Engine: Partial Flow vs Full Flow

[jg61hawk]

I was reading another post and saw the quote: Also keep in mind that the filters are not the same between the partial flow and full flow oil filters even though they may look the same. Do not try to interchange them as bad things can happen to your engine if you do. Bud
I have been playing with Studebakers for almost 50 years and I think I had this all wrong....I thought Partial Flow simply referred to the poor ability of the engine to filter the oil due to the location of the filter (on top of the engine). Full flow I thought meant the filter was moved to a better location and hence better, FULL, oil lubrication. I happened to have an
NOS Studebaker AC3300 oil filter that I use as a display....

I realized after reading the above quote the filter is restricted and compared to modern Full Flow Filters very restricted...


So I am asking...(with embarrassed look) The picture I placed of AC3300 is probably a partial flow filter...Yes? So than I must ask if you use a modern full flow filter on a partial flow Studebaker....you would more than likely drop the oil pressure significantly? If this is correct...where do guys buy partial flow automotive oil filters? I have a 63 Hawk engine in my car so I use the full flow attached on the right rear side of the 289. I must admit, I did blow up the original engine years and years ago...I more than likely was using a full flow filter on a partial flow car!

[Bud]

Do not under any circumstances try to use a filter meant for a full flow lube system on a partial flow system. Even though there should be a restrictor orifice in the inlet side of the filter, you run the risk of substantially reducing the engine oil pressure. The filter you show in first picture is meant for a partial flow system due to the restrictor hole in the center of the filter. The second picture shows a filter meant for a full flow system. The filters are definitely NOT interchangeable even though you may be able to install them. Any of the larger auto parts store should be able to supply you with the correct filter for your particular engine.

[Topper2011]

Does that mean the Wix/Napa filters are incorrect for my partial flow?

[jg61hawk]

https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/studebaker

Rock Auto seems to have a great site.... Note these..."Bypass Filter" and shows the restriction. I used 1960 Hawk in their search.



Now I used 1963 Hawk


I never gave it thought. I may have killed my engine back in 1985...But it was so long ago I can't remember if I specifically asked for a filter for a 1961 Hawk...which according to Rock Auto the suppliers know the difference. My engine blew the number one rod three times...eventually I gave up. I will point out I bought it in 1978 with a blown rod in # 1. Perhaps the crank was bad....

TOPPER...I created this post for guys like you with Partial Flow..... ask questions and research. I just began to understand this...never thought about it...now I find out I may be a killer!

[Bud]

The 51050 Wix filter is for partial flow lube systems and If I remember correctly the 51049 is the Wix filter for full flow lube systems. The second picture has a filter designed for some GM cars with Chevrolet being most prevalent. Do not try to use a filter with an outside gasket on a Studebaker engine.

[jg61hawk]

Trying to show verbage

[jg61hawk]

So even that is wrong...where I used 1963...BE CAREFUL GUYS>>>> that's my point. So long as I am here...I am using the Egogard X33 on my 1963 engine. I use the short filter due to routing of the exhaust... change THE OIL EVERY YEAR...any comments on this filter are appreciated.

[Edsel Face]

So are we saying that an oil filter with low oil flow restriction is the same as a by - pass oil filter?

[StudeRich]

Yes, the term "Bi-pass" is not used much, but of course it is the same as "Partial Flow".

[StudeRich]

I think one of the things that Jim has missed here, is that there is NO worry about mixing up Partial Flow with Full Flow Filters.

Back on Joseph's original String, on Post #8 you find that the Part Numbers tell the whole story.
His '63 does NOT have a '63 Engine, so it simply gets a '60 Partial Flow Filter as it should.

Quote: "My engine number is P71155... Where can I find a partial Flow filter? None of the ones for Sale. that I've looked at do not specify partial flow... Thanks."

"Filters or box markings do not specify Partial or Full Flow.

That is a 1960 Hawk 289, IF it still has the correct dished 289 Pistons and longer Stroke 289 Crank in the 289 Block, it IS a 289.
That 1960, should have a disposable Can, Spin-On Type partial flow Oil Filter a :

WIX 51050

K & N HP3005
NAPA FIL 1050
Hastings/Baldwin LF117
Purolator 3005
Fram PB50
Carquest/Advance/Autozone 85050"

So the bottom line is; just use one of these correct for 1958 to early '62 Partial Flow Filters, the Gasket Diameter, Thread Size, everything about the 2 filters is different and they cannot Fit the wrong Base.

By the way, as often as this issue comes up, this current Part Number List needs to be a "Sticky" here on the Tech. Forum to help others with this question.

[jg61hawk]

So the bottom line is; just use one of these correct for 1958 to early '62 Partial Flow Filters, the Gasket Diameter, Thread Size, everything about the 2 filters is different and they cannot Fit the wrong Base.

AHHH Stude Rich comes through again! I never noticed but yes! The base is completely different, you can't put a full flow onto an original Studebaker partial flow...at least from what I just did with the old NOS AC3300...the opening is completely different. Stude Rich, I feel better now that I did NOT kill my engine years ago...it was killing me!

[bezhawk]

Modern aftermarket kits are currently adding partial flow filters in addition to full flow filters, especially on diesels. I did rebuild a Stude engine and had an extra partial setup, so I added it to the full flow as well. You can never have too clean of oil. I had a 63 Daytona Wagonaire years ago with a Frantz filter, and was always scared I was out of oil. It just turned out it was so clean, it was hard to see on the dip stick.

[Edsel Face]

In my 259 motor I have been using a WIX 51006 which is different than what is mentioned in post # 5. Are each acceptable?

[StudeRich]

In my 259 motor I have been using a WIX 51006 which is different than what is mentioned in post # 5. Are each acceptable?

You have a drop-In canister Fram F4 Filter, Not a spin-on type.

[r1lark]

I think one of the things that Jim has missed here, is that there is NO worry about mixing up Partial Flow with Full Flow Filters.

Back on Joseph's original String, on Post #8 you find that the Part Numbers tell the whole story.
His '63 does NOT have a '63 Engine, so it simply gets a '60 Partial Flow Filter as it should.

Quote: "My engine number is P71155... Where can I find a partial Flow filter? None of the ones for Sale. that I've looked at do not specify partial flow... Thanks."

"Filters or box markings do not specify Partial or Full Flow.

That is a 1960 Hawk 289, IF it still has the correct dished 289 Pistons and longer Stroke 289 Crank in the 289 Block, it IS a 289.
That 1960, should have a disposable Can, Spin-On Type partial flow Oil Filter a :

WIX 51006

K & N HP3005
NAPA FIL 1050
Hastings/Baldwin LF117
Purolator 3005
Fram PB50
Carquest/Advance/Autozone 85050"

So the bottom line is; just use one of these correct for 1958 to early '62 Partial Flow Filters, the Gasket Diameter, Thread Size, everything about the 2 filters is different and they cannot Fit the wrong Base.

By the way, as often as this issue comes up, this current Part Number List needs to be a "Sticky" here on the Tech. Forum to help others with this question.

UPDATE: corrected typo on 51006 WIX, thank you Edsel.

________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________


OK, this whole thread is somewhat confusing (at least to me)!!

Let's see if we can summarize all of this (keeping in mind that an engine could have been swapped in your car, so go by the engine number and filter mounting, not by the year of your car):

• Wix 51049 is for late-1962 thru 1964 V8 engines and OHV 6 engines that have the oil filter mounted down low on the right side rear of the engine. This is a "full flow" setup.

• Wix 51050 is for Studebakers that have a 'spin on' replaceable filter mounted to a filter base on the top of the engine, usually attached to the vertical oil fill/breather tube on V8s. These have a small sized orifice in the center of the filter itself, as per the picture posted just below. This is a "partial flow" (or bypass) setup. The second picture is a partial flow setup on our '62 GT Hawk engine.

• Wix 51006, mentioned by StudeRich above, is a replaceable cartridge filter that is meant to service certain older cannister type filter setups seen on a lot of earlier '50s and '40s engines. Fram sold a lot of these, and a lot of the Fram setups were orange, some were black, etc. Some were factory supplied, some dealer installed, and some could have been purchased at the local Western Auto or similar as kits and installed by the owner. These are also partial flow (or bypass) systems, but you have to remove the lid, take out the throw-away cartridge, and install the new cartridge. I've seen various sizes of the cannister type filters, so finding the correct replacement cartridge might take a little work; best thing would be to cross reference the number on the cartridge that you are pulling out to a currently available one. First pic just below shows a representative example of one of these cannister type filters, and the second shows a representative replaceable cartridge.

Corrections are welcomed.

[Edsel Face]

This is what I have in my'55. The canister holder is orange. Removing it can be messy.

[StudeRich]

Yes Paul, I AM "losing it"' LOL, I let that one Post confuse myself, my correction is wrong, I had it right the first time.
They are BOTH good numbers just that the 51006 is a drop-in Canister Filter for the Fram F4 Filter and the 51050 is a spin-on, type Both Partial flow.

The Full Flow Filter is really not the focus on this string, but it is of course the 51049.
YOU got it together, thanks.