Just looking at my setup today, this is an older Amsoil dual remote made by PermaCool. It appears I can use the longer BE-100 or BE-110 bypass filter, or the new Ea equivalent. Would it be worth the extra money to buy one of the bigger filters the next time I change out the BE-90? It's a 96 Jeep 4.0 HO used on a rural mail route full time. 25,000 miles per year. Using Series 2000 0w30 now, planning to change to Series 3000 5w30 because of increasing oil consumption. Jeep has 233,000 miles on it. With the dual bypass using a BE-90, it hold 8 quarts now. So the bottom line question is what is the gain from using the bigger(higher priced) by pass filter? Thanks.
Amsoil dual remote bypass filter question
- Thread starter 96 Cherokee
- Start date
- Status
Well you'll get increased oil capacity, which you probably don't need with your current 8 quart capacity. I believe the BE line of elements are rated at 25k/1 year, so you're right in the "sweet spot" for annual changes. I get 25k out of my BE90's no problem. So installing a larger elemnt would net you nothing unless you wanted to go beyond Amsoils recommended change intervals.
96 Cherokee,
Have you tried Auto-Rx for your oil consumption problem? My Isuzu Trooper is famous for oil burning problems and it no longer has this problem after two Auto-Rx treatments about 30,000 miles apart.
I too had been using Series 2000 and switched to the Series 3000 after the second Auto-Rx treatment because I felt it would hold up better in my application. Short trips, towing a trailer, extending the drain interval, etc. Too early to tell at this time if I made a wise choice.
By the way, my Trooper has had Series 2000 0w30 in its crankcase since about 3200 miles. Even so, treating my engine with Auto-Rx made a dramatic difference in overall performance and fuel economy. To be fair to Amsoil let me just say that my Trooper's engine was having some problems at one point that would trash just about any oil. I still believe that Amsoil makes the best oils out there.
If you have not used Auto-Rx yet, I would encourage you to do so in order to get the most out of your Amsoil Series 2000 and 3000 motor oil.
Just for fun, I calculated the how much money I had saved in increased fuel economy after the first Auto-Rx treatment. Auto-Rx treatment had paid for itself after the third tankful.
Bobby
P. S. Hey, what part of Indiana are you from? I live about one hour northeast of Indianapolis.
Have you tried Auto-Rx for your oil consumption problem? My Isuzu Trooper is famous for oil burning problems and it no longer has this problem after two Auto-Rx treatments about 30,000 miles apart.
I too had been using Series 2000 and switched to the Series 3000 after the second Auto-Rx treatment because I felt it would hold up better in my application. Short trips, towing a trailer, extending the drain interval, etc. Too early to tell at this time if I made a wise choice.
By the way, my Trooper has had Series 2000 0w30 in its crankcase since about 3200 miles. Even so, treating my engine with Auto-Rx made a dramatic difference in overall performance and fuel economy. To be fair to Amsoil let me just say that my Trooper's engine was having some problems at one point that would trash just about any oil. I still believe that Amsoil makes the best oils out there.
If you have not used Auto-Rx yet, I would encourage you to do so in order to get the most out of your Amsoil Series 2000 and 3000 motor oil.
Just for fun, I calculated the how much money I had saved in increased fuel economy after the first Auto-Rx treatment. Auto-Rx treatment had paid for itself after the third tankful.
Bobby
P. S. Hey, what part of Indiana are you from? I live about one hour northeast of Indianapolis.
I agree with olympic. That said, I know capacity=king. So for the extra cost of the filter and the extra quart+ of oil, you gain peace of mind and more "oil dilution".....up to you.
I would love to see a UOA both ways!
And I second the AutoRx. NO oil will stop ring gunge. 230000 miles!
I would love to see a UOA both ways!
And I second the AutoRx. NO oil will stop ring gunge. 230000 miles!
Bobby,
I am about an hour north of Indy.
Pablo,
After changing out the factory installed oil at 2000 miles, it has never had anything in it other than Amsoil Series 2000 or Mobile 1. I admit I went too long on the M1 one time, running around 12,000 miles on the OCI. I thought running top quality synthetics was supposed to prevent any gunk or sludge building up in the engine. I also regret not installing my dual bypass when the Jeep was new. I'll look into the AutoRX, but with my dual bypass system, that could be expensive. (filter replacements?) Although if it reduced this increasing consumption, it would be worth it in the long run.
Thanks,
Neal
I am about an hour north of Indy.
Pablo,
After changing out the factory installed oil at 2000 miles, it has never had anything in it other than Amsoil Series 2000 or Mobile 1. I admit I went too long on the M1 one time, running around 12,000 miles on the OCI. I thought running top quality synthetics was supposed to prevent any gunk or sludge building up in the engine. I also regret not installing my dual bypass when the Jeep was new. I'll look into the AutoRX, but with my dual bypass system, that could be expensive. (filter replacements?) Although if it reduced this increasing consumption, it would be worth it in the long run.
Thanks,
Neal
The important thing about increased size for a bypass filter is that, in theory the oil goes across the media a little slower. If that's true, the filter works better. The increased amount of oil is a useful side effect. That's why TP is a good filter. A lot of depth, means the filter puts more media on the same amount of oil and picks up more stuff. That depth and the smaller initial contact area, combined with the fact that the TP works well, means that it does not last very long before plugging up. Filters like the Amsoil bypass filter last longer because they don't plug up so quickly as TP. And because they don't filter as well, and have a much larger initial contact area, they last a lot longer. Also if the Amsoil is on a dual remote you have to depend on that little valve and spring to make the filter work, which means that sometimes the filter is not filtering. That makes it will last longer, because of that too. If you don't mind changing the Amsoil bypass filter more often, you chould seperate it to its own circuit and have it return to a low pressure area . That way it will filter all the time and you won't have reduced oil pressure through your full flow filter just to make the bypass work. The dual remote is a convient way to set things up, but seperate is better.
If the oil goes through a bypass filter at whatever flow, from 8-15% of the volume at any given time, I don't see what significant difference it makes to have a dual setup or a single setup. Filtration will be the same, and the service interval should be approximately the same, too.
I think I said that if it goes through slower, the filter does a better job. If you get the bypass off that full flow/bypass adaptor you will have more consistant flow through both filters. The full flow won't get jerked around by that valve and spring and the bypass will get a steady flow and return to a low pressure area, like a valve cover. In other words, it's a lot more convient to have the dual remote, but it might not be the best technical solution. If an idea like a dual full flow/bypass adaptor is a good one, you will see a lot of similar adaptors out there. You can compare the Amsoil adaptor with all the others. One thing you can say, is that the Amsoil adaptor is the best one on the market. They are the leaders in dual remote full flow/bypass oil filter adaptors. There's is the best, that's for sure.
wouldn't the pressure differential type of metering that the dual bypass uses filter more oil thru the bypass element and not less than a full pressure style filter with an orificial restrictive method. Especially in colder climates (the slower moving oil will cool as it goes through the remote filter and become more restrictive by the time it reaches the orifice) and on short runs when the oils viscosity is a little slower at start up.
it would seem that the pressure differential type would preform more reliably under all conditions when the full pressure method is more dependent on oil viscosity.
I guess it is critically dependent on the orifice size. and the ability of the pump to keep up with the added demand if you should oversize the orifice to compensate for cooler oil.
it would seem that the pressure differential type would preform more reliably under all conditions when the full pressure method is more dependent on oil viscosity.
I guess it is critically dependent on the orifice size. and the ability of the pump to keep up with the added demand if you should oversize the orifice to compensate for cooler oil.
Anytime you put a valve and a spring in a full pressure line that feeds a full flow filter to manage a bypass filter that has to feed back into the downstream side of the valve, you are adding complication that is not needed, except that you can now install the filters without having to figure out were to return a bypass oil filter line. Nothing about this scheme is more reliable or leads to better performance. If you believe that is does, then more complication might be better, too. How about a startup circuit, a warmup circuit and a hot circuit and of course warning lights for a rising delta or over temp and of course a cold oil temp indicator that goes out when the oil warmed up and ready for full power. You could have warning lights on the dash with a digital readout for all circuits. The Amsoil dual remote is a good starting point. You would be ahead of the market, because no one else markets a dual remote for passenger cars that combines a full flow and bypass filters.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
It's just a biasing valve. It just assures that the flow will want to go to the bypass when you first install it. I just used the Amsoil inserts on my already mounted dual Permacool. It took a couple of thousand miles to get the bypass filter fully hot since the full flow had to reach a certain level of saturation before the flow would naturally want to move (enough) through the bypass.
That biasing valve, in most installations (not all), merely simulated a slightly used full flow filter in parallel to the bypass filter. I imagine that the orifice does the same thing.
That biasing valve, in most installations (not all), merely simulated a slightly used full flow filter in parallel to the bypass filter. I imagine that the orifice does the same thing.
i had figured the pressure differential to be 5psi.on the differential valve, the system will function fine without the valve but bypass flow will be compromised as you noted until the full flow starts to clog. the only problem I’ve seen with the dual remote is that if your oil system operates at a greater than 5gpm flow then the -8 line amsoil gives you with the kit becomes to restrictive and oil will start to bypass at the internal bypass for the engine cooler if your motor dosn't have an internal bypass then you are SOL your engine will more than likely starve for oil at flow rates greater than 10 gpm (i've done some research since my last post)
I still think that the fundamental design is good .it just that amsoil opt out for smaller lines more than likely because of cost and this has compromised the whole system. the system will need to see -12 hose to function correctly. All though the internal passages are still a bit small for diesel usage it should function perfectly fine on gas automobile motors with the modifications to the hoses.
I still think that the fundamental design is good .it just that amsoil opt out for smaller lines more than likely because of cost and this has compromised the whole system. the system will need to see -12 hose to function correctly. All though the internal passages are still a bit small for diesel usage it should function perfectly fine on gas automobile motors with the modifications to the hoses.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
-12 is some big hose there ..and 10 gpm is relatively high for most passenger cars that I think run around 5gpm (probably higher for the newer generations = non-pushrod). My HV pump for my jeep is rated @ 9 gpm at somewhere over 3000 rpm ..and it has double the vane depth of the OEM.
I'm always up against the pump pressure relief. I was @ 58 psi before I installed my dual remote (w/#8 line) ..and I'm still @58 psi after I removed it. Now surely my flow varies ..since I'm in various volumes of bypass at all times ...but seeing as my stock pressure was 42 cold max and 24 hot MAX ..there can be no starvation issues in any regard.
I'm always up against the pump pressure relief. I was @ 58 psi before I installed my dual remote (w/#8 line) ..and I'm still @58 psi after I removed it. Now surely my flow varies ..since I'm in various volumes of bypass at all times ...but seeing as my stock pressure was 42 cold max and 24 hot MAX ..there can be no starvation issues in any regard.
I agree most passenger car systems are below 10 gpm. Even at 10 gpm on -8 you have a 40psi pressure drop. If your motor is equipped with an internal bypass. These internal bypasses seem to be speced out at the same psi as the ff filter bypass usually around 15psi I ran testing on a 6.6 LBZ duramax this weekend and -12 was too restrictive. the system started to internally bypass at 12gpm and 2000 rpm and still not up against the 80psi pressure regulator. the system never runs higher than 59 psi except when cold. the thing pumps 4gpm at 600 rpm. and since most people buying these amsoil bypass systems are looking at them for there diesel motors i feel i have to send out a word of caution. but even passenger car engines can suffer from this restricted flow. at minimum your full flow system isn't working as designed and at worst you are starving the engine of much needed lubricant and in most diesel cases much needed coolant.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I don't see this as being a factor. I just don't get the wild pressure differentials that you're citing here. Even mathmatically, my 6' of #8 is supposed to drop 17lbs @9gpm. Your figure doesn't even have a length to it.
Again, I get the same post filter pressure with 6" of #8 or not.
I didn't cipher the figures myself (the 17lb). A more reliable math wiz did it for me.
Another poster, killerbees, basically proved that everything he wanted to do was impossible. He was dealing with a Duramax and some radical (by passenger car standards) flows. He ended up working it out ..for a price.
Again, I get the same post filter pressure with 6" of #8 or not.
I didn't cipher the figures myself (the 17lb). A more reliable math wiz did it for me.
Another poster, killerbees, basically proved that everything he wanted to do was impossible. He was dealing with a Duramax and some radical (by passenger car standards) flows. He ended up working it out ..for a price.
is your jeep a 4.0?
I'm sure it only consumes around 5gpm. as you said that you are up against the pressure relief now. the amsoil dual bypass will work fine on that motor with those flows.
and the 17psi drop is wrong that figure is for .50" smooth bore #8. amsoil supplies .41"ID smooth bore #8 this has a pressure drop of 26psi 8gpm for 10' of hose length and 40psi drop at 10gpm sorry for not using your exact numbers but that is where the chart crosses and it is easiest to give an exact pressure.
Once again use this system with caution as amsoil recommends it for everything from a cavalier to a Cummins turbo diesel. the cavalier will fair fine but the Cummins will most certainly suffer. as to will any motor that has a oil flow rate greater that 10 gpm.
The system can be modified fairly easily to accommodate flow rates up to 15 gpm by drilling out the fittings and stepping up to -12 hose but I wouldn’t recommend it for any thing more than that.
Applications of the Amsoil dual remote bypass on duramax, Cummins, power stoke and any engine requiring a flow greater that 10 gpm will do more harm than
I'm sure it only consumes around 5gpm. as you said that you are up against the pressure relief now. the amsoil dual bypass will work fine on that motor with those flows.
and the 17psi drop is wrong that figure is for .50" smooth bore #8. amsoil supplies .41"ID smooth bore #8 this has a pressure drop of 26psi 8gpm for 10' of hose length and 40psi drop at 10gpm sorry for not using your exact numbers but that is where the chart crosses and it is easiest to give an exact pressure.
Once again use this system with caution as amsoil recommends it for everything from a cavalier to a Cummins turbo diesel. the cavalier will fair fine but the Cummins will most certainly suffer. as to will any motor that has a oil flow rate greater that 10 gpm.
The system can be modified fairly easily to accommodate flow rates up to 15 gpm by drilling out the fittings and stepping up to -12 hose but I wouldn’t recommend it for any thing more than that.
Applications of the Amsoil dual remote bypass on duramax, Cummins, power stoke and any engine requiring a flow greater that 10 gpm will do more harm than
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
is your jeep a 4.0?
Yes.
I'm sure it only consumes around 5gpm.
I don't have an OEM pump. My pump has double the vane area. The oem pump couldn't hit the factory pressure relief if you ran 70 weight in -40 weather. My QualCast high volume pump has a manufacturer set relief of 58 lb. That's where my oil pressure is 24/7 off idle hot ..and naturally, cold. It may exceed that marginally if the weather is near zero and the visc is high since even the internal shunt isn't enough to offset the additional volume.
Yep, you're in killerbees territory (no offense intended - but if not for a different user name ..I'd sware that you went to the same skewl of fluid dynamics that used the same instructor and book) ..so I gotta ask ...have you once ever seen field data evidenced on any application that you first ciphered out of the book?? Do they give you a certificate at the end of the course
This isn't to dicount the assertions or the validity of what your reference material ..or just immutable physics states ...but something surely is in the water to have such dogma flow like water without actually building something first.
I sense a common element here (visions of Darth Vader "I sense a presence that I haven't felt in a long time.")
Yes.
I'm sure it only consumes around 5gpm.
I don't have an OEM pump. My pump has double the vane area. The oem pump couldn't hit the factory pressure relief if you ran 70 weight in -40 weather. My QualCast high volume pump has a manufacturer set relief of 58 lb. That's where my oil pressure is 24/7 off idle hot ..and naturally, cold. It may exceed that marginally if the weather is near zero and the visc is high since even the internal shunt isn't enough to offset the additional volume.
Yep, you're in killerbees territory (no offense intended - but if not for a different user name ..I'd sware that you went to the same skewl of fluid dynamics that used the same instructor and book) ..so I gotta ask ...have you once ever seen field data evidenced on any application that you first ciphered out of the book?? Do they give you a certificate at the end of the course
This isn't to dicount the assertions or the validity of what your reference material ..or just immutable physics states ...but something surely is in the water to have such dogma flow like water without actually building something first.
I sense a common element here (visions of Darth Vader "I sense a presence that I haven't felt in a long time.")
Gary,
I have no idea what you are insinuating. my intentions are honest and my advise is sound. and if i have offended you i'm sorry.
I'm not contesting the fact that your jeep runs fine. If you find offence in the fact that a wrong calculation was made by someone you know. I'm sorry for that also. it still has no bearing on your application as you are still with in the limits of the bypass filter system.
My beef is with the mis-applied applications of the amsoil dual bypass.
my intention is to inform anyone who is using this system or that is planning to use this system of its limitations and it abilities. these are not conclusion made on paper through calculations but conclusion that were hypothesized and proven by data from testing (something that amsoil should have done).
I have no idea what you are insinuating. my intentions are honest and my advise is sound. and if i have offended you i'm sorry.
I'm not contesting the fact that your jeep runs fine. If you find offence in the fact that a wrong calculation was made by someone you know. I'm sorry for that also. it still has no bearing on your application as you are still with in the limits of the bypass filter system.
My beef is with the mis-applied applications of the amsoil dual bypass.
my intention is to inform anyone who is using this system or that is planning to use this system of its limitations and it abilities. these are not conclusion made on paper through calculations but conclusion that were hypothesized and proven by data from testing (something that amsoil should have done).
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
No offense taken or intended
Consider me a wi$a$$ with a smile on his face.
Aside from a PS diesel, just what misapplications are you aware of?
Again, I won't question your math ..but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So far ..very few (only one to my knowledge) has gotten sick. You rhetoric appears to spell doom ..when there is no apparent substance to this in usage of this system.
One question: Are you a diesel driver??
Aside from a PS diesel, just what misapplications are you aware of?
Again, I won't question your math ..but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So far ..very few (only one to my knowledge) has gotten sick. You rhetoric appears to spell doom ..when there is no apparent substance to this in usage of this system.
One question: Are you a diesel driver??
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Let me qualify my ..."scoffing". I run 3/8" lines ...LOOOOOOOOOONG 3/8" lines. I'll mearsure them officially ..but their 36" minimum ..maybe longer. Now I do hit a high pressure cold start always. It peaks at the inlet of the filter 75-82 (82 is the max ever seen - and assumed the pressure relief reading when viewed at that point in the circuit). Regardless of the visc or the engine speed ..this peak pressure is never attained after a very brief amount of time.
How can this be? Skinny lines ...long length on a OHC engine. Even at half the normal oil flow per minute ...I should be at so much back pressure that my engine would be receiving just enough oil to lube a rusty door hinge. Yet when I idle I can see plenty of oil flow to the HLAs ..slinging off of the cams...my bearings don't rumble ..and, up until I had a serious coolant leak into the oil, my mag drain plug has been free from debris.
My oil temps fall into norms (180ishF to 220F) at highway speeds ...everything normal.
Is ignorance truly bliss? Is there a mind over matter event occuring here
Images available on request.
Now I cannot dispute the physics of the thing. I can only question the assumptions that are input to the equations. Obviously some perceptions are not aligned with observations
[ March 08, 2006, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
How can this be? Skinny lines ...long length on a OHC engine. Even at half the normal oil flow per minute ...I should be at so much back pressure that my engine would be receiving just enough oil to lube a rusty door hinge. Yet when I idle I can see plenty of oil flow to the HLAs ..slinging off of the cams...my bearings don't rumble ..and, up until I had a serious coolant leak into the oil, my mag drain plug has been free from debris.
My oil temps fall into norms (180ishF to 220F) at highway speeds ...everything normal.
Is ignorance truly bliss? Is there a mind over matter event occuring here
Images available on request.
Now I cannot dispute the physics of the thing. I can only question the assumptions that are input to the equations. Obviously some perceptions are not aligned with observations
[ March 08, 2006, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
- Status
Similar threads
