just for the record, with a density of 0.93 g/cm3 and a diameter of 4", assuming that all the volume was filled with oil, and all of the mass of that oil was set at the far end of 12" away from the block which would be worst case from a torque perspective you are putting 5 ft/lbs on the casting maximum. Realistically it is MUCH lower then that since the mass is distributed over the full length of the filter and not actually concentrated at the end, but i dont think anyone wants to get into calculus. The mass change of the filter and the length change of the filter are non issues with the materials in question.You mean that useless mod that makes you feel better? :teehee
Yes, you are more tolerable these days than in the past. :howdy
I just don't care for that 2 foot long filter hanging off of a cast filter mount....looks like it just begs to be snapped off.
That filter would have a maximum ideal torque (calculated the same way as above in a fictional world with easy worst case physics) of 4.2 ft/lbs.Its actually 7.87” long OEM is 5.3” which = 2.5” longer than OEM.
The DBL7483 needing a 1” adapter mentioned on another thread is 10.3” which = 5” longer than OEM add the larger diameter, the extra weight of the oil, now this one would be a big concern hanging at a angle from the cast filter mount.
That useless mod makes me feel real good like my HORNEY GOAT WEED supplement, for those special moments at night.:thumb. :wink2:
There is also a bypass valve built into the filter head inside the block.I’ve been debating switching to one of these larger filters but hesitant because of the lack of bypass, just realized today I’ve been running the non bypass PF932 on my 6.5 truck for years with no issue.
The PF932 is a 30 micron @ 98%
It’s still better having more filter area over the one qt filters.
yes, however the difference is a couple of foot pounds. There are guys hanging whole turbos off the side of the block. Im not arguing necessarily that one is better then the other, just that the difference in force exerted on the block by the two filters is trivial compared to other loads on the engine that it sees daily under normal use.If the Duramax has a by-pass built-in then
7.8” hanging at a angle full of oil vs a 10.3” hanging at the same angle full of oil, this would be more downward pressure against the cast housing.
I am not making an argument for one filter or the other, i am just saying there is no reason to worry about either of the filters mechanically damaging the block due to the added load of the oil weight, or extension of the filter as the loads produced by any of the filters currently being discussed on this site for use on the duramax pose no mechanical threat, at least from size complications, to the integrity of the block. This seems to pop up fairly regularly on bobs thread as well as a concern, so i really just wanted to put that concern to bed over anything else. I do not care at all what filter you, or other owners run on there trucks. I understand the points you are making about your filter compared to bobs, and the factory. I also understand the points bob is making about his filter compared to yours. At the end of the day i think the two of you are saying a lot of similar things and are just getting caught up in the terminology more then anything else.I won’t have to be concerned, I wouldn’t run that 10.3” filter with 1” adapter anyway.
Even Empire Cat was discouraging about running that large of a filter when I was picking up my 560832.
I wasn't considering the leverage of just the longer filter weight, not much there with the math. What I was concerned with was a longer lever hanging out and a foreign object impacting it....which would dramatically increase that torque load on the casting.just for the record, with a density of 0.93 g/cm3 and a diameter of 4", assuming that all the volume was filled with oil, and all of the mass of that oil was set at the far end of 12" away from the block which would be worst case from a torque perspective you are putting 5 ft/lbs on the casting maximum.
I think your odds of something coming under the truck and impacting the filter 3 inches behind the factory location is quite unlikely, unless your talking about the front shaft, which would take out the factory filter too if it failed.I wasn't considering the leverage of just the longer filter weight, not much there with the math. What I was concerned with was a longer lever hanging out and a foreign object impacting it....which would dramatically increase that torque load on the casting.
Cheater pipe, if you will. :|