LN Engineering spin-on filter adapter

[cmoore1]

Has anyone tried the LN Engineering spin-on oil filter adapter?

[White987S]

Send a PM to member jmatta. He has done this IIRC.

[txhokie4life]

Send a PM to member jmatta. He has done this IIRC.

i'm still trying to figure the benefits of this upgrade.

m

[White987S]

Send a PM to member jmatta. He has done this IIRC.

i'm still trying to figure the benefits of this upgrade.

m

I looked on the web site. They (Charles) explains it pretty well. Easier to change filter, use a better filter than OEM (questionable), no concerns with cross-threading, and eliminate the plastic housing were a few that I remember. I wonder if it slightly increases oil capacity? That would be a plus. Say a 1/2 quart, like some of the oil pan mods do.

[jmatta]

i'm still trying to figure the benefits of this upgrade.

The benefit is a far superior filter to the OEM paper job. The filter recommendations given by Charles from LN, filter far more finer particulate than the factory filter. This, coupled with with magnetic drain plug, captures material that otherwise gets recycled throughout your engine between each oil change.

Even if you do not wish to switch to the LN adapter, do your engine a favor and change the oil frequently (5 to 6k miles).

[JFP in PA]

Besides the finer filter media in the spin on filter, probably the biggest advantage is total oil filtration (“full flow” in filtration terminology), the adaptor and spin on filter have no by-pass route as the factory setup does.

[Bill_SoCal]

i'm still trying to figure the benefits of this upgrade.

The benefit is a far superior filter to the OEM paper job. The filter recommendations given by Charles from LN, filter far more finer particulate than the factory filter. This, coupled with with magnetic drain plug, captures material that otherwise gets recycled throughout your engine between each oil change.

Even if you do not wish to switch to the LN adapter, do your engine a favor and change the oil frequently (5 to 6k miles).

Interesting...where can you show me with objective data that the benefits are better? I sell the world's top performing spin on filters, and I have not found objective empirical information that tells me my set up from Porsche is any less effective than the world's best performing spin-on. As far as a magnetic oil plug, have you ever done oil sampling through Blackstone or Oil Analyzers to see the content of measurable metals in your oil? I have for all three of my Porsche's and I find absolutely no advantage to run a magnetic plug. Are you aware of what flow efficiency differentiates between a spin-on of your choice and the OEM filter? Are you aware of the micron differential or can LN provide that based on their suggested spin-on filter?

Without answers to these questions, this is simply a subjective topic. Porsche designs the very best in performance with extended oil change intervals for a reason...they are the SME's in this case (Subject Matter Experts).

My company sells the two top performing synthetics in the world and I distribute the best proven spin-on with 98.7% filtering efficiency at 15 microns. I would never use anything but the factory set up...and there too you can analyze flow and effectiveness between Mann, Mahle, Wix, etc.

I really suggest you sample your oil. There is no reason to change my oil less than 15K in my Boxster and 10K in my Cayenne's. Actually, the oil I run can easily go much further than that while providing maximum performance. 5-6K is a waste of money and a environmentally irresponsible in my opinion. There's simply no reason. Good luck with the LN adapter...I'll stay with what Porsche engineering recommends.

It would be nice to see objective data support the claims of the LN Adapter...and the dozen or so spin-on's available that all very significantly in performance.

All the best,

Bill :beer:

Ps 2003 Boxster with 149,258 miles...if you would like more information on oil sampling and understanding the performance attributes of your oil, please PM me.

[Bill_SoCal]

i'm still trying to figure the benefits of this upgrade.

The benefit is a far superior filter to the OEM paper job. The filter recommendations given by Charles from LN, filter far more finer particulate than the factory filter. This, coupled with with magnetic drain plug, captures material that otherwise gets recycled throughout your engine between each oil change.

Even if you do not wish to switch to the LN adapter, do your engine a favor and change the oil frequently (5 to 6k miles).

Interesting...where can you show me with objective data that the benefits are better? I sell the world's top performing spin on filters, and I have not found objective empirical information that tells me my set up from Porsche is any less effective than the world's best performing spin-on. As far as a magnetic oil plug, have you ever done oil sampling through Blackstone or Oil Analyzers to see the content of measurable metals in your oil? I have for all three of my Porsche's and I find absolutely no advantage to run a magnetic plug. Are you aware of what flow efficiency differentiates between a spin-on of your choice and the OEM filter? Are you aware of the micron differential or can LN provide that based on their suggested spin-on filter?

Without answers to these questions, this is simply a subjective topic. Porsche designs the very best in performance with extended oil change intervals for a reason...they are the SME's in this case (Subject Matter Experts).

My company sells the two top performing synthetics in the world and I distribute the best proven spin-on with 98.7% filtering efficiency at 15 microns. I would never use anything but the factory set up...and there too you can analyze flow and effectiveness between Mann, Mahle, Wix, etc.

I really suggest you sample your oil. There is no reason to change my oil less than 15K in my Boxster and 10K in my Cayenne's. Actually, the oil I run can easily go much further than that while providing maximum performance. 5-6K is a waste of money and a environmentally irresponsible in my opinion. There's simply no reason. Good luck with the LN adapter...I'll stay with what Porsche engineering recommends.

It would be nice to see objective data support the claims of the LN Adapter...and the dozen or so spin-on's available that all very significantly in performance.

All the best,

Bill :beer:

Ps 2003 Boxster with 149,258 miles...if you would like more information on oil sampling and understanding the performance attributes of your oil, please PM me.

After posting this, I went to the LN site...

"We also recommend the Napa Gold 1042, which exceeds the quality of traditional OE Mahle spin-on filters typically found on aircooled Porshce engines An extra-short filter is also available, Napa Gold 1081, for use when paired with our accusump input adapter.

Also compatible with our SPOFA (short for Spin-On Oil Filter Adatper), are the Mobil 1 M1107 or K&N Gold HP-1007 filter. Long story short, the Mobil 1 and K&N Gold filters are a well constructed filter, using synthetic resin impregnated filter media capable of filtering lower micron particles while not restricting oil flow, and have burst pressures much higher than any engine is capable of producing" (retrieved 08//02/09 from http://www.lnengineering.com/spinonfilteradapter.html).

The number one suggested filter, NAPA Gold 1042, I could find no performance metrics. It's really a great price at $6.89. I don't think Napa is putting the R&D into the performance of their filters that I want protecting my Porsche's. I then did a search for the K&N Gold HP-1007 filter...no performance metrics available that I could find on the K&N site in regard to filter performance. Just like I would never use a K&N filter for obvious reasons, I sure wouldn't use an oil filter that the website listed without performance data.

Maybe I'm wrong here...simply show me the data. It's that simple. There is not one filter offered for this adapter that I would use on my lawn mower (yes, it uses a spin-on), more or less my Porsche engines.

All the best,

Bill :beer:

[seafeye]

i'm still trying to figure the benefits of this upgrade.

The benefit is a far superior filter to the OEM paper job. The filter recommendations given by Charles from LN, filter far more finer particulate than the factory filter. This, coupled with with magnetic drain plug, captures material that otherwise gets recycled throughout your engine between each oil change.

Even if you do not wish to switch to the LN adapter, do your engine a favor and change the oil frequently (5 to 6k miles).

Interesting...where can you show me with objective data that the benefits are better? I sell the world's top performing spin on filters, and I have not found objective empirical information that tells me my set up from Porsche is any less effective than the world's best performing spin-on. As far as a magnetic oil plug, have you ever done oil sampling through Blackstone or Oil Analyzers to see the content of measurable metals in your oil? I have for all three of my Porsche's and I find absolutely no advantage to run a magnetic plug. Are you aware of what flow efficiency differentiates between a spin-on of your choice and the OEM filter? Are you aware of the micron differential or can LN provide that based on their suggested spin-on filter?

Without answers to these questions, this is simply a subjective topic. Porsche designs the very best in performance with extended oil change intervals for a reason...they are the SME's in this case (Subject Matter Experts).

My company sells the two top performing synthetics in the world and I distribute the best proven spin-on with 98.7% filtering efficiency at 15 microns. I would never use anything but the factory set up...and there too you can analyze flow and effectiveness between Mann, Mahle, Wix, etc.

I really suggest you sample your oil. There is no reason to change my oil less than 15K in my Boxster and 10K in my Cayenne's. Actually, the oil I run can easily go much further than that while providing maximum performance. 5-6K is a waste of money and a environmentally irresponsible in my opinion. There's simply no reason. Good luck with the LN adapter...I'll stay with what Porsche engineering recommends.

It would be nice to see objective data support the claims of the LN Adapter...and the dozen or so spin-on's available that all very significantly in performance.

All the best,

Bill :beer:

Ps 2003 Boxster with 149,258 miles...if you would like more information on oil sampling and understanding the performance attributes of your oil, please PM me.

After posting this, I went to the LN site...

"We also recommend the Napa Gold 1042, which exceeds the quality of traditional OE Mahle spin-on filters typically found on aircooled Porshce engines An extra-short filter is also available, Napa Gold 1081, for use when paired with our accusump input adapter.

Also compatible with our SPOFA (short for Spin-On Oil Filter Adatper), are the Mobil 1 M1107 or K&N Gold HP-1007 filter. Long story short, the Mobil 1 and K&N Gold filters are a well constructed filter, using synthetic resin impregnated filter media capable of filtering lower micron particles while not restricting oil flow, and have burst pressures much higher than any engine is capable of producing" (retrieved 08//02/09 from http://www.lnengineering.com/spinonfilteradapter.html).

The number one suggested filter, NAPA Gold 1042, I could find no performance metrics. It's really a great price at $6.89. I don't think Napa is putting the R&D into the performance of their filters that I want protecting my Porsche's. I then did a search for the K&N Gold HP-1007 filter...no performance metrics available that I could find on the K&N site in regard to filter performance. Just like I would never use a K&N filter for obvious reasons, I sure wouldn't use an oil filter that the website listed without performance data.

Maybe I'm wrong here...simply show me the data. It's that simple. There is not one filter offered for this adapter that I would use on my lawn mower (yes, it uses a spin-on), more or less my Porsche engines.

All the best,

Bill :beer:

Well the filtration may be just as good what i worry about is the plastic threads getting ruined. Of course i do my own oil changes so there is only one person to blame for that but i do not like that with the Porsches. My wife has a BMW 330 with the same type of plastic oil cup. Cheap IMO.

[JFP in PA]

Last time I saw data on the OEM filter (Mahle), the media was rated at 28 microns. The 1042 Wix is rated at 21. The treated paper end caps on the OEM design are also well known for leakage and tearing under severe usage, which is why some aftermarket manufacturers’ of the OEM design replacements use rigid plastic end caps with internal o-rings to create a better end cap seal.

As for the magnetic drain plug, I see it more as a tool to catch the development of a problem (e.g.: sudden appearance of ferrous materials on the plug) rather than an analytic tool to measure the metals in the oil, which is the domain of a UOA....

And, after forty years of wrenching on Porsche’s, I can assure you that not all Porsche ideas are indicative of them being “subject matter experts” on many things that have come to haunt Porsche owners over the years.

Not to start and argument, but I think this says a lot about the basis your opinion: "I sell the world's top performing spin on filters"

Edited August 3, 2009 by JFP in PA

[Bill_SoCal]

i'm still trying to figure the benefits of this upgrade.

The benefit is a far superior filter to the OEM paper job. The filter recommendations given by Charles from LN, filter far more finer particulate than the factory filter. This, coupled with with magnetic drain plug, captures material that otherwise gets recycled throughout your engine between each oil change.

Even if you do not wish to switch to the LN adapter, do your engine a favor and change the oil frequently (5 to 6k miles).

Interesting...where can you show me with objective data that the benefits are better? I sell the world's top performing spin on filters, and I have not found objective empirical information that tells me my set up from Porsche is any less effective than the world's best performing spin-on. As far as a magnetic oil plug, have you ever done oil sampling through Blackstone or Oil Analyzers to see the content of measurable metals in your oil? I have for all three of my Porsche's and I find absolutely no advantage to run a magnetic plug. Are you aware of what flow efficiency differentiates between a spin-on of your choice and the OEM filter? Are you aware of the micron differential or can LN provide that based on their suggested spin-on filter?

Without answers to these questions, this is simply a subjective topic. Porsche designs the very best in performance with extended oil change intervals for a reason...they are the SME's in this case (Subject Matter Experts).

My company sells the two top performing synthetics in the world and I distribute the best proven spin-on with 98.7% filtering efficiency at 15 microns. I would never use anything but the factory set up...and there too you can analyze flow and effectiveness between Mann, Mahle, Wix, etc.

I really suggest you sample your oil. There is no reason to change my oil less than 15K in my Boxster and 10K in my Cayenne's. Actually, the oil I run can easily go much further than that while providing maximum performance. 5-6K is a waste of money and a environmentally irresponsible in my opinion. There's simply no reason. Good luck with the LN adapter...I'll stay with what Porsche engineering recommends.

It would be nice to see objective data support the claims of the LN Adapter...and the dozen or so spin-on's available that all very significantly in performance.

All the best,

Bill :beer:

Ps 2003 Boxster with 149,258 miles...if you would like more information on oil sampling and understanding the performance attributes of your oil, please PM me.

After posting this, I went to the LN site...

"We also recommend the Napa Gold 1042, which exceeds the quality of traditional OE Mahle spin-on filters typically found on aircooled Porshce engines An extra-short filter is also available, Napa Gold 1081, for use when paired with our accusump input adapter.

Also compatible with our SPOFA (short for Spin-On Oil Filter Adatper), are the Mobil 1 M1107 or K&N Gold HP-1007 filter. Long story short, the Mobil 1 and K&N Gold filters are a well constructed filter, using synthetic resin impregnated filter media capable of filtering lower micron particles while not restricting oil flow, and have burst pressures much higher than any engine is capable of producing" (retrieved 08//02/09 from http://www.lnengineering.com/spinonfilteradapter.html).

The number one suggested filter, NAPA Gold 1042, I could find no performance metrics. It's really a great price at $6.89. I don't think Napa is putting the R&D into the performance of their filters that I want protecting my Porsche's. I then did a search for the K&N Gold HP-1007 filter...no performance metrics available that I could find on the K&N site in regard to filter performance. Just like I would never use a K&N filter for obvious reasons, I sure wouldn't use an oil filter that the website listed without performance data.

Maybe I'm wrong here...simply show me the data. It's that simple. There is not one filter offered for this adapter that I would use on my lawn mower (yes, it uses a spin-on), more or less my Porsche engines.

All the best,

Bill :beer:

Well the filtration may be just as good what i worry about is the plastic threads getting ruined. Of course i do my own oil changes so there is only one person to blame for that but i do not like that with the Porsches. My wife has a BMW 330 with the same type of plastic oil cup. Cheap IMO.

The filtration is definitely as good if not better than available spin-on's. If it wasn't, I'm confident the tribologists and fluid engineers at Porsche would make the change to one of the world's most expensive hand built production engines. It's all about performance.

I agree with you on the plastic housing. I've never had an issue over the years, but I agree with you. I know what you're saying about the BMW filters. My daughter has a 325i with the same filter housing. It sure is easy to change on the BMW though! Right there on the top of the engine.

The first spin-on filter was developed and patented by Wix (www.wixfilters.com) as a matter of convenience for the military (I can't recall...I believe the demand was driven by the Army if I have my story correct). Since 1954 this spin-on filter has been adapted and standardized by the automotive industry as meeting the needs of filtration and also due to the fact that with conventional oil there truly was a requirement to change engine oil every 3K. Today's synthetics don't break down like the days of conventional oil and filtration technology is extremely advanced.

I like to think that those Porsche guys know how to engineer a filtration system...those BMW guys seem to be on the same page too. I know VW uses the canister, as did my wife's Volvo XC-90 prior to her Cayenne S.

With best regards,

Bill

[Loren]

I like to think that those Porsche guys know how to engineer a filtration system...those BMW guys seem to be on the same page too. I know VW uses the canister, as did my wife's Volvo XC-90 prior to her Cayenne S.

as does Mercedes.

[Bill_SoCal]

Last time I saw data on the OEM filter (Mahle), the media was rated at 28 microns. The 1042 Wix is rated at 21. The treated paper end caps on the OEM design are also well known for leakage and tearing under severe usage, which is why some aftermarket manufacturers’ of the OEM design replacements use rigid plastic end caps with internal o-rings to create a better end cap seal.

As for the magnetic drain plug, I see it more as a tool to catch the development of a problem (e.g.: sudden appearance of ferrous materials on the plug) rather than an analytic tool to measure the metals in the oil, which is the domain of a UOA....

And, after forty years of wrenching on Porsche’s, I can assure you that not all Porsche ideas are indicative of them being “subject matter experts” on many things that have come to haunt Porsche owners over the years.

Not to start and argument, but I think this says a lot about the basis your opinion: "I sell the world's top performing spin on filters"

I agree with you. Your data is what I have also seen. There are not many spin-on's that will do better than that. No problem, this is all good debate. The spin-on's I sell are marketed as the world's top performing filters and do screen down to 15 microns. That doesn't mean I would ever use one and change the flow at the filter different than that designed at the factory.

Do you use a spin-on?

Best regards,

Bill

[JFP in PA]

Last time I saw data on the OEM filter (Mahle), the media was rated at 28 microns. The 1042 Wix is rated at 21. The treated paper end caps on the OEM design are also well known for leakage and tearing under severe usage, which is why some aftermarket manufacturers’ of the OEM design replacements use rigid plastic end caps with internal o-rings to create a better end cap seal.

As for the magnetic drain plug, I see it more as a tool to catch the development of a problem (e.g.: sudden appearance of ferrous materials on the plug) rather than an analytic tool to measure the metals in the oil, which is the domain of a UOA....

And, after forty years of wrenching on Porsche’s, I can assure you that not all Porsche ideas are indicative of them being “subject matter experts” on many things that have come to haunt Porsche owners over the years.

Not to start and argument, but I think this says a lot about the basis your opinion: "I sell the world's top performing spin on filters"

I agree with you. Your data is what I have also seen. There are not many spin-on's that will do better than that. No problem, this is all good debate. The spin-on's I sell are marketed as the world's top performing filters and do screen down to 15 microns. That doesn't mean I would ever use one and change the flow at the filter different than that designed at the factory.

Do you use a spin-on?

Best regards,

Bill

Several of my client's use the LN adaptor; I am evaluating it on one of my cars as well, in conjunction with UOA's....... the Wix 1042, by-the-by, is rated at 11 gallons per min. max flow, which ain't bad..............

Edited August 3, 2009 by JFP in PA

[Jake Raby]

Porsche designs the very best in performance with extended oil change intervals for a reason...they are the SME's in this case (Subject Matter Experts).

Those guys are really, really good.

And these components LOVED those extended drain intervals!

The true Pinnacle of development!

Edited August 3, 2009 by Jake Raby

[1schoir]

Nice, sharp photos that clearly illustrate some of the shortcomings of these engines that have been the topic of much debate here and on other forums!

They certainly serve to bolster some of the contentions contained in the December 2008 Excellence article!

Regards, Maurice.

[Jake Raby]

Thats just what I had handy.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Jake Raby

[jmatta]

I'll stick with my spin-on filter and short oil change intervals. Maybe Porsche engine quality will improve under VW?

[Jay H]

Maybe Porsche engine quality will improve under VW?

If Porsche has to sink to the quality of anything like my prior 2007 VW GTI, we're in trouble. That car was the worst new car I've ever bought all the way from the insanely complex electrical system, nearly dangerous traction control system that would darn near shut the car off when wheel slip occured, horrid engine management and too many other issues to list. All within 3200 miles and 129 days of ownership.

[jmatta]

Maybe Porsche engine quality will improve under VW?

My comment was in jest...I'll leave it up to Jake and Charles to provide quality parts for my engine.

Edited August 4, 2009 by jmatta

[Bill_SoCal]

Porsche designs the very best in performance with extended oil change intervals for a reason...they are the SME's in this case (Subject Matter Experts).

Those guys are really, really good.

And these components LOVED those extended drain intervals!

Obviously those guys (Porsche) are really good or we wouldn't spend the money we do and you would bother rebuilding the engines.

That being said, what root cause data shows that all of the failures in the pictures above are lubrication related and not the litany of issues that can cause engine failure. The first set of pictures looks like a valve connected TDC. That can be octane, retarded timing, timing chain failure, etc...

The true Pinnacle of development!

Hi Jake,

Obviously those guys (Porsche) are really good or we wouldn't spend the money we do to buy the rides we own and you would bother rebuilding the engines.

That being said, what root cause data shows that all of the failures in the pictures above are lubrication related and not the litany of other issues that can cause engine failure. The first set of pictures looks like a valve connected TDC. Other pictures show resulting piston wall scarring (post valve failure). That can be octane, retarded timing, timing chain failure, fatigue failure not lubrication related, overheating, etc...

I'm simply trying to understand how a spin-on that does not have the filtration rating of a factory filter is the panacea for these failures. I don't get it. Having spent the past decade in the oil business, I have provided consistent oil sampling for a variety of applications. I have not found it necessary to provide more frequent oil changes than Porsche recommends. As a matter of fact, the last sampling I did at 14K told me I had 6K left before sampling again. I change my oil at 15K.

I absolutely respect your talent with the Porsche Flat 6 engines, however, I would like to understand the failure analysis and how the conclusion is lubrication related. There are many opinions, and I have read an article or two, but an article is simply one person's opinion on a topic. I like to get multiple SME input and link some correlation to a data driven analysis. Without data, it's simple an opinion...

Are you suggesting early IMS failures are lubrication related and not an inherent flaw to initial go-to-market design flaws?

Just trying to better understand. Good edification.

With best regards,

Bill

[Jake Raby]

I absolutely respect your talent with the Porsche Flat 6 engines, however, I would like to understand the failure analysis and how the conclusion is lubrication related.

Not al the failures illustrated here are lubrication related..

They all share one thing in common...

The same SMEs did the design work.

Trust me. I have data, almost 5 years of it... Including no less than 75 oil samples and data from my intellistick in two different test cars, along with data from 11 different major oils and 5 different spin on filters.

I gathered all of this during the development of my engine program.. Its something that I share with my clients who purchase an engine, but there is no need to post it, as all it does is breed conflict.

I test components and processes all day long.. Thats all I do, with an occasional engine assembly. On site I have two engine dyno labs, chassis dyno as well as two different data logging systems... B etween all of this I have over 100 channels of data acquisition... We don';t just bolt things on and send them down the road, I have a VERY thorough understanding of anything that leaves here with my name stamped onto it.

[Brad Roberts]

Obviously those guys (Porsche) are really good or we wouldn't spend the money we do to buy the rides we own

He needs to take apart a few of these 5 chain engines.. :lol:

We spend the money because we "believe" we are getting the best, when in fact, we have been receiving CRAP for awhile! All the while their profits were up. Ever seen Porsche dump an engine design after 10 years? I hadn't seen it until the M96/M97 engines. They realized they made a mistake and set about correcting it with the GenII engine. Totally new design after 10 years? How long did they sell the flat 6 engine based on the original 2.0?

The accountants took over.. and Porsche changed forever (some changes good.. others BAD)

B

[70Sixter]

We spend the money because we "believe" we are getting the best, when in fact, we have been receiving CRAP for awhile! All the while their profits were up. Ever seen Porsche dump an engine design after 10 years? I hadn't seen it until the M96/M97 engines. They realized they made a mistake and set about correcting it with the GenII engine. Totally new design after 10 years? How long did they sell the flat 6 engine based on the original 2.0?

The accountants took over.. and Porsche changed forever (some changes good.. others BAD)

B

Brad,

You are forgetting the timing chain tensioners that grenaded many of the 901/911 engines if they failed under heavy load. Both my first -6 and my 70 911 lost timing chains, fortunately not suddenly at high rpm.

And then there were the exploding air boxes.

[Loren]

We spend the money because we "believe" we are getting the best, when in fact, we have been receiving CRAP for awhile! All the while their profits were up. Ever seen Porsche dump an engine design after 10 years? I hadn't seen it until the M96/M97 engines. They realized they made a mistake and set about correcting it with the GenII engine. Totally new design after 10 years? How long did they sell the flat 6 engine based on the original 2.0?

The accountants took over.. and Porsche changed forever (some changes good.. others BAD)

B

Brad,

You are forgetting the timing chain tensioners that grenaded many of the 901/911 engines if they failed under heavy load. Both my first -6 and my 70 911 lost timing chains, fortunately not suddenly at high rpm.

And then there were the exploding air boxes.

... and don't forget the plastic chain rails that splintered and caused the cam chains to jump a few teeth - sending a valve through a piston.

Oh, and cam covers that warped so bad new ones would leak again in two weeks (I'd best stop there ;) )