Amsoil by pass removed -wear back to normal

[garyT]

A few thousand miles after putting on an Amsoil Bypass filter kit(at about 35,000 miles) I began to have escalating metals in my Blackstone reports. After discussing with others and doing a bit of reading I disabled the Amsoil unit and went back to the OEM system (using Fleetguard stratopore filters) and now wear is back to normal. BLACKSTONE REPORT
I flushed out the metals with 2 quick oil and filter changes and in last fill put in a cleaner (Auto RX) for 1500 miles. I am currently running Rotella T 15-40.
Of note: with the Amsoil unit my oil pressure would go up to 70lbs. With the OEM I see 48 lbs.
I cannot find any other rational reason for the wear increase and then back to normal other than the Amsoil unit is too restrictive and lowers volume thereby inducing wear. Turbo seems to be OK and no cooling jets in the pan (so far).
Any other ideas ?


garyT

 

[Ram_in_Texas]

Was this one of their kits that has a remote mounted, full flow, oil filter and a bypass filter on it? Just curious.

 

[Gary Allan]

Aside from the fluke 83 Fe ..your current UOA in terms of FE is worse then the one before. You're only @ 2k miles (+/-) and the 45Fe was @ 9k

Although I'd surely question the source of the higher Fe ..I dont' see how you're any better off in your last OCI/UOA

..again this is throwing out ONE odd UOA. It's the same with the rest of the elemental numbers. You're at a higher ppm/mile in your last OCI. You appear to fall below (worse) universal average in just about every catagory ..with or without the Amsoil unit on all your previous UOAs ..regardless of how long or short they were.

 

[Pablo]

Good points Gary A. - I didn't even click on the report link until you wrote that, taking Gary T at face value. There is some serious Fe going on.

 

[Gary Allan]

I'd also like to ask about the unit averages. If you add up the many UOA's and try and figure the unit averages ..they're way out of whack. This would indicate that the UOA's not seen (are further back then the space allows) had to have some issues that had to, at least, make the one faulty report look comparable.

For example we see unit averages of 9 for Potassium ..yet only one 9 over 6 UOAs. Same sorta stuff with Cu, Sodium, and Silicon. There had to be substantial issues somewhere in this engine's history...or so I would reason

 

[garyT]

Ram in Texas:

quote:

---

Was this one of their kits that has a remote mounted, full flow, oil filter and a bypass filter on it? Just curious.

---

I had installed a dual remote unit Model BMK 16

Gary Allen:

quote:

---

Aside from the fluke 83 Fe

---

Why do you think that is a 'Fluke' ?
I see a steady escalation in metals since I installed the By pass at 35,406 miles.

quote:

---

I'd also like to ask about the unit averages. If you add up the many UOA's and try and figure the unit averages ..they're way out of whack. This would indicate that the UOA's not seen (are further back then the space allows) had to have some issues that had to, at least, make the one faulty report look comparable

---

You are quite observant, I had to double check.
My first 2 reports are not listed but thy affect the averages. Here are the first 2 reports FIRST 2 BLACKSTONE REPORTS

quote:

---

There had to be substantial issues somewhere in this engine's history...or so I would reason

---

The only thing substantial was the change at 35,000 miles to a remote by pass unit. When I disconnected it the levels went down.
It is interesting you feel that PPM/mile is important. None of the analysts that evaluated this mentioned it as important.
Something else to consider I guess.

Pablo:

quote:

---

There is some serious Fe going on.

---

I agree, that is why I am spending a lot of money on Auto RX, flushes and analysis.
The motor appears to be strong. Still has excellent mileage, turbo checks out OK, no cooling jets in oil pan, no excessive blow by.

Time will tell, a few more checks with longer mileage intervals will help.

garyT

 

[Pablo]

I, too, am very curious as to what system you had installed.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Why do you think that is a 'Fluke' ?
I see a steady escalation in metals since I installed the By pass at 35,406 miles.

---

Well, I really don't see anything "steady" here.

Let's start from the beginning on some of the more critical elements:

Now if I take your statement at face value - the 35k UOA did NOT have the bypass on at that time.
(left to right -bold when bypass was installed.)

Fe 37, 26, 22, 27, 18, 45, 83, 15
PB 10, 12, 8, 1, 3, 7, 15, 5
Cu 38, 26, 13, 4, 3, 5, 9, 4

Broken down on a ppm/1k basis

Fe 10.6, 13.1, 6.3, 8.7, 3.5, 4.9, 16.6 , 6.5
PB 2.9, 3.5, 2.3, 0.3, 0.6, 0.8, 2.9 , 2.2
Cu 10.9, 7.6, 3.7, 0.1, 0.6, 0.6, 1.8, 1.7

I only see the single UOA as having anything odd in the Fe reading. The first UOA with the bypass had less in all elements with very few exceptions (one for Cu and two for Pb ..and one for Fe. That's why I say it's a fluke (potentially).

Blackstone should have included in their dialog " Your wear is typical for an oil in use for XXXX miles. Your oil was in use (either longer or shorter) so we think you should try XXXX next interval".

If you didn't see those words ..then this is an engine that they have very few of in their database.

If you look at your 9.1k UOA ..I would think that if anything was attributed to the bypass filter setup ..that it would have made itself apparent during that interval. I would have looked to a bad sample (it's happened) ..or some other insult during the shorter OCI.

It will be interesting to see what a longer OCI yields.

[ January 24, 2006, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[Terry]

Gary A, I am the analyst and I do not rely on Bklabs univeral or unit averages normally. I also don't disclose my own data base values for a particular engine family. You of all people should understand that wear measured ppm/mile is dubious at best in the most variable of all lubricated components, the engine! Please remember that wear is not neccessarily steady state and some components wear to a level and stop, no matter how long the drain. Add in the variables of contamination ( fuel- oil- dirt-chemical) ,mechanical failures,filtration ( oil and air) issues, ambient conditions variation and on and on.

Indeed GaryT had issues and they began almost immediately after installation of the duel remote.

We see a rise in fe that is oil pump and or cylinder wear that translates later to bearing wear on the follow analysis at half the interval. Gary T is a trained certified Diesel tech so I trust his ability to inspect what I suggested after seeing the reports. He is one of the few that is aware of the piston cooling jets coming undone in this engine family.

I am amazed at the rapid drop of wear values after using Auto-RX. The product never ceases to amaze in troubled engines.

The lack of oil flow caused issues here and follow up analysis is needed to monitor.
You don't slow or restrict oil flow and volume without repercussions.

Terry

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

He is one of the few that is aware of the piston cooling jets coming undone in this engine family.

---

Is that what this means

quote:

---

no cooling jets in oil pan, no excessive blow by.

---

I'll fill in the rest .."so they're all still where they should be."

It could have easily been read, "(since there's) no cooling jets in the pan (I don't have this to attribute any anomalies to - as in "there's nothing to sap any flow from the oil pump .so"). It was just kinda hanging out there. Keep in mind ..that in this entire post, there is not one mention of what this engine is. For all we know this could be on a Kabota lawn tractor that he put a turbo on. I get the impression that it's a diesel just due to the turbo reference and the 15w-40 oil usage. Otherwise ..it's a lottery on what size/type engine this is ..and the related volumes that we may be dealing with in terms of oil flow.

Although I surely agree that you can't necessarily assume a normal distribution of wear over the given miles ..that's what's normally done. We won't find 30 ppm of Fe odd for 12k UOA ..but will for a 3k UOA. Naturally someone like yourself will expect a certain ppm over either respective service lengths.


This is in no way a slam on Gary-T. I'm sure he's an accomplished mechanic ..and he's obviously using your services. The topic heading and data are surely worth critical review however ..and I'd feel negligent in not having it run the gaunlet.

 

[garyT]

I am so sorry- I neglected to see that I cut off the top of the lab report which gave some engine info.
Here you go:
2002 F250 7.3l PSD crew cab long bed. Occasionally I haul a 24 ft 5ver. I have slightly modded this engine with a 4' exhaust, large Donaldson air filter, ATS turbo compressor housing to relieve turbo killing surge, Edge Evo programmer occasionally in use for towing.
These are all the same modifications I used on a similar 1999 truck with excellent UOA's to 99,000 miles at trade in.
It dyno's 325 hp and 728 ft lbs torque at top Evo setting (I never use this one) and 228 hp stock.
The truck is a daily driver in Denver CO traffic.
I take a couple of 200 mile trips each week and tow occasionally. Not much hard work, a little fun and dependable 4WD transportation.
I am a good diesel mechanic, Caterpillar trained and actually all things considered, baby this truck. I have been doing fleet UOA analysis for years so I think I know when to get concerned.
Then again there is always something new to learn that is why I post this stuff.
I take no hurt at your probes, that is the way to find out info.
Oh, on edit:
Later model 7.3's especially 2002 years, have been known to lose a piston cooling jet or 3. This of course leads to high wear levels. The only way you know this is to find them in the oil drain, hear them clunking around if you rap the dry pan with a hammer, have weird metal levels or blow the engine.

garyT

 

[Pablo]

Interesting. This does fit other reports I've seen from time to time.

garyT - have you spoken with Amsoil about this? Who is your dealer? I'm really curious why you just didn't use a straight by-pass filter?

Since you have the dual by-pass removed, have you studied it, and seen how it works?

Thanks.

 

[Terry]

GaryA and Pabs, please run the gauntlet.

This analysis was provided at BITOG by Gary T's desire to share here. No hammer on any product or otherwise. I know that as a Amsoil dealer Pablo is the most fair and balanced so his input here is appreciated.

We saw these issues in Bob Winters studies and I continue to see negative results based on this setup. I like and recommend Amsoil as a quality product to my customers but in the 7.3 V8 PSD diesel with a duel remote setup we have recorded this result, more than once.

I still could give a SPIT about brand, I want quality for my customers. Period.

Terry

 

[garyT]

Pablo:

quote:

---

garyT - have you spoken with Amsoil about this? Who is your dealer? I'm really curious why you just didn't use a straight by-pass filter?

Since you have the dual by-pass removed, have you studied it, and seen how it works?

---

I have not spoken to Amsoil about this yet. I am still in the 'let's look at this" stage. The unit is actually still mounted on the truck but disconnected and sealed off.
I really do not have a good explanation for why the dual remote over a straight by pass it except I did think the concept was a good one and Amsoil's literature was convincing.

I and a friend WILL be looking at the unit in the near future.
Once I noted the metals I thought it appropriate to take action- So I 'started where I started- That is if there is a problem look at the last thing one changed. In thsi case it was the bypass.

I do not know- Is a single better than the dual ??
Are the new filters with by pass built in OK ??

Most people have ignored the last line in my original post

quote:

---

Any other ideas ?

---

That is why I posted, looking for ideas on solutions.
Any one have any??
Thanks.
garyT

 

[Gary Allan]

Nope. Terry trumps any stuff I can pull out of my behind. You've got to have some tremendous oil volume. The only thing I'm curious about is your reported pressures. Not knowing the oil schematic of the Power Stroke, I'm at a disadvantage. Most of our contemporary gasoline engines read immediately post filter. This seems unlikely since you report higher pressure with the Amsoil unit installed. It would appear that you're in relief a good bit of the time ..making the filter a true choke ...antenuating the flow at a lower level.

This sounds similar to a problem another poster had with an Amsoil setup on a Volvo marine application ..where auxillary pressure regulators for the main gallery and the cooling rail were at different pressures ..and downstream of the filter.

This may be something that Amsoil should issue a product service bulletin about.

 

[Pablo]

I didn't ignore your last line, I too am trying to gather facts.

The dual remote you own is a by-pass filter and a full flow filter. It takes ALL the oil volume normally bound to flow through the normal full through filter. Now, this is where it gets tricky - there is, a for a lack of my proper terminology a pressure diverter, a restrictor, to (in theory) allow some oil to flow through the by-pass element and all the rest to go through the full flow filter. In my small mind it's sort of backwards. The diagram:

http://www.amsoil.com/bypassfilters/dualremote_dia_600px.gif

A true single by-pass filter, on the other hand, takes some small flow of pressurized oil (from a point of your logical choice) and filters the oil at the "fine filter's leisure" so to speak, without messing with the flow. This oil is returned to a place of relatively lower oil pressure, even zero like the oil pan. To be honest these are all I sell. I don't sell nor recommend the "dual by-pass". NOT to be confused with the very excellent BMK-12 which is a TRUE two filter bypass. I would have recommended this or a single true by-pass filter to you. No headaches of reduced pressure.

So, what do I recommend? I say begin a dialog with your dealer. Explain the whole situation to him, feel free to mention me, and the fact this is not the first time this has happened and Amsoil has been made aware of the situation. What I propose to you is for is an exchange - to get a true by-pass only filter. This should be much easier than a pure money back deal. It's a start - begin the dialog and get back with us. I'm sure the dealer will say he sells them and gets no complaints, but these people aren't as aware as you.

 

[mjo]

garyT, on some cars and trucks that have oil coolers, the filter mount where the cooler lines are coming from will have some extra ports. Correct me if I'm wrong but, these ports make room for oil pressure gauges and an extra oil cooler. You can use a couple of these ports to plum a "true" bypass filter to filter a small fraction of your oil flow. Maybe one of these blocked ports would drain into the oil pan.

 

[garyT]

Gary Allen:

quote:

---

The only thing I'm curious about is your reported pressures.

---

Thsi is very interesting to me also. Here is some more info; I put the Bypass on at 35,000 mi at about 40,000 miles I put in a set or real gauges HERE.Note that the oil press is at about 68 lbs., dead cold it would go to 70 +. I thought that high and others thought so also. With the by pass off dead cold I go to 52 and hot run 44. The gauge is tapped into a galley in the oil filter manifold, a common place for gauges on this engine.

Pablo:

quote:

---

In my small mind it's sort of backwards

---

I have a similar capacity I think cause I have looked at it many times and it still looks backwards to me too!

I will have a dialog with the dealer at some point. Thanks.

mjo:
There are several other filters out there and I understand some use existing ports so it is doable.
Thanks.


Thanks all. This is an interesting subject and I will continue giving feedback on UOA's.

garyT

 

[Pablo]

Now here is where it gets interesting:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=003212#000020

No excessive wear on that application.

GaryT - any update?

 

[Gary Allan]

Pablo ..this must be limited (at least so far) to the PowerStoke engine and how much gpm that they move. It would be odd for 1/2" lines to be taxed, normally. PowerStroke engines have some issues that are unique to them. In the early evolutions it was cooling system cavitation that caused some problems (I don't remember what the result was) and later evolutions suffered from oil aeration that wreaked havoc with some pressure actuated injectors. Tony pointed out to one PS owner, that had reported odd running right before an oil change. He (the owner) couldn't figure out how they were related. This appears to be a powerful, but finicky, beast of an engine to begin with.