I have a bypass filter on my 2003 VW TDI diesel and it was a relatively cheap, easy addition (Dieselgeek setup that uses Amsoil filter). After reading issues of the F150 Ecoboost and fuel dilution (as I am considering this as my next vehicle purchase), I was thinking if a bypass filter would help. Through a bit of internet searching, I came across a Puradyn filter typically used for commercial diesel fleets. This is one of the few bypasses, that I have seen, claiming fuel separation from oil utilizing the heated chamber at the bottom. Does anyone have evidence that this filter really reduces/eliminates fuel dilution in oil? Any other thoughts/theories are welcome.
Bypass F150 Ecoboost thoughts
- Thread starter bmholloway
- Start date
- Status
I cant see it removing or suspending fuel when its a close petroleum product to oil. I think you can revove water or particles but not fuel. I think the only way to combat the fuel dilution is to change it out more often then not.
The filter isn't acutally designed to filter the fuel from the motor oil. It uses a heated element at the bottom of the canister to heat the oil to 200F, theoretically flashing off most/all of the fuel in the oil (much the way oil distillation works) and venting to the outside.
The question would be if they make one small enough (both physical size and one that's flow-restrictive enough not to drop your oil pressure massively).
Whether fuel dilution is an issue for you will depend on how you drive the truck. If you short hop a lot, it will. If it gets driven long and/or hard on a regular basis, I think it will be less a problem and you can look at some easier-to-fit units.
Whether fuel dilution is an issue for you will depend on how you drive the truck. If you short hop a lot, it will. If it gets driven long and/or hard on a regular basis, I think it will be less a problem and you can look at some easier-to-fit units.
Below is a link to a study done some buses and Tahoes for government use, so there is apparently a unit small enough for the 1/2 ton market (the Tahoe filter is mounted in the engine comparment near the passenger firewall).
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/oilbypass/oilbypassfinalreport.pdf
I question the resolution of fuel dilution as I have seen several F150 Ecoboost UOAs that cite fuel dilution regardless of driving conditions (possibly inherent issue with turbocharged, direct injection engines).
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/oilbypass/oilbypassfinalreport.pdf
I question the resolution of fuel dilution as I have seen several F150 Ecoboost UOAs that cite fuel dilution regardless of driving conditions (possibly inherent issue with turbocharged, direct injection engines).
Last edited:
We ran Amsoil bypass setups for over a decade on all our service fleet and many of my personal vehicles. Combined with an aggressive UOA plan they worked well. Amsoils kits used a very small orifice size that kept the oil pressure up like original.
But as the new v-8's came on in around 2003 or so after consultation with the G team guys at GMC who work with our authorized upfitter we stopped all bypass filter usage.
The new engine's design, the OLM, and a good synthetic oil give us a solid 300-400k mile engine life which exceeds our needs and saves us a TON of money.
But as the new v-8's came on in around 2003 or so after consultation with the G team guys at GMC who work with our authorized upfitter we stopped all bypass filter usage.
The new engine's design, the OLM, and a good synthetic oil give us a solid 300-400k mile engine life which exceeds our needs and saves us a TON of money.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
We ran Amsoil bypass setups for over a decade on all our service fleet and many of my personal vehicles. Combined with an aggressive UOA plan they worked well. Amsoils kits used a very small orifice size that kept the oil pressure up like original.
But as the new v-8's came on in around 2003 or so after consultation with the G team guys at GMC who work with our authorized upfitter we stopped all bypass filter usage.
The new engine's design, the OLM, and a good synthetic oil give us a solid 300-400k mile engine life which exceeds our needs and saves us a TON of money.
A great, real world observation on cost effectiveness.
Did you also change the oil brand/type you were using? My question is related to bypass filtration being more cost-effective as an oil life extender than a engine life extender. In other words, how did the OLM-indicated OCIs compare to those you used with bypass filtration? No doubt the numbers crunched in favor of the way you did it but I'm interested in some of the specifics.
We ran Amsoil bypass setups for over a decade on all our service fleet and many of my personal vehicles. Combined with an aggressive UOA plan they worked well. Amsoils kits used a very small orifice size that kept the oil pressure up like original.
But as the new v-8's came on in around 2003 or so after consultation with the G team guys at GMC who work with our authorized upfitter we stopped all bypass filter usage.
The new engine's design, the OLM, and a good synthetic oil give us a solid 300-400k mile engine life which exceeds our needs and saves us a TON of money.
A great, real world observation on cost effectiveness.
Did you also change the oil brand/type you were using? My question is related to bypass filtration being more cost-effective as an oil life extender than a engine life extender. In other words, how did the OLM-indicated OCIs compare to those you used with bypass filtration? No doubt the numbers crunched in favor of the way you did it but I'm interested in some of the specifics.
Jim,
We do a ton of stationary operation. In the old daze we used to change the oil every 30 days. Then we met Amsoil and started analyzing. This allowed us to run Amsoils 30w signature series oils about one year by simply changing out the regular filter once a month and the bypass filter every 90 days (average).
When we changed to OLM/no bypass we have consistently observed about 4000 miles of street driving will trip the device. The hours of stationary operation will vary from about 100-125 or so.
HUGE cost savings. Then I came here and have learned that these new gen engines are so easy on oil that I just buy whatever synth is on sale!
We do a ton of stationary operation. In the old daze we used to change the oil every 30 days. Then we met Amsoil and started analyzing. This allowed us to run Amsoils 30w signature series oils about one year by simply changing out the regular filter once a month and the bypass filter every 90 days (average).
When we changed to OLM/no bypass we have consistently observed about 4000 miles of street driving will trip the device. The hours of stationary operation will vary from about 100-125 or so.
HUGE cost savings. Then I came here and have learned that these new gen engines are so easy on oil that I just buy whatever synth is on sale!
dnewton3
Staff member
I understand the concept of the heater in the filter bowl, but I would ask this one simple question:
How can the heater element in the filter be any more efficient at "flashing off" the fuel at 200 deg F (or there abouts) than the simple heating of the engine?
In theory, does not the oil get the hotest around the heads? Probably 250 degF of so for most liquid cooled engines (exempting oil cooled turbos for this topic). How is it that a heater element in a oil filter is any more capable of flashing off the fuel from the oil, than would be the actual engine accomplishing that same task itself?
I'm just asking. The concept seems plausible, until you stop to think of this same oil heating going on in the engine.
And when you add in the fact that this application would be a twin-turbo Eco Boost, would not the oil be "hotter" returning from the turbos than the heater element in the aftermarket filter system?
I can see the concept working well in a lube system that runs at fairly low oil temps (below 150 deg F). But when your engine lube system operates at or above the heater element temp, where is the gain? The fuel is more likely to evaporate off in the engine that it would in this aftermarket filter, is it not?
Just asking, because it's not making any sense to me.
How can the heater element in the filter be any more efficient at "flashing off" the fuel at 200 deg F (or there abouts) than the simple heating of the engine?
In theory, does not the oil get the hotest around the heads? Probably 250 degF of so for most liquid cooled engines (exempting oil cooled turbos for this topic). How is it that a heater element in a oil filter is any more capable of flashing off the fuel from the oil, than would be the actual engine accomplishing that same task itself?
I'm just asking. The concept seems plausible, until you stop to think of this same oil heating going on in the engine.
And when you add in the fact that this application would be a twin-turbo Eco Boost, would not the oil be "hotter" returning from the turbos than the heater element in the aftermarket filter system?
I can see the concept working well in a lube system that runs at fairly low oil temps (below 150 deg F). But when your engine lube system operates at or above the heater element temp, where is the gain? The fuel is more likely to evaporate off in the engine that it would in this aftermarket filter, is it not?
Just asking, because it's not making any sense to me.
Last edited:
Well, I think you nailed it, Dave. The heated system is of most benefit in a low temp short hop operation, or on an engine that has fuel dilution tendencies that normal operation can't cope with. I have had "reports' (I make no claims to their veracity) that the heating elements in these systems are somewhat troublesome.
dnewton3
Staff member
I think, for the specific application the OP is inquiring about, this type system makes no sense, and would not have any benefit for two reasons:
1) the filter element itself cannot strip the fuel from the oil, because it has no ability to distinguish one from the other
2) the heater element would be of no benefit because it likely cannot add heat to the lube with a magnitude substantially greater than what the engine already creates
This type system is really only useful in low sump temp applications; it adds heat where the normal system cannot achieve a temp great enough to evaporate the fuel quickly enough. This is not the case, however, with a normal car or truck.
I would advise against such as system in this application; way more grief than it is worth, and probably will make no difference whatsoever in regard to the quest of fuel dilution reduction.
OTOH - why not try it and compare/contrast your results? Just don't be disheartened if the results are dismal, as I would suspect them to be.
1) the filter element itself cannot strip the fuel from the oil, because it has no ability to distinguish one from the other
2) the heater element would be of no benefit because it likely cannot add heat to the lube with a magnitude substantially greater than what the engine already creates
This type system is really only useful in low sump temp applications; it adds heat where the normal system cannot achieve a temp great enough to evaporate the fuel quickly enough. This is not the case, however, with a normal car or truck.
I would advise against such as system in this application; way more grief than it is worth, and probably will make no difference whatsoever in regard to the quest of fuel dilution reduction.
OTOH - why not try it and compare/contrast your results? Just don't be disheartened if the results are dismal, as I would suspect them to be.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
