My 5000 mile oil change is coming up quick and I am thinking of putting a reuseable/washable type filter on my bike. Anyone have any experience with these? Good or bad.

 

Oil filters are cheap enough to just replace each time

 

I have a K&P on my Breakout, and just put an Arlen Ness on my Rocker....My opinion.. 1) They filter better then replaceable (fact not opinion) 2) There's a lot of great looking options 3) They will eventually pay for themselves (especially if you change oil often) 4) They give you the ability to (easily) inspect what they filter...

 

I am interested in one, just never took the time to check them out.

 

One of my brothers has the reuseable and likes it. He's the kind to dissect a filter to see what's inside. Myself, if spin on disposable filters are good enough for the likes of Rolls Royce and Ferrari, they're good enough fo my HD

 

I've run permanent filters on my HD's and track bikes for ages now; their superior flow rates and filtration, along with a bit of added cooling due to their billet filter housings are what sold me on them. If you look up 'absolute' vs 'nominal' filter ratings you'll see just how bogus the HD 5 micron bullshit they claim really is. It's nothing but a marketing gimmick.

These filters work, simple as that. I run the PC Racing FLO filters; more information on how they work HERE You'll find the best pricing on Amazon through Powersport Superstore for the PCS4 filter the HD uses, comes in either black or polished...

 

Do your home workfirst, most those reusable filters don't have a fine micron rating meaning they allow larger particles to recirculate that a traditional filter would catch. They are not a new item on the market.

 

I never heard of them. But like someone said, regular filters aren't that expensive.

 

Used them for many years on my drag boats, Oberg's. Just put the K&P on about a week ago. I have no worries about their filtration.

 

This micron rating thing is in fact what clinched the deal for me in favor of permanent filters.

Your paper filters ALL have what is known as a "Nominal" rating. Reusable filters carry an "Absolute" rating. Absolute ratings are standardized and, particle shape notwithstanding, a 25 micron absolute filter will not pass particles greater than 25 microns in size.

Nominal ratings are not standardized and a nominal rating is useless even as a comparison between nominally rated filters. A fairly typical example of a 5 micron nominally rated filter is that it is shown capable, after "multiple" passes, of reducing a solution, of known 5 micron particle content, by 50% !! The fact that during the process, these filters allow 100 micron particles to circulate, is immaterial to the rating process which considers only the eventual reduction of 5 micron sized particles by 50% after multiple passes of the solution through the filter.

Permanent filters also characteristically have progressive bypass capability whereas the cheaper paper filters typically have an on/off bypass. This means that during cold starts or when you give er hell, a permanent filter always filters at least partially whereas the paper jobs open up and filter SFA.

Permanent filters are superior in filtering to disposables. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR THIS ! A bit of Googling "Absolute vs Nominal Filter Ratings" will confirm the Nominal ratings scam in very short order. Believing your paper filter sifts out particles larger than 5 microns is akin to believing a Nigerian prince is going to send you $25,000,000.00 in exchange for your credit card details.

I always thought 5 micron vs 25 or 30 micron was a "no-brainer" until I checked out the relevance of the ratings systems. "Eye opener" !!