Adding an engine oil bypass filter - toughts?

Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
67
Location
Las Vegas, NV
If it was a diesel that got lots of soot in the oil then I would think about it. I ran the Amsoil dual bypass on my Liberty CRD.

It never totally cleaned the oil though. It's not like i was pouring out honey colored oil after 5k miles, it still looked like black death.
Ditto this. I ran a bypass filter on an 05 PSD 6.0 many years ago. It was supposedly a 1-micron filter made of tightly wound cotton fiber. The filters were very expensive and I changed them every 20k miles. I had the oil analyzed before installing the bypass and, other than some fuel dilution, the factory filters did a very good job. The analysis after the bypass was installed showed very low insolubles and exceptionally clean oil. It was still black, like all used diesel oil, and the bypass did nothing for fuel dilution (it didn't advertise that it would). After a few years, I ended up removing the filter kit and selling it to a buddy with a 6.0 Excursion. I realized the cost of the filter media was just too expensive for the slight possibility of less wear.

In summary, I can't imagine that a bypass is a good use of money on a daily driver gas engine. Especially a Toyota V6 that, with regular maintenance, will surely outlive the rest of the vehicle. Spend that money on something more practical, like more tools...
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
2,387
Location
Paradise of Florida
On this forum, everything is a waste of money unless it has a rebate or is used for multiple intervals.

Rav4 v6 hasn't been made in a long time. At this age, I don't see the point. With synthetic oil and synthetic media filter, the 2gr-fe should have no issue with a 10000 mile oil change interval and that can be verified with a UOA. That alone is double the interval of the recommended 5k conventional change.

Use a bypass filter if you don't ever want to change the oil again. Just change the full flow and bypass media as required and keep the level full.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
2,986
Location
Muncie, Indiana
Thanks, I have plenty of tools. I was intrigued by the Toilet Paper filter idea, that's all.
Cheap media.
I'd suspect that the transmission or power steering system or rust will total the car before the engine dies, you'd be better off adding extra filtration to your transmission and power steering systems.
 

SoNic67

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
488
Location
VA, US
...will total the car before the engine dies

That's why I see people of Toyota forums asking about replacement engines for their RAV4's. Because those engines never fail.
Also, not everyone chooses to live in the rust belt.

I guess this thread goes nowhere...
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2019
Messages
2,986
Location
Muncie, Indiana
That's why I see people of Toyota forums asking about replacement engines for their RAV4's. Because those engines never fail.
Also, not everyone chooses to live in the rust belt.

I guess this thread goes nowhere...
But of those failures how many of them were due to a lubrication failure that could be attributed to sub 20 micron particles in the oil....
The primary purpose of the bypass filter is to remove particles that will overload the dispersants in the oil, such as diesel soot, the problem in large diesel engines is that the oil may become loaded with soot and over load the dispersants while the rest of the oil is still good so adding a bypass filter allows you to run the oil longer because the dispersants in the oil don't become overwhelmed, whereas in a passenger car I don't think dispersant loading is much of an issue typically lubrication failures are caused by engineering mistakes or just the oil was ran too long and the TBN was depleted and the TAN rose and the oil oxidized and turned to varnish and sludge.
 

SoNic67

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
488
Location
VA, US
Indeed, I don't know what made those engines fail.
I just know that that's not unheard of, even for Toyota. Actually, the newer generation those engines are, it looks like the less reliable they became.

Circulating around those sub-20 micron particles does have the chance to increase abrasion to internal components. That includes crank bearings, camshaft bearings, variable cam timing adjusters... and what ever fancy new systems are running on that hydraulic pressure.

I might end up not do this, just because of lack of space, not because of money. People install CAI systems under their hoods and nobody bats an eye ;)
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,860
Location
Caldwell Idaho
That's what actually brought me to the TP filter site. They claim that TP can absorb a good amount of water from oil.
https://www.toiletpaperoilfilter.com/faq.html

My experience: I had an older truck, that sat not driven for like 9 months, and when I started it, it milkshaked the oil.
Changed the oil (a pain to remove all that foam) and it run fine, no blown gasket. It probably just had lots of water accumulated inside the oil pan.
How does the TP absorb water when it is saturated with water?
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,860
Location
Caldwell Idaho
I would say they are a waste of money, not because they don't filter a portion of the oil and reduce the solids in the oil but because a properly maintained engine will out live the trans and other parts.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
946
Location
Displaced Texan in Mexico City
You're just adding more points of failure and unnecessay solutions to a percieved problem. There is absolutely no need to do this just change your oil on a regular basis. You stated that you dont drive much so there is no reason why you need to do this. Take the money you where going to spen on this and buy good oil filters and oil. Problem solved
 
Joined
Aug 11, 2016
Messages
121
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
I am considering adding an engine oil bypass filter on my RAV4 V6 engine.
Basic information for this is linked below, so I won't get people yelling at me that I will destroy the engine:

I did look at:
1. AMSOIL housing and filter https://www.amsoil.com/p/universal-single-remote-bypass-system-bmk21/
2. John Frantz housing (for TP) https://www.toiletpaperoilfilter.com/the-new-refiner.html

I fill my cars with Full Synthetic and since last year, I didn't drive that much. I like the idea of extended oil change intervals, but I don't like that much dirty oil to be circulated in my engine. Sub-20 micron particles are not normally filtered.
Also, water absorption can be a thing when temperature changes like it does now, and the #2 solution claims that it can also do water retention.

What's the consensus around here?
Useful addition or a waste of money?
SoNic67
Thanks for posing this question.
I think that you should absolutely install a Bypass Filter System on your Rav4.
It's obviously something that you've thought about. You will learn a lot from this process that others may learn from you. I was researching dual bypass systems about 6 yrs ago. A little over 5 yrs ago I installed a dual bypass system for my 2011 expedition. I've put 200k miles on my bypass system and after a little trial and error, about a dozen Oil Analysis reports I've dialed in my Oil change maintenance. I've learned a lot from a few members such as IHATETOCHANGEOIL, Linctex,and A310. This Board is a valuable resource. I wish you the best of luck!
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
972
Location
On the road Midwest
That's what actually brought me to the TP filter site. They claim that TP can absorb a good amount of water from oil.
https://www.toiletpaperoilfilter.com/faq.html
...it can remove particles as small as one micron (that’s more than 100 times smaller than the thickness of a human hair). Due to a roll of toilet paper's natural affinity for water, it can absorb more than six to eight ounces of water with no reduction in its filtering capacity. The Oil Refiner’s element filters your oil through 4 inches of pure cellulose at a rate of approximately one quart per minute.

This statement I put in bold is flatly false. A human hair is around 75 microns (abbreviated 75μm) or 75,000nm (nanometers) in diameter. https://www.google.com/search?q=siz....69i59j69i57j0i271l3j69i65j69i60l2.4556j0j15&

Furthermore, no efficiency rating is given. A screen door will stop one micron particles, along with a barbeque grill, but how efficiently? How about a little common sense? Since no efficiency rating is furnished in their FAQ, nor is any technical data, my gut feeling is that their filter is absolutely nothing to brag about, so they don't, other than "catchy sales talk."

Even a rock catcher garbage fram filter shows an efficiency rating on their website: 99%+ at 20 microns and above, click on media and see the asterisk, then look at the bottom of page and read the second footnote: https://www.fram.com/products/consumer-products/oil-filters/fram-ultra-syntheticsup-sup-oil-filter/

My conclusion is that since they provide absolutely no technical data on their FAQ, and some of the info they do provide is patently false, their filter is not real good. Their "saving grace" is that tell you to keep changing rolls of toilet paper, so what you're really doing is constantly adding new oil. This is what keeps your TBN up.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2014
Messages
2,387
Location
Paradise of Florida
75 microns +- 25 microns... so 100 would just be an exaggeration and not a lie. My hair beats the average and destroys clippers!

The only issue with 'water' is that cellulose that absorbs water has 'filtering issues'. This is why cellulose fibers are resin coated, to avoid expanding and contracting with moisture level. But, I guess they are leveraging the amount of media in the filter, especially when compared to how little media is in a full flow filter. And, cellulose doesn't willingly release that water since it can't be replaced by oil.... has to be cooked off.

When you have a bypass filter that captures plenty, obviously it will either need to be bigger or replaced more often. The good ol' days one could get a single roll, double roll, or even triple roll TP filter. The bigger fleet engines used large 500/750/1000 housings with bypass filtration by most major filter manufacturers, or the DIY'er used larger brown paper towel rolls(like from public bathrooms). There were also compressed cotton(think shredded t-shirt) and wound media that looked like a roll of string. And yes, you made your own media if you wanted to.

And, the efficiency isn't even worth arguing about.... papertowels/toiletpaper/and dedicated dense media bypass filtration is beyond any full flow filters best dream... usually around 99% @2 micron.... not bad for a roll of Scotts 1000. Supplier allow a purchasers to spec their filtration level but common were 99.5-99.8 at 3 micron.

There is no need for data since it has been common knowledge for about 80 years. And, you can do your own testing.

frantz-info-chart-side-by-side.jpg
 

SoNic67

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
488
Location
VA, US
This statement I put in bold is flatly false.
So it's 75 time smaller, not 100 times? That's what is "flatly false"? Do you know of a standard of human hair thickness? Because last time I checked my wife's hair is way thinner than mine - just as an example.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
972
Location
On the road Midwest
So it's 75 time smaller, not 100 times? That's what is "flatly false"? Do you know of a standard of human hair thickness? Because last time I checked my wife's hair is way thinner than mine - just as an example.
Sure, fine. Just another example...I owe you $100. I'm going to pay you $75 and not one cent more. Ever. Is that dishonest? It seems some people have pretty low standards of integrity.....Am I honest to pay you 75 out of 100? Maybe you should just go to the gas station and pay for 3/4 of what you buy. Just another example...My point is you either tell the truth or you don't.
 

SoNic67

Thread starter
Joined
Jun 6, 2015
Messages
488
Location
VA, US
Just another example...I owe you $100. I'm going to pay you $75 and not one cent more
A $100 bill is always $100.
A human hair does not have the same thickness, is not a unit of measure.
That was just a approximate information, is not meant to be a technical spec, just a metaphor for people like you that cannot imagine what 1 micron is. They said clearly 1 micron, that's a real measurement, attack that - if you have data.

Who's dishonest here and trying to split hairs? You can't attack the idea of 1 micron, so you create a red herring to distract.
You make the ridiculous claim that because a human hair is not exactly 100 microns, but maybe 75 microns, all of the previous statements must be false.
I have no time for trolls and you will be Ignored from now on.
 
Last edited:
Top