oil filters (partial flow/bypass) - spin on or cartridge?

Nate Nagel wrote:
> in a discussion on another group, someone made an offhand comment
like
> "the last really good factory installed bypass oil filters were in
the
> 50's and it was all downhill after that." Got me to thinking, does
a
> Fram C4 (replaceable cartridge) offer better filtration than a
spin-on
> Wix 51050? I do have an extra C4 filter from a '56 Golden Hawk
motor,
> and I'm going to have to R&R the filter mount on my '62 hardtop
anyway
> (to put on a chrome oil fill tube, of course.) Worth switching?
> Would be nice not to have to change the "upside down" filter, too.
>

Can't answer your question but many Japanese engines use spin-on
filters which have a full flow and a bi-pass section integrated into
the canister.

Huw


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 02/06/04

"Huw" > wrote in message >...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > in a discussion on another group, someone made an offhand comment
> like
> > "the last really good factory installed bypass oil filters were in
> the
> > 50's and it was all downhill after that." Got me to thinking, does
> a
> > Fram C4 (replaceable cartridge) offer better filtration than a
> spin-on
> > Wix 51050? I do have an extra C4 filter from a '56 Golden Hawk
> motor,
> > and I'm going to have to R&R the filter mount on my '62 hardtop
> anyway
> > (to put on a chrome oil fill tube, of course.) Worth switching?
> > Would be nice not to have to change the "upside down" filter, too.
> >
>
> Can't answer your question but many Japanese engines use spin-on
> filters which have a full flow and a bi-pass section integrated into
> the canister.
>
> Huw
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 02/06/04

Hi Nate,

My 55 Studebaker Commander coupe had the bypass filter. The problem is
the filter elements for the filter that were any good became very hard
if not impossible to find. They were replaced by pleated paper
elements that are a high volume non cleaning element. The good
elements were cotton.
The Frantz filter company of California came out with a conversion
kit for the stock housing that allowed you to use toilet paper which
is nothing more than high quality cellulose. Motor Guard of California
came out with a filter that was a lot easier to service without
spillage in 1966. By that time the oil changers had convinced most
people that allowing the oil to get dirty, wear and foul the engine
then draining it was the best way to go. I didn't buy the dirty oil
and drain it system.
My 37 Studebaker magazine (Wheel) October says to change the filter
cartridge when the oil becomes dirty as revealed by the oil depth
gauge. The filters were optional equipment on most cars then. The
filters were a lot better and the engines were a lot dirtier. The
dipstick can be very misleading now. The oil can look good on the
dipstick and be loaded with abrasives. It was very impressive back in
the sixties to install a Motor Guard oil cleaner and see the oil go
from black to clear in a few hrs of driving. With transmission fluid
the white toilet paper will show how loaded with abrasives the fluid
was. Motor Guard has their own elements now that are a special filter
paper. After 40 years I will stick with toilet paper. Oil makes the
paper very strong. I can understand the marketing reasons.

The combination filters are common but not practical. The bypass
section does all the work and is a small element. In a short time it
has reached it's saturation point and the filter then depends on the
full flow section to clean oil. The full flow section is not a
cleaning filter. It sounds good in a non thinker. The bypass section
is also not submicronic. Good marketing gimmic though.

Bottom line after all the hype if the oil gets dirty and your filter
doesn't you have been had. If you can't think for yourself someone
will think for you that probably won't have your best interest in
mind.

Ralph

Ralph Wood wrote:

> "Huw" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>>in a discussion on another group, someone made an offhand comment
>>
>> like
>>
>>>"the last really good factory installed bypass oil filters were in
>>
>> the
>>
>>>50's and it was all downhill after that." Got me to thinking, does
>>
>> a
>>
>>>Fram C4 (replaceable cartridge) offer better filtration than a
>>
>> spin-on
>>
>>>Wix 51050? I do have an extra C4 filter from a '56 Golden Hawk
>>
>> motor,
>>
>>>and I'm going to have to R&R the filter mount on my '62 hardtop
>>
>> anyway
>>
>>>(to put on a chrome oil fill tube, of course.) Worth switching?
>>>Would be nice not to have to change the "upside down" filter, too.
>>>
>>
>>Can't answer your question but many Japanese engines use spin-on
>>filters which have a full flow and a bi-pass section integrated into
>>the canister.
>>
>>Huw
>>
>>
>>---
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.698 / Virus Database: 455 - Release Date: 02/06/04
>
>
> Hi Nate,
>
> My 55 Studebaker Commander coupe had the bypass filter. The problem is
> the filter elements for the filter that were any good became very hard
> if not impossible to find. They were replaced by pleated paper
> elements that are a high volume non cleaning element. The good
> elements were cotton.

Aren't Hastings filters still a depth type filter? I can get those
easily - both C4 and spin on type. Actually just used my last one a
couple weeks ago (gave to a friend for his '58 Stude pickup)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel