 2 questions, but think about the design a
>> bit and you will see how much sense it makes. Why replace the outside
>> cannister every time you replace the filer? Does it wear out or
>> otherwise benefit the engine by replacement? No, of course not. It
>> is strictly for "ease of replacement". But what could possibly be
>> easier than the BMW design?
>>
>> Now think economics: What would you rather be paying for? The whole
>> can and filter (as with a spin on filter) or just the filter media?
>> Imagine how much of the cost of a $3 spin-on Fram filter goes into the
>> actual filter media, which was the point of changing the filter,
>> wasn't it?
>
>
> Interestingly enough, my '79 528 had one of the worst filters I've ever
> had the occasion to change. It was in an extremely hard to reach spot.
> I would never call it easy or convenient. On the other hand my '94 530
> has one of the easiest filters to change. It's right on top of the
> engine. Just unscrew the lid, pull it out and pop in a new one.
>
> As for cost, the filters seem to be more expensive than those that have
> the outer canister built in. Go figure.
>
> Vern

Yes, but the cost is applied 100% to the filter media (plus any
mark-up). Have you ever seen what the filters look like inside one of
those spin-on types? There is hardly anything there in some models.

The more modern design BMW cartridge design was what I was referring to.

-Fred W

Well, the problem with that reasoning is that even the best over-the-counter
spin-on filters cost $5, with many being in the $3 to $5 range. The lowest
I've seen for BMW 3-series replacement elements is over $6 for a no-name
model and up to $12 for big-name models. The owner is NOT participating in
any savings that come from not selling him a case with the filter.

As to what could be easier than a case/element design like BMW uses, the
answer is, obviously, an all-in-one design as used by every US and Japanese
model I know of.

The all-in-one design is potentially neater to replace as if it either
drains before you unscrew it or is mounted at an angle, you stand a chance
of not spilling any oil when you remove it. I suspect is not possible to
change a 2-part filter without making a mess, but I confess not having tried
it, yet.

As for more earth-friendly...well maybe. If you return your filter to an oil
change facility (or if you have them do the change), the filter is recycled
and the metal re-used. If you just toss it in the trash and it goes to a
dump, the metal of the casing is not really the problem, the problem, if
there is one, is the oil remaining in the filter element. Not much
difference there.

I personally think the 2-part design is just another example of German
over-engineering/complication to no really good end. Today's German
designers are, after all, the sons (daughters) of the engineers who designed
the technologically advanced and superior German tanks of W.W.II that were
expensive and complicated to build, largely unrepairable in the field, and
liked to break a lot...even when not confronted by cheap to build, crudely
designed and manufactured and easy to fix (by even peasant soldiers) Russian
T-34's. A nation's technology products really do reflect the nation's
character.

- GRL


"Fred W" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Johnson wrote:
> > Q#1: What's the reason BMW oil filters (E36 anyway) have no
> > metal case?
> >
> > (Perhaps to be "earth friendly" (ie, slightly less landfill mass)?
> >
> > Q#2: is BMW the only mfg that does this?
> >
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> > -Ted
>
> Not a direct answer to your 2 questions, but think about the design a
> bit and you will see how much sense it makes. Why replace the outside
> cannister every time you replace the filer? Does it wear out or
> otherwise benefit the engine by replacement? No, of course not. It is
> strictly for "ease of replacement". But what could possibly be easier
> than the BMW design?
>
> Now think economics: What would you rather be paying for? The whole
> can and filter (as with a spin on filter) or just the filter media?
> Imagine how much of the cost of a $3 spin-on Fram filter goes into the
> actual filter media, which was the point of changing the filter, wasn't
it?
>
> Just some points to consider...
>
> -Fred W

GRL wrote:
> Well, the problem with that reasoning is that even the best
over-the-counter
> spin-on filters cost $5, with many being in the $3 to $5 range. The
lowest
> I've seen for BMW 3-series replacement elements is over $6 for a
no-name
> model and up to $12 for big-name models. The owner is NOT
participating in
> any savings that come from not selling him a case with the filter.
>
> As to what could be easier than a case/element design like BMW uses,
the
> answer is, obviously, an all-in-one design as used by every US and
Japanese
> model I know of.
>
> The all-in-one design is potentially neater to replace as if it
either
> drains before you unscrew it or is mounted at an angle, you stand a
chance
> of not spilling any oil when you remove it. I suspect is not possible
to
> change a 2-part filter without making a mess, but I confess not
having tried
> it, yet.
>
> As for more earth-friendly...well maybe. If you return your filter to
an oil
> change facility (or if you have them do the change), the filter is
recycled
> and the metal re-used. If you just toss it in the trash and it goes
to a
> dump, the metal of the casing is not really the problem, the problem,
if
> there is one, is the oil remaining in the filter element. Not much
> difference there.
>
> I personally think the 2-part design is just another example of
German
> over-engineering/complication to no really good end. Today's German
> designers are, after all, the sons (daughters) of the engineers who
designed
> the technologically advanced and superior German tanks of W.W.II that
were
> expensive and complicated to build, largely unrepairable in the
field, and
> liked to break a lot...even when not confronted by cheap to build,
crudely
> designed and manufactured and easy to fix (by even peasant soldiers)
Russian
> T-34's. A nation's technology products really do reflect the nation's
> character.
>
> - GRL
>
>
> "Fred W" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Ted Johnson wrote:
> > > Q#1: What's the reason BMW oil filters (E36 anyway) have no
> > > metal case?
> > >
> > > (Perhaps to be "earth friendly" (ie, slightly less landfill
mass)?
> > >
> > > Q#2: is BMW the only mfg that does this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> > > -Ted
> >
> > Not a direct answer to your 2 questions, but think about the design
a
> > bit and you will see how much sense it makes. Why replace the
outside
> > cannister every time you replace the filer? Does it wear out or
> > otherwise benefit the engine by replacement? No, of course not.
It is
> > strictly for "ease of replacement". But what could possibly be
easier
> > than the BMW design?
> >
> > Now think economics: What would you rather be paying for? The
whole
> > can and filter (as with a spin on filter) or just the filter media?
> > Imagine how much of the cost of a $3 spin-on Fram filter goes into
the
> > actual filter media, which was the point of changing the filter,
wasn't
> it?
> >
> > Just some points to consider...
> >
> > -Fred W

In article >,
GRL > wrote:
> The all-in-one design is potentially neater to replace as if it either
> drains before you unscrew it or is mounted at an angle, you stand a
> chance of not spilling any oil when you remove it. I suspect is not
> possible to change a 2-part filter without making a mess, but I confess
> not having tried it, yet.

I'd say it would be difficult to have a one piece mounted on top of the
engine where my E39 one is - unless 'upside down' and that would make a
mess when removing.

I wrap some kitchen paper round mine - secured with a rubber band - and
manage to change it with no mess.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.