Adding an engine oil bypass filter - toughts?

[Job]

There is also the Trasko, which is about $73, with an extra element. Installs like the standard filter if you have a canister filter. I never could get the nerve to get one. The elements are $10 which is a bit high, plus shipping I guess, never ordered from them. I feel the itch to though.

 

[Ihatetochangeoil]

 

[Blueforester]

View attachment 48033

I don't mind changing the oil. Albeit would like to have a warm fuzzy feeling that going to 7,500-10,000 miles, and possibly even more, that the oil is still in a condition perform in a positive way and not a negative. 2019 F250 6.7 PSD. I'm just not sure about that computer telling me when it is time to change the oil.

I've been studying this, again, since bought the truck new. I studied back in 2002 when I bought my 02 F250 7.3 PSD. I went with the Oil-Guard by-pass filter.

Currently I'm leaning towards an oil purifier in combination with a by-pass filter. Mainly from what I have been reading about this 6.7 PSD and how the EGR, Regens, DEF crap contaminates the oil pretty bad in just a short time.

I'm liking the PuraDYN by-pass filter and the DieselCraft centrifugal oil purifier. I notice you appear to be running I'm guessing three external oil filters, not counting the stock engine oil filter. Or is that location the feed to the filters in the picture. I guess you would still have to have a full flow filter there so maybe not.

I was trying to get my mind around if I go with the two filter above would it be best to run them in tandem or parallel like it appears yours is set up. Curious what the cumulative draw is on the pressure side is set-up like this? I see you have a gauge there. Good to see that. I assume you had checked the pressure side before adding the other filters? Or do you have the engine manufactures specification for the oil pressure? Also curious that only see the filter on the left with a return to the oil filler cap. Where do the returns for the PuraDYN and what looks to be centrifugal filter go?

One of my thoughts is to run one filter into the other. Would be one draw of the pressure side. Thinking the from what I read the DieselCraft centrifugal filter is more effective at getting the bigger particles versus the smaller micron particles. The centrifugal would then send the pre-filtered oil to the PuraDYN to polish it up. This I would think maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of the PuraDYN filter element.

Was going to close but just got to thinking I see this may not work. May need to talk with DieselCraft tech first. From what I understand it uses the flow of oil to spin up the oil in the filter to sling out the contaminates. Well, the PuraDYN has an orfice in it to maintain adequate engine oil pressure and to slow down the rate of flow through the filter so it can filter it. So if the PurayDYN is a bottleneck so to speak it might effect how well the centrifugal filter will work if the oil cannot flow freely through it.

I would like to know more about your set-up and your thoughts on this?

 

[Ihatetochangeoil]

As far as the factory oil life monitor, I ignore it because I also run used oil analysis. I am running three external filters, not including the stock filter, you are correct as they are in parallel. The return lines for the centrifuge and the Puradyn go gravity drains back into a non-pressurized location, 12" drop and into the oil pan per manufacturer mounting instructions. I cut two holes in my oil pan and welded 1" bung fittings on them. In order to locate the oil pan holes, I bought an extra oil pan from a junkyard, sandblasted it & solvent cleaned it, then filled it with colored water on a level workbench to simulate the oil level, drilled 1" holes in it above the oil level and below the crankshaft baffle. Welded the bungs on & painted it. Since the Centrifuge and the Puradyn both require gravity drains, I don't see how you could possibly feed one filter from another; although I guess you COULD feed the Puradyn from the NTZ. In my opinion, the Centrifuge is the most difficult to deal with, since the speed of the centrifuge is directly related to the pressure you feed it more pressure, more speed. More speed=more efficiency, and it requires an AN6 (size of feed line) for volume; the Puradyn and the NTZ both have restrictor orifices built into them. You're NOT going to starve your engine of oil, neither are you going to "filter out additives." Those are old wives tales from those who are afraid of anything except what the car manufacturer built. I have read on several sites that the size of your sump multiplies the effectiveness of bypass filtration. How big is your sump? Do you have fabrication abilities or a buddy who does? If I haven't addressed all your concerns, PM me.

 

[Blueforester]

As far as the factory oil life monitor, I ignore it because I also run used oil analysis. I am running three external filters, not including the stock filter, you are correct as they are in parallel. The return lines for the centrifuge and the Puradyn go gravity drains back into a non-pressurized location, 12" drop and into the oil pan per manufacturer mounting instructions. I cut two holes in my oil pan and welded 1" bung fittings on them. In order to locate the oil pan holes, I bought an extra oil pan from a junkyard, sandblasted it & solvent cleaned it, then filled it with colored water on a level workbench to simulate the oil level, drilled 1" holes in it above the oil level and below the crankshaft baffle. Welded the bungs on & painted it. Since the Centrifuge and the Puradyn both require gravity drains, I don't see how you could possibly feed one filter from another; although I guess you COULD feed the Puradyn from the NTZ. In my opinion, the Centrifuge is the most difficult to deal with, since the speed of the centrifuge is directly related to the pressure you feed it more pressure, more speed. More speed=more efficiency, and it requires an AN6 (size of feed line) for volume; the Puradyn and the NTZ both have restrictor orifices built into them. You're NOT going to starve your engine of oil, neither are you going to "filter out additives." Those are old wives tales from those who are afraid of anything except what the car manufacturer built. I have read on several sites that the size of your sump multiplies the effectiveness of bypass filtration. How big is your sump? Do you have fabrication abilities or a buddy who does? If I haven't addressed all your concerns, PM me.
View attachment 56145

Thanks for the reply and information. I was thinking running gravity feed back to the sump is probably what you did. And you did it the same way I was thinking about doing it. I had studied the NTZ and read where it required gravity return to non-pressurized location.

The oil sump is huge on this 6.7 PSD. Oil change is 13 quarts. I need to check because I want to think that the lower oil pan may be plastic? Or maybe that was the trans. I remember installing a Fumoto Valve at the first oil change and thinking something odd about that pan. This is why I was thinking about installing a bung like you did instead of the banjo fitting to the drain port where my Fumoto Valve is.

I have only done one oil change at 5k miles. 400 miles from 12k and it showed up with the change the oil soon message. Which I was planning to do at 12K. Ran the first two oil intervals on dino oil. I'm switching over to synthetic at 12k and already have the oil and filters. Thus trying to pull the trigger on a by-pass filter/purifier set-up because I want to install when I change the oil.

But yes, I can do the work myself. I've been working on just about anything that moves or flys all my life. And I don't trust anyone else working on my stuff. Long story there.

Blue

 

[Donald]

Bypass filters are kind of pointless and an additional pain on a gasser, they really only make sense on a Diesel engine where they can collect the soot and you have a large sump that is relatively expensive to dump and refill where filtering out the soot can allow for a significant increase in oil life.

+1.

And vehicles with large oil sumps are likely to be large with space for the bypass filer.

 

[dnewton3]

Allow me to quote myself from a different thread ...

The topic of BP filtration is really no different than most any other topic under the sun. You can either properly or improperly utilize something, and that often depends upon the conditions under which that topic will be applied. Taking something out of context is unlikely to lead to success, and even if one stumbles onto good results, it will be by chance and not due to deliberate act.

BP filters are a fantastic way to greatly extend the OCIs of any piece of equipment, but they are probably THE most understood tool in the toolbox of maintenance choices. Most people will get sucked into the BP filtration concept because they think (in error I'll add) that a BP filter will make for less wear in an engine, but they don't understand what conditions that may or may not be true. For several reasons, BP filters don't have the effect people believe them to, because of the intent of OCI duration.

The vast majority of misinformation regarding BP filters comes from the marketing garbage of most any BP filter maker which touts the infamous GM filter study from decades ago. That study is grossly misunderstood, and while not completely flawed, leads to terribly erroneous conclusions for the uninformed.

The reality is that BP filtration is not significantly effective at reducing wear in any way if a "normal" OCI is your intention. And the main reason this is true is because, while BP filter elements are very efficient at removing particles down to 3-4um with absolute results, the dirty little secret is that soot (the primary cause of wear generated from inside the engine) actually starts out about 100x smaller than that. Soot typically starts out around 40 nm in size, give or take a bit. It is pretty much impossible for a BP filter elements to affect soot-related wear in a normal OCI, because the soot has not yet amalgamated to a size where the filter element will have any efficiency at trapping it. What controls soot at such small sizes is the additive package in the oil; the anti-agglomerates and dispersants are what keep soot from keeping too large. Over the life of the OCI, there is eventually a point where the soot particles will co-join en-mass and then start to be an issue. But there are a massive slew of UOAs which show "normal" OCIs (out to 15k miles) have very desirable wear rates even without using BP filtration. And when UOAs are done in "normal" OCIs which have the claimed benefit of BP filtration, there's never any statistically significant proof that the BP filter element improved anything in terms of wear reduction.

The reason BP filters have the potential to be a good choice is because if you intend to run the OCI long enough, the soot control they offer can be hugely beneficial in really long oil runs. Once the additive package starts to be compromised (past 15k miles as my data indicates), THEN the BP filter element becomes a major player in the wear control, because the soot amalgamation is becoming much more prominent.

And, extended OCIs need to be monitored with UOAs, so that you know what's happening in the sump.

There are some really good examples of how BP filtration can clean up a sump fairly well; that is true. But what's not been shown with any reasonable link to causation is how much those effects truly affect one's vehicle lifespan. Most vehicles made in the last few decades have drive-trains that will outlast both the general decay of the body and also the probability of intended ownership. So why spend money and increase maintenance issues if the "improvement" really doesn't change the overall ownership effect?

Various members over the years have quoted a general concept that rings true; using BP on a typical daily driver is likely to give you the best running engine in the junkyard after your car is totaled in a wreck, or benefit the 4th owner after you traded it off long ago.

Anecdotal stories abound on both sides of this issue. ...
- There are some examples of BP filter systems doing a great job of performing for guys who run really large sumps, really long OCIs and really long ownership terms. For them, BP makes a ton of sense and I applaud the proper use of the tool.
- There are also examples of vehicles going 1M miles without ever seeing syn fluids or premium filter systems. Just good routine maintenance practices. (Search "million mile Chevy truck" or "million mile Ford truck"; they're out there!)

I will never say that BP systems are a great idea or a terrible idea. I will only say that BP systems are a tool that many people misunderstand and often mis-apply. But when used under the correct conditions, and as part of an overall maintenance program (BP, UOAs, PCs, extended OCIs, etc), they certainly can give a good ROI.

The thing to understand is that really long engine life is not a benefit exclusively offered by BP filters. The same effect can be found by doing normal oil changes. Simply put, you can either filter out or flush out the contamination. The end result (long engine life) will be a benefit of either approach. There are two roads to the same destination; filter or flush out contamination. So, BP filters cannot fairly claim an exclusive benefit they don't truly enjoy. They CAN do a good job in right circumstances. Otherwise, they're an unnecessary band-aid that only adds cost and complexity; if that's your thing - if you just like to tinker and don't care if you're wasting money - go for it!

Additionally, intake air filtration is a huge contributor to overall engine wear. I believe it to be as important, if not more so, than oil filtration. But that's a different topic for a different thread ...