| 
        | 
 
 
	| View Poll Results: What's your filter? |  
	| LN Spin-ON |      | 14 | 24.56% |  
	| LN Spin-On + Filtermag |      | 7 | 12.28% |  
	| OEM paper filter |      | 36 | 63.16% |  
	
 
 
	
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 10:37 AM | #21 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: California Central Coast 
					Posts: 1,476
				      | 
			[QUOTE=Perfectlap;461259]Thanks! Do you have the FilterMags in there as pair or just one?  
Perfectlap;  I have only the one on my oil filter. I do not have the one for the transmission.
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 11:00 AM | #22 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Calgary 
					Posts: 177
				      | 
			Just running an Mahle filter - Used Wix once but noticed it had a smaller filter medium - 
 May pick up some rare earth magnets - Say 100#+ pull and attach them to the filter housing
 
 Should work like the Magnetic Drain Plug.
 
 Might even pick up a magnetic drain plug in time as I don't think it would hurt anything.
 
 Can someone explain why the use of the spin on is an upgrade - The last 3 vehicles that we have bought now have element type filters not spin ons
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 11:33 AM | #23 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: California Central Coast 
					Posts: 1,476
				      | 
			Took a picture for evidence (pics or didn't happen)!    And to show what it looks like installed. I was wanting to leave magnet on filter until after I cut open to see the particles stuck to side of the canister, but that may not be possible.
   |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 12:06 PM | #24 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: California Central Coast 
					Posts: 1,476
				      | 
			
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by Duezzer  Just running an Mahle filter - Used Wix once but noticed it had a smaller filter medium - 
 May pick up some rare earth magnets - Say 100#+ pull and attach them to the filter housing
 
 Should work like the Magnetic Drain Plug.
 
 Might even pick up a magnetic drain plug in time as I don't think it would hurt anything.
 
 Can someone explain why the use of the spin on is an upgrade - The last 3 vehicles that we have bought now have element type filters not spin ons
 |  
Duezzer; I guess I can give my two cents worth until the sages chime in! 
 
First off have a look at the picture I posted and maybe visit their website but the 
 
Filtermag is a very well designed/made part. I found mine in an old NAPA parts 
 
clearance for $32.00. Definitely worth the money. 
 
IMHO there are several reasons the LN spin-on adapter is an 
 
upgrade, Primary is that it filters the oil 100% before sending to the oil galleries by 
 
eliminating the oil bypass in the OEM filter canister. The advantage here is twofold, 
 
cleaner filtered oil and as discussed in the IMSB threads since you are filtering your oil 
 
100% you can potentially catch early IMSB failure/engine damage by preventing 
 
collateral damage due to circulating debris. Something that really isn't discussed but I 
 
think should be considered is a regular replacement of the OEM canister at some interval 
 
say 50k miles, to prevent the built in bypass from weakening or failing/blocked open 
 
resulting in more debris circulating thru the engine. Like I said my 2 cents.:ah:
		 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 01:07 PM | #25 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: New Jersey 
					Posts: 8,709
				      | 
			[QUOTE=911monty;461261]
 
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by Perfectlap  Thanks! Do you have the FilterMags in there as pair or just one? 
 Perfectlap;  I have only the one on my oil filter..
 |  
Why not both sides of the filter?
 
It would seem that even dispersion of the metal would be better for oil flow resulting in more efficient filtration rather than crowding one side of the filter with the accumulated metal. 
I guess the question would be does better flow equal better filtration?
		
				__________________GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
 GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
 Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
 BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
 IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW
 
				 Last edited by Perfectlap; 08-12-2015 at 01:34 PM.
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 01:38 PM | #26 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: California Central Coast 
					Posts: 1,476
				      | 
			[QUOTE=Perfectlap;461288]
 
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by 911monty  Why not both sides of the filter?
 
 It would seem that even dispersion of the metal would be better for oil flow resulting in more efficient filtration rather than crowding one side of the filter with the accumulated metal.
 Does better flow equal better filtration?
 |  
OH BOY!! As Topless would say it's Physics!  
 
There are 2 types of flow, laminar and turbulent. Laminar flow as regarding an oil filter 
 
would be the flow through a brand new filter where the entire media is being utilized 
 
resulting in minimum velocity through the media and filter. This would allow maximum 
 
retention time in the canister allowing a single magnet maximum time to attract the 
 
ferrous particles. Turbulent flow would be the fluid flow as the media has become laden 
 
with particulates , resulting in very high fluid velocity through the remaining media just 
 
prior to plugging off entirely. This condition would most require the dual magnets. Since 
 
I do not follow the 15k mile oil change (can you imagine the filter condition) and change 
 
my oil around 4.5k, my thought is 1 magnet should be sufficient. However dual magnets 
 
would certainly offer max protection. YMMV   |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 01:46 PM | #27 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: New Jersey 
					Posts: 8,709
				      | 
			Okay I think I follow that. But wouldn't two magnets give you a steadier decline in laminar flow regardless of mileage? I guess that's what I was trying to ask in the first order. The slower the decline in laminar flow the more even the wear on the filter media? Which I assume is what you want.
		 
				__________________GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
 GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
 Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
 BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
 IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 02:10 PM | #28 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Omaha 
					Posts: 2,953
				      | 
			Sorry to interupt Physics class, but I do: 
Cayman:  LN spin-on + NAPA Gold 1042
 
Boxster:  Mahle cannister
 
I use the set up on my CSS since it's my track car and Jake mentioned it was easy to have debris damage the plastic cannister.  That would not be a good thing since I frequent tracks that can be 1-2K mi away from OMA.    
				__________________GPRPCA Chief Driving Instructor
 2008 Boxster S Limited Edition  #005
 2008 Cayman S Sport - Signal Green
 1989 928 S4 5 spd - black
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 02:20 PM | #29 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: California Central Coast 
					Posts: 1,476
				      | 
			
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by Perfectlap  Okay I think I follow that. But wouldn't two magnets give you a steadier decline in laminar flow regardless of mileage? I guess that's what I was trying to ask in the first order. The slower the decline in laminar flow the more even the wear on the filter media? Which I assume is what you want. |  
Cool!  Flow is only effected by media filter area decreasing due to plugging (the magnet has
 
no effect on the distribution of non ferrous particles to the media), Thus resulting in higher fluid velocity through the remaining media.
 
  In laminar flow surface friction has minimal to no effect on turbulence. The Filter mag 
 
attaches the particles to the side of the canister and has marginal effect on restricting 
 
flow (from friction) along that side of the canister, unless/until the magnet captured  
 
enough particles to restrict flow in that area. This would then require the dual filters to 
 
spread out the captured particles over a wider area. However in my opinion, 
 
going back to oil change interval, for this to happen you would have to have pretty 
 
severe engine damage occurring to have this quantity of ferrous  circulating debris. Hope this answers the 
 
question.
		 
				 Last edited by 911monty; 08-12-2015 at 02:41 PM.
					
					
						Reason: clarification
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 02:46 PM | #30 |  
	| There Is No Substitute. 
				 
				Join Date: May 2007 Location: West Coast 
					Posts: 3,253
				      | 
			[QUOTE=Perfectlap;461288]
 
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by 911monty  Why not both sides of the filter? |  
I think the simple answer is that most people don't want to spend $100 on some fancy magnets.  And of course all that physics stuff.   
				__________________1999 Ocean Blue Metallic Boxster - blueboxster.com
 
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 02:50 PM | #31 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: California Central Coast 
					Posts: 1,476
				      | 
			[QUOTE=rick3000;461313]
 
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by Perfectlap  
I think the simple answer is that most people don't want to spend $100 on some fancy magnets.  And of course all that physics stuff.   |  
Man why didn't I think of that!!   |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-12-2015, 03:15 PM | #32 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: California Central Coast 
					Posts: 1,476
				      | 
			[QUOTE=Perfectlap;461288]
 
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by 911monty  Why not both sides of the filter?
 
 It would seem that even dispersion of the metal would be better for oil flow resulting in more efficient filtration rather than crowding one side of the filter with the accumulated metal.
 I guess the question would be does better flow equal better filtration?
 |  
Perfectlap; Please excuse me, I had to go look at the picture to understand the question. 
 
I think what you are asking is with the magnet only filtering one side, the media on the
 
opposite side is loading with the debris? This is true with particles larger than 20 
 
microns (media efficiency), but where the magnet shines is capturing particles in the 
 
1-4 micron range that cause the most engine wear, and simply pass through the media 
 
circulating continuously through the engine. For first pass efficiency dual magnets would 
 
be superior.
		 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-13-2015, 07:38 AM | #33 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Calgary 
					Posts: 177
				      | 
			Thanks for the info.
 Are there different adapters on the marked or just the LN
 
 I don't use NAPA products anyone know if WIX make a filter that will fit the adapter?
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-13-2015, 11:16 AM | #34 |  
	| Certified Boxster Addict 
				 
				Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Los Angeles 
					Posts: 7,669
				      | 
			Plain Jane OEM filters.    
None of my three engine failures were due to imperfect oil filtering.
		
				__________________1999 996 C2 - sold - bought back - sold for more
 1997 Spec Boxster BSR #254
 1979 911 SC
 POC Licensed DE/TT Instructor
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-13-2015, 12:10 PM | #35 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: BC 
					Posts: 1,352
				      | 
			^ but your next one could be...     
				__________________2001 Boxster, 5 spd, Seal Grey
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-13-2015, 12:36 PM | #36 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: New Jersey 
					Posts: 8,709
				      | 
			
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by thstone  Plain Jane OEM filters.    
None of my three engine failures were due to imperfect oil filtering. |  
What were the culprits and how many miles on each engine?
 
Also, the engine may not fail but as 911Monty points out, surely over time performance can be affected by smaller bits getting past the media.
		 
				__________________GT3 Recaro Seats - Boxster Red
 GT3 Aero / Carrera 18" 5 spoke / Potenza RE-11
 Fabspeed Headers & Noise Maker
 BORN: March 2000 - FINLAND
 IMS#1 REPLACED: April 2010 - NEW JERSEY -- LNE DUAL ROW
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-13-2015, 12:44 PM | #37 |  
	| There Is No Substitute. 
				 
				Join Date: May 2007 Location: West Coast 
					Posts: 3,253
				      | 
			In the past JFP has recommended using the Wix/NAPA Gold Oil Filter 7211, if you stick with the cartridge filter.  Apparently, they are less prone to disintegrating on the ends than most paper filters. 
Link: http://986forum.com/forums/187600-post15.html
				__________________1999 Ocean Blue Metallic Boxster - blueboxster.com
 
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-14-2015, 06:49 AM | #38 |  
	| Certified Boxster Addict 
				 
				Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Los Angeles 
					Posts: 7,669
				      | 
			
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by Perfectlap  What were the culprits and how many miles on each engine?
 Also, the engine may not fail but as 911Monty points out, surely over time performance can be affected by smaller bits getting past the media.
 |  
204,000 miles - timing chain failure 
136,000 miles - lifter failure 
300 miles after rebuild of 136K mile engine - repeat lifter failure due to worn lifter carrier
 
146,000 miles and still running fine 996 when sold
		 
				__________________1999 996 C2 - sold - bought back - sold for more
 1997 Spec Boxster BSR #254
 1979 911 SC
 POC Licensed DE/TT Instructor
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-14-2015, 07:19 AM | #39 |  
	| Certified Boxster Addict 
				 
				Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Los Angeles 
					Posts: 7,669
				      | 
			With the above being said ^^^, I understand that my experience is not representative of all engines. 
 However, in reality, doesn't the oil that goes thru the bypass get filtered the next time thru? Even if the bypass was permanent, isn't the turnover rate high enough such that it wouldn't take long for all of the oil (and all of the contaminants) to have passed thru the filter?
 
 What I mean is first pass, 20% unfiltered. 2nd pass 20% of the first 20% is bypassed (0.04%). By the third pass, 20% x 20% x 20%, only 0.008% of the oil is unfiltered. Very quickly, the amount of unfiltered oil approaches zero and any new contaminants are also quickly filtered out in only a handful of turnovers.
 
 Or am I missing something?
 
				__________________1999 996 C2 - sold - bought back - sold for more
 1997 Spec Boxster BSR #254
 1979 911 SC
 POC Licensed DE/TT Instructor
 
				 Last edited by thstone; 08-14-2015 at 07:21 AM.
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
		|  08-14-2015, 07:27 AM | #40 |  
	| Registered User 
				 
				Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Baltimore, MD 
					Posts: 60
				      | 
			
	Quote: 
	
		| 
					Originally Posted by thstone  With the above being said ^^^, I understand that my experience is not representative of all engines. 
 However, in reality, doesn't the oil that goes thru the bypass get filtered the next time thru? Even if the bypass was permanent, isn't the turnover rate high enough such that it wouldn't take long for all of the oil (and all of the contaminants) to have passed thru the filter?
 
 What I mean is first pass, 20% unfiltered. 2nd pass 20% of the first 20% is bypassed (0.04%). By the third pass, 20% x 20% x 20%, only 0.008% of the oil is unfiltered. Very quickly, the amount of unfiltered oil approaches zero and any new contaminants are also quickly filtered out in only a handful of turnovers.
 
 Or am I missing something?
 |  
You mean 20% then 4% and then 0.8% and so on. Same idea.
		 
 |  
	|   |   |  
	
		
	
	
	
	
	| 
	|  Posting Rules |  
	| 
		
		You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts 
 HTML code is On 
 |  |  |  All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:00 PM. 
	
	
		
	
	
 |  |