anyone use those metal mesh oil filters?

[sbrguy]

anyone use this oil filter by scotts? or something similar?  are they any good, would you recommend them?

http://www.scottsperformance.com/photo_view.php?ID=12

basically its a metal mesh oil filter that you just clean out when changing oil so you don't have to buy new ones each time, supposidly they should last your lifetime so its less garbaage overall, even though you may not "make your money back" unless you really ride tons of times for years or decades on end.

[CETME]

I used one. It's a bit messy, but that's not a big deal. It only filters down to 35microns, Not nearly as good as an excellent synthetic media filter, like the amsoil one.

Make sure you get it tight. Mine came loose and led to a scary ride when oil covered the rear tire.

[krista]

+1

The OEM and K&N aftermarket filters are great quality -- both have synthetic filter media.

[bullet boy]

I've had one on my 620 for about 15 k/mi. No problems. The Scotts comes with its own socket and must be tightened-down much more than a disposable filter, tho I can't recall what the figure is off-hand. I run it thru the dishwasher when I change oil - don't tell my Wife!

[dlearl476]

I use them on my BMW F650 and Triumph Sprint and they're nice. Nice to ALWAYS have a filter when you do a change, without having to run to the dealer who may or may not have one in stock.  Also nice if you're, say, touring in South America or Alaska and there aren't any dealers.  FWIW, I know about 10 people who use them on F650s, one who has more than 120,000 miles on a CS, and not a single problem reported.

OTOH, I got a great deal on a case of Perf-Form oil filters for the Duc, so I'm using those on the Monster.

One thing to keep in mind: The Scott's filters are expensive.  They don't pay for themselves for ~60K miles, so if you're a lo-mile rider it's probably not worth it to buy one.

[ducatiz]

This is an old topic, but I thought it was important to reply.

The problem with steel-mesh oil filters is they are flat.  Think of a kitchen strainer.  That's what the Scott's (or Oberg or whatever brand) filter is like.  It is uni-dimensional.

Fluid can flow thru the holes in the mesh.  However, once those holes plug up, then fluid DOES NOT flow thru -- that means it bypasses, unfiltered.

Paper and composite filters are like a kitchen sponge.  Fluid CANNOT flow straight thru, it comes in thru one surface and ends up coming thru many surfaces.  If a particular passage is blocked, the fluid finds another way and since the material is thick, there are many thousands of ways for fluid to flow.

I used to use the Oberg filter on my old VW's until I realized this.  The steel mesh filters are great until they plug up, which they will do sooner than you think.  They filter very well but they do not have the ability to "adapt" when a passage is blocked -- and oil does not flow.

[dlearl476]

I used to use the Oberg filter on my old VW's until I realized this.  The steel mesh filters are great until they plug up, which they will do sooner than you think.  They filter very well but they do not have the ability to "adapt" when a passage is blocked -- and oil does not flow.

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.  Find me a single instance of an oil-related failure with a Scott's SS filter and we'll talk.

[ducatiz]

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they're not.  Find me a single instance of an oil-related failure with a Scott's SS filter and we'll talk.

First off, your criteria is faulty.  Define what an "oil related failure" due to any kind of oil filter is.

Secondly, it is easily demonstrable.  Using dirty oil from the same source, it can be shown that a mesh type element will reduce flow at a certain point in a sharp manner.

A paper/foam filter will drop off slowly, but the mesh type will keep going and then drastically drop off once the mesh holes are plugged.

Depending on your application, one may be better than the other.  For racing, I would use the mesh type -- short run cycles and frequent changes.

However, for regular use, I would stick to a high quality paper disposable.

I think you could make a good argument if you are traveling to the boonies that having a reusable filter is a great idea HOWEVER, that's not so helpful if you can't find the full synth 4T (i.e. motorcycle-specific) oil that most all bikes specify these days.

If you are super-religious about your oil change schedules and meticulous about cleaning the element, I imagine use of a mesh filter is fine.  However, that still doesn't deal with the fact that they are >100 bucks.  I get Perf-Form in bulk for $7 each which means 14 oil changes..    maybe- maybe not.

[JetTest]

I had one on my 2002 620, worked ok, but it seems more convenient to use a disposable and toss it, saves time spent cleaning and drying the ss element. Also, it does take more torque to get it to seal.

[dlearl476]

Secondly, it is easily demonstrable.  Using dirty oil from the same source, it can be shown that a mesh type element will reduce flow at a certain point in a sharp manner.

Then by all means, show me.  Where's your data?  Anything will do, as long as it's not from a supplier of paper oil filters.

If you are super-religious about your oil change schedules and meticulous about cleaning the element, I imagine use of a mesh filter is fine.  However, that still doesn't deal with the fact that they are >100 bucks.  I get Perf-Form in bulk for $7 each which means 14 oil changes..    maybe- maybe not.

As I pointed out, I buy Perf-Form filters by the case for the Duc myself.  I bought the Scott's filters for my Sprint and F650 before I found Perf-Form because I was tired of the dealer never having filters when I needed them and being forced to mail-order them.  I do change my oil regularly and religiously, using Motul synth. You're right about the cost basis, it doesn't really make sense to buy a Scott's unless you intend to put ~100,000K on a bike.
Nevertheless I think a lot of the bad press re: Scott's filters is nothing more than oil filter company hype.  So does a chemical engineer I know that does R&D for an oil company who, btw, runs Scott's filters in all three of his BMWs.

[ducatiz]

I wish I had the time and resources to run a demonstration like that.

If you're willing to supply the filter and some money for the test equipment, I'll do it in my garage.

I can use a remote filter mount for the paper filter from an equivalent-sized car setup (like a Nissan, it's nearly the identical size).. no one makes a filter mount for the Ducati filter.  I'll use the same thing for the Scott's and one of their adapters to mount it.

I can get regular neoprene hose, and I can measure the flow by how fast it fills a drum.  The oil, I guess I can source from a Jiffy Lube or somewhere. 

Alternatively, you can just go buy a kitchen strainer and drain some cooked quinoa in it.  For the canister filter, you can use a large kitchen sponge to simulate a poly canister filter. 

[txduc]

Two things - the Scotts mesh flows more oil than do paper elements so it's not an issue of flow rate but filtration ability.  Second the statement "Fluid can flow thru the holes in the mesh.  However, once those holes plug up, then fluid DOES NOT flow thru -- that means it bypasses, unfiltered" is incorrect the Scotts filters do not bypass like paper does which is good and bad.   I'm not going to argue that SOME (few)  paper filters filter lower than the 35 microns that a Scotts filter does but there are trade offs.  Here's a good explanation copied from another site on why I run them in all of my bikes....

Paper and mesh filters take a fundamentally different approach to filtering. Mesh filters filter down to a certain size, and for practical purposes, no smaller than that. They do, however, only require a single pass to filter to that level. They work by simply having a very strictly controlled mesh size, through which a spherical object larger than that size cannot pass. They are rated in "absolute" terms, as with the Scotts (35μm "absolute"). This rating tells you that nothing larger than 35μm (35 microns) will pass through it. (1 micron, or micrometer more correctly, is 1/1,000,000 of a meter, or 0.001 mm, or 0.000039")

Mesh filters are able to achieve this level of filtration with remarkably low resistance to fluid flow, as well, which in the case of the Scotts means that the bypass valve will not open on cold starts, and there will be no appreciable pressure loss across the filter.

"Paper" filters are different. They can stop even finer debris than mesh filters, but they also allow some larger debris to pass. They filter somewhat the same way a thick shrub catches objects thrown into it. Most tennis balls get stuck, but not all. An occasional golf ball gets caught, but an occasional soccer ball passes through to balance that out.

The random arrangement and density of the fibers in the element create odd and irregular gaps through which debris can pass. This creates little crotches of sorts that enable the filter to catch extremely small debris, but also creates gaps that allow it to pass ridiculously large material at other times. The paper element media is also three dimensional to a degree, whereas mesh is essentially two dimensional; if something passes through one opening in the mesh, it's through, which isn't necessarily the case with fiber media.

Fiber, or paper, filters can stop debris as fine as 20 microns, or even less. But, they won't stop it all on the first pass. Worse yet, they won't stop all of the debris even as large as 90 microns or more on the first pass, and some particles occasionally come free of the filter to re-enter the oil stream. They are usually considered multi-pass filters, which carries the expectation that the same debris will pass through the system multiple times before being intercepted. They will be given "Beta" ratings like "80/25", which tells you that it will stop 80% of all 25 micron particles on the first pass. However, they will rarely publish the fact that they may very well also test at 85/35 or 85/40, and certainly will not mention that they tested at only 95/60 (95% of 60 micron debris).

Additionally, paper filters resist oil flow, particularly when cold, a great deal more than does mesh, and cold starts often cause the filter to bypass. In the Scotts filter, a one inch square of the mesh media they use will flow 1.9 gallons of cold 90 weight oil per minute at only 1 psi pump pressure (70 degrees F). The YZ filter contains about 15 sq/in of mesh, which means that the media itself has the ability to flow over 28 GPM of cold 90 weight. The pump at the corner gas station is only about half that fast on a good day, and that figure is actually beyond the capabilities of the engine oil pump in any case. That basically means that unless you run half a shop rag through your engine, the Scotts filter will never bypass under any conceivable circumstance, and will filter at full capacity regardless of temperature. This is often not the case with "paper" filters, which commonly open the bypass valve during warmup operation.

So, it isn't a black and white, indisputable, one's better than the other kind of choice, but in my opinion, the 35 micron stainless mesh is the way to go, and Scotts makes the best example of that type of filter. Let me also point out that there is a huge difference between the medical grade stainless steel mesh used in Scotts filters and the OEM brass screen filters used in YZF's up until '03. The brass filters will filter no finer than 70-80 microns absolute, which is not nearly acceptable, IMO.

[Dietrich]

You guys are missing the point all together.  The Scotts filter has fins.  More fins = more better, therefor, permanent Scotts billet oil filter = better. 

The only cure for poor filtering is more FINS!

   (Sorry, but that's actually the main reason I bought mine, been running it for about 20,000 miles.  Love it.  My argument is many of my past bikes didn't even have replaceable oil filters and those bikes seemed fine for thousands of miles.)

[txduc]

You're right the fact they look trick and have fins for whatever cooling that provides makes them cool 

[dlearl476]

You're right the fact they look trick and have fins for whatever cooling that provides makes them cool 

Great post, txduc.  I tried to find that info on the Scott's site but didn't find it.  One other thing I'd like to add: One of the main arguments against the Scott's filter is that, being two dimensional, and single pass, that debris will clog the 35 micron holes in the mesh.  THis argument makes the very unlikely supposition that every particle in your oil is exactly round, exactly 35 microns, and will completely clog each an every hole.  Obviously statistically impossible.

One other point:  take a look at the tolerances in an engine.  I just scanned through my workshop manual and the smallest tolerance I could find was the piston grudgeon pin which was 0.015-0.032mm.  IMO that puts any debate regarding particles 0.000039 vs. 0.000025/0.000009 in perspective. Although it's not a "tolerance" I believe the least amount of clearance in a MC engine would be the two surfaces of a pair of cogs in the transmission.  I have a note in to my aforementioned buddy in the biz to find out what an average clearance (thickness of oil) that exists between those surfaces on basic 20/50 oil at running temps.  I guess is that it's significantly larger than 0.000039.   I'll post it up when he answers.  I humbly submit that there is as much hard evidence to suggest that such particles have a beneficial effect of cleaning and polishing internal parts as there is to suggest that they have a detrimental effect of increased wear.

Once again, IMO the most valid argument against the Scott's filter is it's cost.  But as has been pointed out, fins level the playing field.