PDA

View Full Version : Re-useable oil filters, good idea?



vrecksler
03-10-2005, 12:13 PM
I was thinking of getting one of the Scott's reuseable oil filters and was wondering if anyone has used them (or something similar) and what they thought.

It seems to be a good idea because a lot of our SM machines have dirt bike roots and require more frequent oil changes, so $70 for one filter sounds like it will pay for itself in a year or so.

Twister
03-10-2005, 09:23 PM
I have one and yes they make a lot of sense. pays for itself in 4 changes... I change my oil a lot. So far I have only been in the dirt, but with my motard set up I’ll still be doing a lot of oil changes.

Cheap insurance I guess

Mspeed can get you one pretty quick

rookie517
03-10-2005, 10:46 PM
i used to have one in my ex-WR4, just clean it up whenever i change the oil (monthly)

is much better than change the disposalable oil filter after every 2nd oil change.

backdrifter
03-11-2005, 07:17 AM
Just something to think about, I've heard that they do not filter as small of particles out as a paper filter will, and that no matter how much you clean them, you will not get all of the particles out of it. I would rather pay the money and buy paper filters each time, just my 2 cents....

TomCRMI
03-11-2005, 07:41 AM
Just something to think about, I've heard that they do not filter as small of particles out as a paper filter will, and that no matter how much you clean them, you will not get all of the particles out of it. I would rather pay the money and buy paper filters each time, just my 2 cents....
This is not very critical, if you change your oil frequently.

My 610TE did not have an oil filter at all, and it is still running clean and nice for the guy that owns it now.
If you want added safety, just use mineral oil and not synthetic oil. Mineral oil will drop all the contaminants, whereas synthetic oil keeps particles floating around.
If using mineral oil you should flush the engine once a year with kerosene or diesel to get rid of the deposits.

Tom

SMR
03-11-2005, 09:17 AM
My two cents.

All things considered, the stock filters on any bike are not so expensive that I feel like I'm wasting money when I buy them. I know they work, the factory knows they work, I put them in and never think twice. Pull out the old, plunk in the new, no muss no fuss. Plus you can buy them in bulk if your so inclined and lower the cost to almost nothing. Get together with a couple riding buddies and buy 20.

While the idea of these Scotts filters sound good to me, I've not found one real independant study that showed that they were better. Even their own site used to show that their product would not filter out the smallest contaminates. And I'm not of the camp that this is a good thing. I mean, the job of a filter is to "filter", and given the choice, I'm going for the one that filters more. Pretty basic stuff here. There was also very little real data to go off of on their site in the past. Just "so and so race team uses them", or Bill down the street, or here is a quote from a happy customer "Best product ever!". So I'm not sold.

Plus, is the idea of pulling the filter out, soaking it in solvent, blowing it out, letting it dry, checking it, repeating the process if needed and putting it back in place really better than...take out old paper one, put in new paper one?

backdrifter
03-11-2005, 09:50 AM
My two cents.

All things considered, the stock filters on any bike are not so expensive that I feel like I'm wasting money when I buy them. I know they work, the factory knows they work, I put them in and never think twice. Pull out the old, plunk in the new, no muss no fuss. Plus you can buy them in bulk if your so inclined and lower the cost to almost nothing. Get together with a couple riding buddies and buy 20.

While the idea of these Scotts filters sound good to me, I've not found one real independant study that showed that they were better. Even their own site used to show that their product would not filter out the smallest contaminates. And I'm not of the camp that this is a good thing. I mean, the job of a filter is to "filter", and given the choice, I'm going for the one that filters more. Pretty basic stuff here. Their was also very little real data to go off of on their site in the past. Just "so and so race team uses them", or Bill down the street, or here is a quote from a happy customer "Best product ever!". So I'm not sold.

Plus, is the idea of pulling the filter out, soaking it in solvent, blowing it out, letting it dry, checking it, repeating the process if needed and putting it back in place really better than...take out old paper one, put in new paper one?

Yeah, what he said! Well put. I'll stick to the papers, myself. Any size of contaminants are not good for the engine, I'd rather just do everything possible to keep them out completely.

High Speed
03-11-2005, 10:23 AM
I used them and am going back to paper filters. Does not clean up the small stuff.

limenine
03-11-2005, 10:16 PM
I'd like to see info that shows they don't filter out small stuff, if anyone has it. I don't have any vested interest in them (other than having them for my KTM) - but according to their site they filter much better than most oil filters.

I actually attended a service school a while ago that addressed filter issues, and the lesson was that when you buy aftermarket filters for anything, you aren't generally privvy to information about the micron rating.

The info in Scotts website (http://www.scottsperformance.com/indexmain.html) sounds accurate based on what I learned - their 100 or so micron rating for oil filters is about right. 35 microns absolute is getting to be hydraulic filter territory, and filters out particles three times smaller than a good paper oil filter.

Oh - some filters are rated 'absolute' and others 'nominal'. Absolute means that for all intents and purposes nothing larger than the rated size gets through, while a nominal rating means that it filters out a certain percentage of particles at the rated size (I think it was 80%, but I can't remember for sure :headscrat )

So anyhoo, if anyone has info that contradicts Scotts, I wanna know too!

JoeKher
03-12-2005, 05:29 AM
Yeah, what he said! Well put. I'll stick to the papers, myself. Any size of contaminants are not good for the engine, I'd rather just do everything possible to keep them out completely.
Another voice of support! :thumbup: I've used the Scotts and never had a problem, but KTM taught our dealers mechanic that they can reduce oil flow under hard acceleration/decceleration and can starve the motor for oil.

I'm not that hard on the throttle, but for my next race bike I will stick to the paper filters and use the Scotts on my street ride.

lvdukerider
03-12-2005, 10:24 PM
I have used both of the Scotts stainless filters in my 00 Duke II since it was new and no problems yet.