1st Oil Change on Badlands

[Broncosprt57]

Yes, that is the correct size. I ordered it and tested for fit on the Motorcraft filter that came off my 2.0L.

Unless I’m the Incredible Hulk, which I’m not, I’ve never used an oil filter wrench except for one time my wife went to a quick lube and they torqued the filter on so tight and cross threaded it.

Had to bring to a garage and it took them an hour to get the filter off so I didn’t feel too much of an ego loss.

Sponsored

 

[Broncosprt57]

If it were important though, why not just roll the cost into the MSRP? The "break-in" mentioned in the manual involves more than just the engine, BTW. Tires, brakes, suspension parts, etc., essentially anyplace where one part touches another has to get through an initial wear period.


Any "debris" large enough to interfere with engine operation resulting from parts wear during break-in will be caught by the filter (see the photos I included in my first post on this thread). There will be other "stuff" suspended in the oil—combustion by-products, water, acids, etc. But those will be found in any used engine oil, and there's no reason to assume there will be more of them in break-in oil. The one thing you might find more of in the first oil change for a new engine is assembly lubricant, but that shouldn't be any cause for concern. These engines have relatively large oil sumps compared to their displacement. My first car had a 5.2L V8 engine and a 4qt oil sump. My Badlands has a 2.0L engine with a 5.5qt sump. That's a +60% reduction in displacement and nearly 40% more oil in the sump. That much oil can hold a LOT of contaminants before a significant loss of lubricity.


The other side of the argument is that an auto manufacturer ALSO has a vested interest in vehicle reliability, durability, and longevity. Skimping on maintenance costs might earn a sale up front, but if your cars don't go the distance word gets around, right?

What I find far more likely is that modern engine design and manufacturing has obviated the need for any particular engine break-in regimen, including the use of specialty oils that need to be changed at a shorter interval. Ford's engine development and testing program—like that of all manufacturers—is absolutely brutal. Ford's new-car testing program is so severe it's begun using robot drivers, because the conditions and test protocols are too physically demanding for people.

Here's an example of one of the engine tests Ford does:



Beyond that, cars with new (prototype or redesigned) engines are driven millions of miles in the absolute worst environments before getting torn down and inspected. Before & after parts measurements can provide the data necessary to extrapolate out the expected life for wear components. My guess is Ford's testing has shown that very little actual parts wear occurs during what would normally be a traditional break-in period, mainly because modern engine design and precision manufacturing allows such close tolerances on internal parts.

So why did I change my oil after the first 1,000 miles? Mainly because I was curious: I wanted to see what the filter caught. If you look at the pictures I included in my first post you'll see; not much...

Particles between 20-30 microns, can wear an engine, 30 microns is .001 of an inch in size, you won’t be able to see that, but they are there.

A lot of good points, but with these motorcraft or fomoco bean counter filters that only filter 80% of 20 microns or possibly less, it wouldn’t hurt to get that oil out and a superior lubricant and stronger filter in.

The good news is that one of the most important features of an oil is evaporative loss. 5w-30 is much less susceptible to this than the lighter weight oils that are out there. The best motor oil I’ve seen tested for this, that is readily available, is pennzoil platinum synthetic.

 

[MaxVelocity]

Unless I’m the Incredible Hulk, which I’m not, I’ve never used an oil filter wrench except for one time my wife went to a quick lube and they torqued the filter on so tight and cross threaded it.

Had to bring to a garage and it took them an hour to get the filter off so I didn’t feel too much of an ego loss.

Normally it's not a problem for me either, but the factory filter on these is installed TIGHT!

 

[Broncosprt57]

Normally it's not a problem for me either, but the factory filter on these is installed TIGHT!

Noted. Will be ready thanks to you when the BS arrives

 

[sajohnson]

Normally it's not a problem for me either, but the factory filter on these is installed TIGHT!

In my experience -- regardless of brand -- the factory routinely exceeds the mfr's torque specs, to a ridiculous extent in some cases.

 

[sajohnson]

This is the style of wrench I like, but years ago when I started changing oil on our Focus with the FL-910S I bought a composite style which doesn't grip as well as the metal versions I have for other filters. I particularly like this model because it allows the option of using an end-wrench if space is limited:

https://www.amazon.com/CTA-Tools-2481-76-Millimeter-Heavy-Duty/dp/B007S8LZ6K/ref=psdc_15708821_t4_B00KMUMN4Y?th=1

I've been working on cars since the mid 1970s. I've used several different styles of oil filter wrenches, and this type is my favorite.

It's simple; strong; allows the use of either a regular combination wrench or a ratchet; as well as extensions, if necessary. Extensions come in handy when the position of the filter is such that clearance to move a standard filter wrench handle is limited.

The only drawback is that you need one for each size filter you want to remove. For most people (not working on multiple vehicles) that's not an issue. I do have one that is a "2-in-1" design, with 2 sets of flats. That saves a little money and it's OK, but a dedicated (one size) wrench is best.

 

[Mark S.]

[M]otorcraft or fomoco bean counter filters that only filter 80% of 20 microns or possibly less

Ford advertises 80% efficiency for particles 20 microns or larger. I'm not sure what you mean by "or possibly less." At least one independent agency has says the FL-910S achieved 95% efficiency. My assumption is the number advertised by Ford is the minimum consumers should expect.

Also, keep in mind that the efficiency rating is for one pass through the filter. All the oil in the sump is continuously pumped around the engine, going through the filter every time. In other words, at 80 % efficiency any particle not caught the first time through the filter will almost certainly be caught the second (or third) time through. Ford determined the required spec for filters used in its engines, and since it calls for the Motorcraft filter in the owner's manual it's safe to assume that filter meets the spec.

 

[Meanderthal]

Seeing that the sump drain is on the side, I'll be wanting to put a Fumoto valve on mine. Does anyone know the thread size of the drain plug?

 

[sajohnson]

Ford advertises 80% efficiency for particles 20 microns or larger. I'm not sure what you mean by "or possibly less." At least one independent agency has says the FL-910S achieved 95% efficiency. My assumption is the number advertised by Ford is the minimum consumers should expect.

Also, keep in mind that the efficiency rating is for one pass through the filter. All the oil in the sump is continuously pumped around the engine, going through the filter every time. In other words, at 80 % efficiency any particle not caught the first time through the filter will almost certainly be caught the second (or third) time through. Ford determined the required spec for filters used in its engines, and since it calls for the Motorcraft filter in the owner's manual it's safe to assume that filter meets the spec.

That's my assumption as well -- it seems highly unlikely that Ford (or any other car maker) would put their name on a sub-standard filter or part.

That said, most aftermarket filters that are likely as good, and some may be better in some cases. After all, if (say) Fram or Purolator filters (just picking 2 randomly) were prone to failures that caused excessive engine wear and damage, the lawsuits would be flying and fingers would be pointed at owners; shops; filter mfrs; and vehicle mfrs. I don't recall hearing about any filter related failures. Maybe there have been some, but if so it's very rare.

My guess is that just about any name brand filter is fine, but without any concrete evidence I'll stick with Motorcraft for now.

The O'Reilly link was informative. For example, I learned that the "S" in the filter P/N stands for silicone anti-drain back valve -- good from -75*F to 450*F.

The other link is questionable. I'm sure you just grabbed it quickly due to the 910S listing, so it's understandable that you didn't read it. It seems to be set up to get Amazon commissions. Also, writing like this bothers me:

"Engine oil is the substance that’s going to lubricate the different parts of the engine under the hood. Whether you use a traditional or synthetic oil, it is a necessary product to keep everything under your hood running smoothly and efficiently."

* Far from the worst I've seen but writing like that is becoming more and more common.

"The filter media is the part inside that somewhat looks like paper. This is an important part that actually cleans the oil and gets rid of all the contaminants."

* ALL the contaminants?

"Some of the best oil filters will prevent dry starts from happening. You may want to look out for the anti-drain back valve, which will do just that. Its job is to stop oil draining back into the filter when your car engine has been switched off."

* Actually, it's the exact opposite. The valve keeps oil IN the filter, so that on start-up the oil pump does not first have to fill the filter housing before oil is sent to the main & rod bearings; camshaft bearings, etc.

"There are lots of different sizes out there, and you’ll have to determine the right one you need, otherwise, it won’t fit your car and you’ll have wasted your hard-earned cash."

* That's what you call a "pro tip".

OK, I'll stop. I read through the rest and there are numerous maitakes and questionable statements -- like an anti-drain back valve makes an engine "easier to start" -- but there is some good info as well, assuming it's accurate.

Until I learn more, I'll stick with the OE (910S) filter. That's what I've done in the past with our other vehicles -- I find a dealer selling OE parts online at a discount and order a case of filters (typically 12). It's cheaper and it's not like they have a shelf life.

 

[Sirwallace]

Dealer,
$39.95,
Includes a Tire rotation,
I sit in the waiting area,
Look at new car brochures,
Drink coffee,
or come in here and watch guys cut open oil filters.
Interesting….

It cost me $117.00 Canadian in Vancouver for the Oil Change, Tire Rotation and Inspection.

 

[sajohnson]

It cost me $117.00 Canadian in Vancouver for the Oil Change, Tire Rotation and Inspection.

Ouch. About $94USD is steep. Is that pretty typical in Vancouver?

 

[Mark S.]

The other link is questionable. I'm sure you just grabbed it quickly due to the 910S listing, so it's understandable that you didn't read it.

Nope, didn't read the entire article. I was looking for a tested efficiency rating. That data is not easy to find online for Motorcraft. There are several references to Amsoil testing a Motorcraft filter at 93%-94% for particles 20 microns or larger, but I can't find the paper on Amsoil's website.

I know that Purolator makes Motorcraft filters, and Purolator filters do well in comparison testing. My brother (a machinist) used to work for a company that produced oil filters. He told me thousands of identical filters would come off the production line daily, then get sorted into different batches where they would be painted with the different colors and logos of various manufacturers. That tells me most of these things are produced by only a few different manufacturers and the difference in price is often just marketing.

Are there more efficient filters out there than Motorcraft? Almost certainly; you can get a "better" just about anything for just about any product, especially if you're willing to pay for it. The critical question for this discussion is this: Will a more effective oil filter than the Ford-recommended Motorcraft filter significantly increase engine longevity? The marketing material from the manufacturers of high-efficiency oil filters says yes. The engine manufacturer says to use Motorcraft filters. One wants to sell me an expensive oil filter. The other has a vested interest in my engine lasting a long time. Choose wisely.

 

[sajohnson]

Nope, didn't read the entire article. I was looking for a tested efficiency rating. That data is not easy to find online for Motorcraft. There are several references to Amsoil testing a Motorcraft filter at 93%-94% for particles 20 microns or larger, but I can't find the paper on Amsoil's website.

I know that Purolator makes Motorcraft filters, and Purolator filters do well in comparison testing. My brother (a machinist) used to work for a company that produced oil filters. He told me thousands of identical filters would come off the production line daily, then get sorted into different batches where they would be painted with the different colors and logos of various manufacturers. That tells me most of these things are produced by only a few different manufacturers and the difference in price is often just marketing.

Are there more efficient filters out there than Motorcraft? Almost certainly; you can get a "better" just about anything for just about any product, especially if you're willing to pay for it. The critical question for this discussion is this: Will a more effective oil filter than the Ford-recommended Motorcraft filter significantly increase engine longevity? The marketing material from the manufacturers of high-efficiency oil filters says yes. The engine manufacturer says to use Motorcraft filters. One wants to sell me an expensive oil filter. The other has a vested interest in my engine lasting a long time. Choose wisely.

That's right. As I said above, "...it seems highly unlikely that Ford (or any other car maker) would put their name on a sub-standard filter or part."

I have 3 older cars --
* '93 Nissan NX2000 -- 250,000 miles; OE and some Fram filters
* '97 Toyota RAV4 -- ~185,000; OE and Fram
* '02 Subaru WRX -- 200,000; All (or almost all) OE

All still run well, none of them burn any oil. The Nissan and Subaru were my commuter cars. They were run hard. Not abused, but a lot of full throttle acceleration and high rpm shifting. The WRX has been at Cobb Stage 2 (+30% hp and torque) for the last 100,000 miles.

I have no reason to doubt the OE filters. That said, I would not be surprised to learn that there are some aftermarket filters that are better in some respects. As you say though, would they significantly increase engine longevity? Good question. I need to find some objective test data. So much of what's out there is just marketing hype and/or opinion.

I'm guessing the specs in that 'VehicleScene' article come from the mfrs. They don't say. Even if they are mfr specs, it would be very helpful if there was some independent random testing done, to confirm the mfr claims. For example, I recall that decades ago, CR tested oil filters. It's been so long now that I don't recall exactly what they did. I remember they cut them open, but IDK if they did any actual efficiency testing. I do seem to recall that Fram got the #1 rating -- but then years later Fram was bought out and there were reports that the quality had decreased. It would be great to see some current objective testing -- hot/cold; different psi; different viscosity oils. Maybe that's been done, I haven't looked recently.

 

[Osco]

It cost me $117.00 Canadian in Vancouver for the Oil Change, Tire Rotation and Inspection.

That is Canada’s socialist medical health care system right ?
Everybody has mostly free or pre paid healthcare, but you pay as you spend money on anything. Our loaf of bread is $3, In Canada it will be $8, etc.

 

[Mark S.]

I'm guessing the specs in that 'VehicleScene' article come from the mfrs.

Ford and/or Motorcraft use the same boilerplate description for all of their gasoline engine oil filters. The text simply says 80% efficiency on particles 20 microns or larger. I've read more than a few posts on other forums about this subject, with one person claiming they asked Ford for clarification if this is the actual rating for their filters, or if this is the minimum acceptable design spec. No one to my knowledge has gotten a definitive answer. Since this is the listed spec for Ford's recommended oil filter, any filter meeting that spec should be suitable.

Sponsored