A challenge to those with a bypass filter and UOAs

[JoeFromPA]

Hi all,

For some reason, I thought of this challenge this morning.

To those with a bypass filter and history of UOAs....do you think you could (and would be willing) to somehow attach an empty filter housing - or similar - to add the extra capacity to your oil system while not adding any new filtering capability, and then do a UOA to see how much (if any) your trending changes?

I just wondered this morning if improved UOAs from bypass-filtered cars are simply due to adding alot to the overall sump and adding a new location for the oil to cool, or if the filtering is actually helping (in overall clean engines).

Figured I'd throw it out there

Joe

 

[d00df00d]

Interesting question. In for the converstation.

 

[webfors]

A combination of both would be my guess. A larger sump can only help, as well as additional filtration. It would be a long term project to develop trends.

However, I suspect you'll have a hard time convincing someone with bypass filtration, since the whole purpose is bypass *filtration* and anyone installing such a system would be more anal about their oil than you or I

 

[Gary Allan]

I think Bob did this back in the fledgling days of BITOG.

I can't offer anything like you're asking for, but will offer this "observational speculation" in the various experiments that I've read.

In that configuration the total particle count would drop ..even if indexed for the added sump size. What you would lose is any safety net for any wear causing (larger) random ejecta from the engine. In my undisciplined math reasoning, I imagine that if you go up 50% in size, you double the mass (it works for surface area ..can't say for an alleged sphere)

Bypass filtration doesn't always mean a flat level of particle accumulation in terms of size. All of them have a flow curve that you try and manipulate with restrictors. Depending on the size of the filter and the length of service, you end up with a much more shallow slope to the same destination.

If there was a PQ index included in the testing, and you ran it with and without ff filtration, it might narrow the incidence of false conclusions being drawn from the results.

 

[mechtech2]

This should be easy to figure without additional testing.

Extrapolating the results for a larger capacity system would be a direct relationship. The % of additional oil would be the factor .

 

[JoeFromPA]

Mechtech2 - But my question is: are the benefits seen in bypass filtration UOAs actually independent of the additional filtration...

I.e. Are the benefits observed actually a result of the greater capacity and additional oil cooling, or more a result of the new filtration.

Can you remove the filter and still see almost all of the additional benefits?

If that were the case, then there would be a model for simply adding a, say, 1 quart extra system in a location which would help keep the oil at the optimal temperature for lubrication/oil life, vs. adding a new filter.

However, if the UOAs would then come back with a significant increase in engine wear or similar results, then we'd know it was the filter that was actually benefitting the engine and not just the extra capacity and cooling.

I've observed alot of UOAs and Bypass filtering systems now and I'm beginning to wonder if it's just "Hey, I added 20% more capacity to my oiling system and the oil now circulates through an exposed cylinder which helps it cool" that is giving 90% of the net benefits.

Joe

 

[AzFireGuy79]

It would be interesting to see, although I highly doubt the effectivness of by-pass filtration lies in added capacity. How about all of the industrial studies out there on by-pass filtration and particle counts.

 

[JoeFromPA]

Not an expert in this stuff AZfireguy - Just commenting on a thought that came to me, specifically for regular automotive purposes (i.e. not heavy duty industrial usage).

When I see my UOAs come back, my oil is usually very clean and wear is low using a quality synthetic oil. Now if I added 20% more capacity and additional cooling, would my oil simply show 20% less wear (PPM-wise) or would there be an additive effect from the extra....umm....additive package and oil with less overall stress on it.

What's the cost difference between adding a full by-pass kit vs. adding an in-line structure housing an additional quart of oil?

Is it more beneficial to an engine to have the extra quart without the flow restriction of the filter?

I don't have the answers to these questions, just asking them.

 

[AzFireGuy79]

Your idea is very interesting and I think it would be great if someone could facilitate a fair test in order to evaluate the real worth of a bypass.

As far as the industrial use and testing goes, I believe it is relavent when evaluating a filter medium. Yes automotive applications see less wear and tear,but at the end of the day wear is wear. A device that can mitigate this is interesting and if it has been doing this by means of capacity alone and not filter media this needs to be shared.

I choose to utilize bypass filters on transmissions only as I believe they ( after others examples) effectively keep transmissions very clean and lasting much longer. As far as FF filters EaO seems more than enough for a common IC engine. With that said, I am with you on seeing the true effectiveness of bypass filters and proving or disproving the capacity theory.

I think Gary will shed the most light on this topic as he has a vast knowledge of filters in general. Come on Gary you have to have someone who is willing to do this!

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, assuming that all things are suitable and stable, added capacity should mostly alter sump longevity. There should be a sensible dilution factor to anything you're reading. When you add bypass filtration ..that's when you enter into unknows (at our level of testing). Are you reducing wear due to reductions in abrasives? Are you just filtering more junk out so you don't detect it?