47 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHOil filter adapter
Reported or suspected cause
very first product
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Reported cause
We originally developed the SPOFA for use with the IMS Solution, it was the very first product for the M96 that we brought to market for the M96.
Leading evidence: 'very first product' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'very first product' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Inspect plastic filter housing a little more carefully next oil' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
Fast forward many moons and the version thats used for the IMS Solution is much, much different.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
Used the LN filter (LN-106-01-1, it's just the Napa Gold filter).
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No increase in drop at all, I use the Mobil 1 filter.
Use with a short filter, the height difference is negligible
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I believe that when used with a short filter, the height difference is negligible.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
I feel if someone has 125K on their engine they should at least replace the OEM plastic filter housing to get rid of the tired factory bypass spring which is both tired and weak.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
47 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T122219Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Has anyone used the LN-106-01 oil filter adapter from LN Engineering (available from Pelican Parts)? Any opinions on using it Vs. the original style? Does it cause the filter to hang down lower (don't want it to be the lowest-hanging part of the engine)? Trying to simplify some basic maintenance. Thanks!
I have not used it. I believe that when used with a short filter, the height difference is negligible. Stated benefit of the spin-on adapter is that unfiltered oil cannot bypass the filter as with OEM.
+1
No clearance issues and there are a number of filters that fit (K&N, Mobile 1, Napa Gold etc).
The reduced height does mean less filtering media though, so probably best to change more frequently than whats originally recommended. LN recommends 5K intervals
main trouble is that you can not inspect the filter content easily with the metal filter.
the oem paper filter can be cut out very easily to check what was filtered.
Standard filter is shorter than oem plastic housing & metal housing is stronger than oem. Using premium spin-on filters give superior filtration to oem. Kit comes with tool to allow torqueing adapter in place which should eliminate problems removing filters. No clearance problems even if using sandwich adapter for Accusumps.
I've had it for years on mine, & never comes off with the filter. No increase in drop at all, I use the Mobil 1 filter. Though more effort, of course, but if you have one, a pipe cutter slices through the outer can with no effort what so ever, and leaves no shards. Easy to inspect.
Or you can get the oil filter cutting tool through places like Summit or Jegs.
I'm ok with the stock paper filter as I've grown accustom to them on all my German cars. I wouldn't say the spin on oil filters offer "superior" filtration as my previous 250k mile BMW's can attest.
I am still waiting to see anybody mounting one of these accusump anywhere stealth on our 996. racers mount them on the rear seats but hot oil under pressure in the cabin is really not something you want to do for safety.
No, because doing so will explode the crappy plastic filter housing.
We originally developed the SPOFA for use with the IMS Solution, it was the very first product for the M96 that we brought to market for the M96.
Fast forward many moons and the version thats used for the IMS Solution is much, much different.
Jim - if inspection of the element is a key factor, you may want to consider a re-usable stainless steel mesh filter. LN offers one as do some others.
Price aside
, it will allow thorough inspection without the hassle of cutting open a housing and should last the life of the car
From lnengineering.com
The LN Engineering Spin-On Oil filter adapter also helps improve the longevity of your engine by providing full flow filtration, which means 100% of the oil gets filtered without having oil bypass the filter (as the factory filter housing allows for). Our design eliminates the factory bypass for the filter (engine still has a pressure relief in the oil pump to prevent over pressurization).
jsut keep in mind that it is rare for porsche to make design mistakes..if they designed it like that there must be a reason... one of which could be cost saving..
but who knows.
All the marketing hype aside or for situations when you plan to take your car to your grave, there are no conclusive long term tests that have shown one is better vs the other. When I had my well maintained 250k mi BMW's, it had the same compression numbers or better of guys that had a 1/3 of those miles all on the stock filters.
I still admire over engineering to a degree but don't necessarily desire to have/use it on some of my personal things.
Considering that debris collects in the bottom of the factory oil filter housing and the fact that the factory oil bypass valve is also at the bottom of the filter housing, bypass oil is often debris laden.
High oil temperatures and time in service weaken the factory bypass and make it relieve earlier, which means that less oil is filtered and more is bypassed.
What is doom and gloom about the description of the way the bypass works? Its a fact that the bypass is in the bottom of the filter housing and that debris collects there as it falls from suspension in the filter housing.
Anyway, be careful what you wish for. Just happened to have this one handy. Good enough for you? I can go more explicit, if you can handle it.
Do you feel the factory oil filter system is inadequate for safe and reasonable operation up to say 125k miles for your avg owner?
Does all your engines you rebuild/build leave your shop with you spin on oil filter system along with the dt40 good stuff? Just curious...
Every engine we have ever reconstructed has utilized the LN SPOFA. No deviation, and its standard equipment.
All engines use our DT40 oil, or XP9 for the track. No other option is available and you won't find anything else here. Why develop these things if we aren't going to use them 100% of the time? We develop these things for our own use, and some of them trickle down to the rest of the market.
I feel if someone has 125K on their engine they should at least replace the OEM plastic filter housing to get rid of the tired factory bypass spring which is both tired and weak. When we carry out our preventive procedures most engines end up with a SPOFA or a new factory housing.
What kind of "debris" are we talking about in an otherwise healthy engine with frequent OCI's? I personally don't see a cause for alarm for something like this but I do agree that for your engines, you def don't want to leave any weak points and make it 100% to keep your top notch rep intact.
Can't really answer that with a blanket statement. Any engine will create wear materials and those will always be a variable.
What I am concerned with is the control of collateral damages associated with failures that start simple, but quickly become engine wide after the engine oil is contaminated.
The majority of engines that can't be saved end up terminally ill due to wear and other issues associated with collateral damages stemming from material laden oil.
The primary failure is seldom what keeps the engine from being resurrected after failure. The secondary collateral damages are what open the wallet far and wide.
That's dependent upon many variables and is never a constant. The biggest being the condition of the bypass unit. Oil viscosty, temperature and etc all impact it.
I have completed a study on this and devised a method of monitoring the operation of the bypass using a micro switch in the housing that utilizes a simple LED to indicate when oil is bypassing the filter.
Ok, let say the housing is brand new and so is the oil. How often is it expected for the bypass pop? The other parameters are the same as my previous post.
The way I read this and correct me if I'm wrong is that the "debris" would be engine parts that could fail which then could act as collateral damage to other more vital engine parts. If and/or when this happens, it could mean the difference of being able to save and repair the engine or having to start from scratch.
I sense another patent in the works...OBG(oil bypass guardian) as a backup to the IMS guardian which is a backup to the IMS retrofit.
Can't answer that question with any accuracy.
Since you are I'm Canada I'd expect most all of your cold start-ups are bypassing the factory filter filter. That's merely an assumption.
Create your own study and share your findings.
There are a lot of "experts" on this forum that like to challenge many posters posts. If you are going to challenge their post you'd best post a plausible "backup" based on experience and research not just hearsay and circumstantial evidence. More of you wait for Jake to post so you can disagree or bash him than to contribute to the forum. If you don't like what he is "spewing" then move on to the next topic. GOOD LORD!
This is a technical forum therefore, discussions should be on a technical level. I'm not looking to rip apart anyones technical posts but a healthy technical discussion should be the normal thing. You guys should visit the 928forum to see how technical debates are done. If you state something that needs some form of data to prove, why hold it back and then go on the defensive when asked? To me that type of reply is advertising and nothing more.
The difference with the 928 guys and many other forums compared to this one is most of the technical debates are going on between people who have actually carried out procedures and have done the various tasks themselves.
Not here. The majority of the posts are presumably made and the posts come from regurgitation of other information from other forums. That information generally comes from someone that also has no direct experience and is generally off-base.
Lots of "Parrots", and they are multiplying.
Just installed the filter adapter today, super easy to do (after going to Lowes to get a 26mm socket). Used the LN filter (LN-106-01-1, it's just the Napa Gold filter). Added new oil, it took exactly 9 quarts, verified by the dipstick and automatic checker after starting the engine.
Very pleased with this part.
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
