Ok so currently I have the amsoil bypass...works great but it is very expensive. I was looking at a frantz as an economical and maybe even more effective solution. But it requires very frequent servicing, I was thinking of running a baldwin B50 or so in front of the frantz so you get a 15 micron absolute filter then the TP. Would this increase the serviceable life of the TP? Thanks!
Bypass system Idea...
- Thread starter rufushusky
- Start date
- Status
The Amsoil bypass filter isn't expensive if you run it the miles that Amsoil Recommends. JD+ 50 is a syn so he should last a long time and adding a qt of oil each TP change would add up quick. How often do you change the oil bypass filter.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
You could put a Frantz behind the Amsoil for a polishing filter. It would last longer with only filtering the leftovers.
The capital acquisition of the Frantz/MG would pay for 5 years+ of EaBp.
The capital acquisition of the Frantz/MG would pay for 5 years+ of EaBp.
dnewton3
Staff member
Oooooooo - I love to play the part of the spoiler. Allow me to ramble. (this is not done with contempt, but rather with the intent to provoke thought; no "thrown gauntlet" here).
How long are the current OCIs? Have you done any PC analysis? What is the cleanliness level now, and goal?
What is the point of having to bypass filter the bypass-filtered oil? "Super extra edibly clean" oil isn't going to make your equipment last longer, in a sense of useable reality. To what infinite end do you intend to run the equipment? (Yes - I realize that "infinite end" is an oxy-moron, but you get the point, right?)
Do it for fun? Sure; no problem. It simply becomes a talking point.
Do it for a valid reason? I cannot think of any value-driven ROI that would make this pay off.
I like the idea of TP filters, but the dirty little secret (pardon the pun) is that in smaller systems, you end up with an OCI by default. Frequent changes of TP media consume a fairly heady portion of the total capacity, thereby the "top off" becomes the unwitting "OCI". So, now you want to "polish" the already bypass filtered oil. To what end? Amsoil's bypass products are well more than capable of providing a level of cleanliness that is adequate for super long lubricant longevity. How much futher do you want to take it? You'll be swapping out TP and topping off lube in a system that is already well more clean than it has to be. You're presumably worried about saving money, but you'll drive yourself into a corner where the end become self-fulfilling. The Amsoil system is already capable of going thousands upon thousands of miles with the EaBP. When do you plan to OCI? Do you plan to OCI? What maintenance plan have you laid out?
I'll go ahead and stop your "vehicle longevity" argument right here:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/01/wisconsin-mans-91-silverado-set-to-hit-1-million-miles/
http://www.knfilters.com/news/news.aspx?id=157
Here are two trucks that attained 1 million miles each with routine OCIs. Do you believe that double bypass filtration will somehow "add" to service life? I don't accept the argument that somehow bypass filtration would have made the vehicles more financially viable. No one looks at a million-mile truck and says "Yeah - I'll bet the truck would be worth more money if they had used bypass. I think the bearing clearances and cam lobes would be SO MUCH BETTER if they had used bypass ...
No one is going to pay another human being a reaonable sum of money ABOVE the estimated price of a million-mile vehicle, simply on the presumption that bypass filtration would have made the engine last longer! It's a ludicrous argument. No one cares how "clean" a million-mile engine is on the inside, other than a topic of ponderance over beers in the back yard. The "cleanliness" of the engine, or lack thereof via the absence of bypass filtration, didn't stop those engines from running, did it?
You see, the concept of equipment longevity is based upon the maintenance plan, not lubricant choice. Clean oil makes stuff last a long time. Clean oil can be accomplished by one of two methods.
1) flush and fill often
2) better filtration
Either one is a viable method. Equipment longevity is not a result that is UNIQUE to bypass filtration. The only UNIQUE trait is that bypass filtration makes the lubricant last longer. So, bypass filtration is a tool for fiscal savings; fewer oil changes = money saved. Bypass filtration does not have a direct affect upon the engine; it's an INdirect effect. Bypass filtration is a fiscal savings tool.
My point is that there is a PRATICAL limit to how clean oil needs to be. Bypass filtration does not add to equipment life; it adds to lubricant life. DOUBLE BYPASS FILTRATION makes oil super-duper clean, but at what cost? Are you going to be diligent enough to never change oil ever? Your planned TP filter will likey subvert your plan with the cost of top-off's.
Just because you "can" do something, doesn't mean there is any solid reason to do so. If you "want" to do it simply for the joy of an experiment with no pratical goal, then go for it. Many of us wander off into the "what if" pasture. But rest assured, you don't "need" to do it, and I wonder you could ever make it pay for itself.
How long are the current OCIs? Have you done any PC analysis? What is the cleanliness level now, and goal?
What is the point of having to bypass filter the bypass-filtered oil? "Super extra edibly clean" oil isn't going to make your equipment last longer, in a sense of useable reality. To what infinite end do you intend to run the equipment? (Yes - I realize that "infinite end" is an oxy-moron, but you get the point, right?)
Do it for fun? Sure; no problem. It simply becomes a talking point.
Do it for a valid reason? I cannot think of any value-driven ROI that would make this pay off.
I like the idea of TP filters, but the dirty little secret (pardon the pun) is that in smaller systems, you end up with an OCI by default. Frequent changes of TP media consume a fairly heady portion of the total capacity, thereby the "top off" becomes the unwitting "OCI". So, now you want to "polish" the already bypass filtered oil. To what end? Amsoil's bypass products are well more than capable of providing a level of cleanliness that is adequate for super long lubricant longevity. How much futher do you want to take it? You'll be swapping out TP and topping off lube in a system that is already well more clean than it has to be. You're presumably worried about saving money, but you'll drive yourself into a corner where the end become self-fulfilling. The Amsoil system is already capable of going thousands upon thousands of miles with the EaBP. When do you plan to OCI? Do you plan to OCI? What maintenance plan have you laid out?
I'll go ahead and stop your "vehicle longevity" argument right here:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/01/wisconsin-mans-91-silverado-set-to-hit-1-million-miles/
http://www.knfilters.com/news/news.aspx?id=157
Here are two trucks that attained 1 million miles each with routine OCIs. Do you believe that double bypass filtration will somehow "add" to service life? I don't accept the argument that somehow bypass filtration would have made the vehicles more financially viable. No one looks at a million-mile truck and says "Yeah - I'll bet the truck would be worth more money if they had used bypass. I think the bearing clearances and cam lobes would be SO MUCH BETTER if they had used bypass ...
No one is going to pay another human being a reaonable sum of money ABOVE the estimated price of a million-mile vehicle, simply on the presumption that bypass filtration would have made the engine last longer! It's a ludicrous argument. No one cares how "clean" a million-mile engine is on the inside, other than a topic of ponderance over beers in the back yard. The "cleanliness" of the engine, or lack thereof via the absence of bypass filtration, didn't stop those engines from running, did it?
You see, the concept of equipment longevity is based upon the maintenance plan, not lubricant choice. Clean oil makes stuff last a long time. Clean oil can be accomplished by one of two methods.
1) flush and fill often
2) better filtration
Either one is a viable method. Equipment longevity is not a result that is UNIQUE to bypass filtration. The only UNIQUE trait is that bypass filtration makes the lubricant last longer. So, bypass filtration is a tool for fiscal savings; fewer oil changes = money saved. Bypass filtration does not have a direct affect upon the engine; it's an INdirect effect. Bypass filtration is a fiscal savings tool.
My point is that there is a PRATICAL limit to how clean oil needs to be. Bypass filtration does not add to equipment life; it adds to lubricant life. DOUBLE BYPASS FILTRATION makes oil super-duper clean, but at what cost? Are you going to be diligent enough to never change oil ever? Your planned TP filter will likey subvert your plan with the cost of top-off's.
Just because you "can" do something, doesn't mean there is any solid reason to do so. If you "want" to do it simply for the joy of an experiment with no pratical goal, then go for it. Many of us wander off into the "what if" pasture. But rest assured, you don't "need" to do it, and I wonder you could ever make it pay for itself.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Ah, my fun spoiling friend, but he didn't proclaim any notion of engine longevity in his post. His quest is in terms of economy at fine levels of filtration.
dnewton3
Staff member
Oh - I got that. I just was pre-empting the inevitible joust! But it is an important topic to cover because once you remove the topic of longevity, the ONLY topic left is fiscal. Can you make it pay off?
I do have to quesiton where the ROI would be? Knowning sump size and such will certainly play into this equation. I am not 100% sure it won't work, but I am 100% skeptical!
The issue I see is that using a double bypass system puts you into higher equipment costs, and higher maintenance costs; those cannot be ignored. Plus, it's fair to presume that some used oil analysis will be borne along the way?
To be a purist and answer his simple question, yes, the B50 would increase the service life of the TP. But it also increases initial cost of equipment, complexity of installation, possibility of failure points, and cost of continued maintenance. Plus, what happend to the cost of the Amsoil system? Even if he sells that used system, he's out some depreciation, is he not?
It's important to note that a double BP system will likely never really need a full blown OCI (short of some mechanical system failure), so the constant top-offs will suffice. He would experience a psuedo OCI with major filter changes (defined as both filters being changed), or minor ones with just the TP change.
I suppose if this were set up on some huge sump, the cost could likely be reasonably paid down. But if he's got this idea of plumbing it up on a Celica or Taurus or such with a 5 qrt sump, he's almost adding 50% of the capacity by adding multi filters and plumbing.
I am (clearly) skeptical about these types of systems. They have no payout on any "normal" vehicle (excluding huge stationary equipment or OTRs). All in the pursuit of polishing his BP filtered oil.
Finally, I'll bet a dollar that he still OCIs before the oil is "worn out" because people like this just have to tinker; it's their nature. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Except that it ruins the ONLY goal; that of saving money by extending OCIs. After all, his first comment in his post was one of cost:
" ... works great but it is very expensive. I was looking at a frantz as an economical and maybe even more effective solution." That tells me he wants to save money, but is probably not even utilizing his Amsoil sysetm to it's full capability. There are only two reasons an Amsoil system (or any system for that matter) is not paying off:
1) there is a performance issue where used oil analysis are dictating OCIs more often than can be sustained by the ROI
2) the person is a compulsive oil changer, and cannot resist the call of the wrench
Yet somehow I'm supposed to believe he'll get his money from this double-bypass system? I think not. Want me to be convinced? Show me real world numbers where the used oil analysis and PC analysis show the ROI points of payout.
I would have great respect for someone that says "I'm a player at heart. I cannot help myself. This goofing in the garage keeps me from the wine and women. It's foolish and the ROI isn't there, but it's cheaper than a divorce." Now THAT'S honesty.
I do have to quesiton where the ROI would be? Knowning sump size and such will certainly play into this equation. I am not 100% sure it won't work, but I am 100% skeptical!
The issue I see is that using a double bypass system puts you into higher equipment costs, and higher maintenance costs; those cannot be ignored. Plus, it's fair to presume that some used oil analysis will be borne along the way?
To be a purist and answer his simple question, yes, the B50 would increase the service life of the TP. But it also increases initial cost of equipment, complexity of installation, possibility of failure points, and cost of continued maintenance. Plus, what happend to the cost of the Amsoil system? Even if he sells that used system, he's out some depreciation, is he not?
It's important to note that a double BP system will likely never really need a full blown OCI (short of some mechanical system failure), so the constant top-offs will suffice. He would experience a psuedo OCI with major filter changes (defined as both filters being changed), or minor ones with just the TP change.
I suppose if this were set up on some huge sump, the cost could likely be reasonably paid down. But if he's got this idea of plumbing it up on a Celica or Taurus or such with a 5 qrt sump, he's almost adding 50% of the capacity by adding multi filters and plumbing.
I am (clearly) skeptical about these types of systems. They have no payout on any "normal" vehicle (excluding huge stationary equipment or OTRs). All in the pursuit of polishing his BP filtered oil.
Finally, I'll bet a dollar that he still OCIs before the oil is "worn out" because people like this just have to tinker; it's their nature. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Except that it ruins the ONLY goal; that of saving money by extending OCIs. After all, his first comment in his post was one of cost:
" ... works great but it is very expensive. I was looking at a frantz as an economical and maybe even more effective solution." That tells me he wants to save money, but is probably not even utilizing his Amsoil sysetm to it's full capability. There are only two reasons an Amsoil system (or any system for that matter) is not paying off:
1) there is a performance issue where used oil analysis are dictating OCIs more often than can be sustained by the ROI
2) the person is a compulsive oil changer, and cannot resist the call of the wrench
Yet somehow I'm supposed to believe he'll get his money from this double-bypass system? I think not. Want me to be convinced? Show me real world numbers where the used oil analysis and PC analysis show the ROI points of payout.
I would have great respect for someone that says "I'm a player at heart. I cannot help myself. This goofing in the garage keeps me from the wine and women. It's foolish and the ROI isn't there, but it's cheaper than a divorce." Now THAT'S honesty.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
I just was pre-empting the inevitible joust!
You learn too quickly on coping skills
Quote:
I do have to quesiton where the ROI would be?
There wouldn't be one, most likely. I too doubt that the capital acquisition could be outpaced with avoided costs. The current Amsoil setup is really about as cheap as one can get from an aftermarket spin-on setup. You can get the Baldwin (WIX has them too) bypass filters, but they're not typically OTC filters and will also have their acquisition costs and limited longevity in service.
Quote:
I suppose if this were set up on some huge sump, the cost could likely be reasonably paid down. But if he's got this idea of plumbing it up on a Celica or Taurus or such with a 5 qrt sump, he's almost adding 50% of the capacity by adding multi filters and plumbing.
2004.5 Dodge Ram 2500 CTD Smarty Gauges Amsoil Bypass JD Plus 50
Without bypass filtration he's at 6months by OEM recommendation. It takes a while, but eventually the owners realize that it's 6months. It's 6months under severe with 7500 miles being the limit ..or it's 6months with 15k being the limit. Essentially 6 months under all conditions unless you're truly using this as a commercial vehicle full time. It's 6 months if you're some maintenance man who never leaves the plant parking lot.
So to more or less make it pay, and that may only be in terms of service points, he's going to have to breach that 6 month time span either in the mileage in excess of 7500 if his service is severe ..or 15k if his service is not.
Quote:
Finally, I'll bet a dollar that he still OCIs before the oil is "worn out" because people like this just have to tinker; it's their nature. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Except that it ruins the ONLY goal; that of saving money by extending OCIs. After all, his first comment in his post was one of cost:
" ... works great but it is very expensive. I was looking at a frantz as an economical and maybe even more effective solution." That tells me he wants to save money, but is probably not even utilizing his Amsoil sysetm to it's full capability. There are only two reasons an Amsoil system (or any system for that matter) is not paying off:
1) there is a performance issue where used oil analysis are dictating OCIs more often than can be sustained by the ROI
2) the person is a compulsive oil changer, and cannot resist the call of the wrench
You may be right. We all tend to want to waste as efficiently as possible. It allows us more excess for the effort. I run into this in my household. I'm constantly streamlining and contouring usage profiles for the least expensive way of maintaining the status quo. Plugging economic leaks, if you will. Without fail, a 5th Column movement slams a torpedo into the side of my delicately trimmed Titanic.
..but how can one not plug leaks
Quote:
Yet somehow I'm supposed to believe he'll get his money from this double-bypass system? I think not.
I think not too. I do think that his tp roll will last longer than it normally would. That's just a reasoned assumption. I've never put it into practice - YET.
Quote:
I would have great respect for someone that says "I'm a player at heart. I cannot help myself. This goofing in the garage keeps me from the wine and women. It's foolish and the ROI isn't there, but it's cheaper than a divorce." Now THAT'S honesty.
Well, we're men ..hunters ..conquerors. Knights in shining armor. If we don't have dragons to slay ..we'll go and find some.
There was a European study that a fellow member shared with me. It would be exactly what you're looking for. It used 3 Motor Guards in parallel on a commercial Euro equivalent to a straight medium duty truck. Probably in the 5 ton range. The costs were higher than the USA due to the importation of proper sized tp. The labor rates were included too. They sold the rigs @ 8 years. The savings, mainly due to wages and very high material costs, was equivalent to about $90 difference over the 8 year period as opposed to just doing the OEM recommended interval.
The volume of oil saved was some incredible amount (like hundreds of gallons), but since it offered no substantial economic advantage AND required more down time and man hours, was rejected as viable.
I wish I had that document to share with you.
I just was pre-empting the inevitible joust!
You learn too quickly on coping skills
Quote:
I do have to quesiton where the ROI would be?
There wouldn't be one, most likely. I too doubt that the capital acquisition could be outpaced with avoided costs. The current Amsoil setup is really about as cheap as one can get from an aftermarket spin-on setup. You can get the Baldwin (WIX has them too) bypass filters, but they're not typically OTC filters and will also have their acquisition costs and limited longevity in service.
Quote:
I suppose if this were set up on some huge sump, the cost could likely be reasonably paid down. But if he's got this idea of plumbing it up on a Celica or Taurus or such with a 5 qrt sump, he's almost adding 50% of the capacity by adding multi filters and plumbing.
2004.5 Dodge Ram 2500 CTD Smarty Gauges Amsoil Bypass JD Plus 50
Without bypass filtration he's at 6months by OEM recommendation. It takes a while, but eventually the owners realize that it's 6months. It's 6months under severe with 7500 miles being the limit ..or it's 6months with 15k being the limit. Essentially 6 months under all conditions unless you're truly using this as a commercial vehicle full time. It's 6 months if you're some maintenance man who never leaves the plant parking lot.
So to more or less make it pay, and that may only be in terms of service points, he's going to have to breach that 6 month time span either in the mileage in excess of 7500 if his service is severe ..or 15k if his service is not.
Quote:
Finally, I'll bet a dollar that he still OCIs before the oil is "worn out" because people like this just have to tinker; it's their nature. There is NOTHING wrong with that. Except that it ruins the ONLY goal; that of saving money by extending OCIs. After all, his first comment in his post was one of cost:
" ... works great but it is very expensive. I was looking at a frantz as an economical and maybe even more effective solution." That tells me he wants to save money, but is probably not even utilizing his Amsoil sysetm to it's full capability. There are only two reasons an Amsoil system (or any system for that matter) is not paying off:
1) there is a performance issue where used oil analysis are dictating OCIs more often than can be sustained by the ROI
2) the person is a compulsive oil changer, and cannot resist the call of the wrench
You may be right. We all tend to want to waste as efficiently as possible. It allows us more excess for the effort. I run into this in my household. I'm constantly streamlining and contouring usage profiles for the least expensive way of maintaining the status quo. Plugging economic leaks, if you will. Without fail, a 5th Column movement slams a torpedo into the side of my delicately trimmed Titanic.
..but how can one not plug leaks
Quote:
Yet somehow I'm supposed to believe he'll get his money from this double-bypass system? I think not.
I think not too. I do think that his tp roll will last longer than it normally would. That's just a reasoned assumption. I've never put it into practice - YET.
Quote:
I would have great respect for someone that says "I'm a player at heart. I cannot help myself. This goofing in the garage keeps me from the wine and women. It's foolish and the ROI isn't there, but it's cheaper than a divorce." Now THAT'S honesty.
Well, we're men ..hunters ..conquerors. Knights in shining armor. If we don't have dragons to slay ..we'll go and find some.
There was a European study that a fellow member shared with me. It would be exactly what you're looking for. It used 3 Motor Guards in parallel on a commercial Euro equivalent to a straight medium duty truck. Probably in the 5 ton range. The costs were higher than the USA due to the importation of proper sized tp. The labor rates were included too. They sold the rigs @ 8 years. The savings, mainly due to wages and very high material costs, was equivalent to about $90 difference over the 8 year period as opposed to just doing the OEM recommended interval.
The volume of oil saved was some incredible amount (like hundreds of gallons), but since it offered no substantial economic advantage AND required more down time and man hours, was rejected as viable.
I wish I had that document to share with you.
dnewton3
Staff member
I find myself in agreement with you on many of your points, as you likely already expected.
I've looked at BP filtration from many different views, because I want one badly. But I simply cannot make any configuration work to a reasonable degree when I view my initial costs, maintenance costs, and annual OCI duration. I WANT one, but I don't NEED one.
I will say though, anyone who cannot make an Amsoil system pay off, or states that it's too expensive, is probably not a candidate for ANY type of bypass system. No matter how I crunch the numbers, I find the Amsoil system one of the least expensive to get into, and maintain. (Not the BMK series so much as the single mount with sandwich adapter; good low purchase cost and many elements to choose from to meet your planned OCI). If one cannot make an Amsoil system viable, there probably isn't any hope of bypass making it at all. The way to make any BP system pay off is extedend OCIs.
I don't know that the Amsoil systems are the "best" at filtration. Some PC reports I've seen show that some of the competitors might perform a wee bit more efficiently. But since all the commercially available brands are WELL more than capable of getting below 3um, they ALL perform to a level that is more than "good enough". That in mind, why not purchase and use the least expensive one that meets your criteria for maintenance plan and installation concerns? Here, it's hard to beat Amsoil, if you ask me. They offer an incredible bang for the buck!
I've looked at BP filtration from many different views, because I want one badly. But I simply cannot make any configuration work to a reasonable degree when I view my initial costs, maintenance costs, and annual OCI duration. I WANT one, but I don't NEED one.
I will say though, anyone who cannot make an Amsoil system pay off, or states that it's too expensive, is probably not a candidate for ANY type of bypass system. No matter how I crunch the numbers, I find the Amsoil system one of the least expensive to get into, and maintain. (Not the BMK series so much as the single mount with sandwich adapter; good low purchase cost and many elements to choose from to meet your planned OCI). If one cannot make an Amsoil system viable, there probably isn't any hope of bypass making it at all. The way to make any BP system pay off is extedend OCIs.
I don't know that the Amsoil systems are the "best" at filtration. Some PC reports I've seen show that some of the competitors might perform a wee bit more efficiently. But since all the commercially available brands are WELL more than capable of getting below 3um, they ALL perform to a level that is more than "good enough". That in mind, why not purchase and use the least expensive one that meets your criteria for maintenance plan and installation concerns? Here, it's hard to beat Amsoil, if you ask me. They offer an incredible bang for the buck!
A 15 micron absolute filter isn't very fine filtering. The B50 type bypass filters were used when the oil filters were an option to be installed on engines way back when ,you know the olden days . They were used on old style industrial engines. I worked on them. engines with full flow engines outlives the best bypass filters engines by 50%.
What is the life of the Amsoil bypass filters?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
The filter life will be determined by soot production in the range it can filter. The sump is shot when the fine unfiltered/unfilterable soot level reaches limits. That will naturally vary with the size of the sump and the size of the bypass filter.
The lower the hours of use per year, the harder it is to get to that point since you'll be fatiguing other components of the oil that aren't filter loading or suspension of soot related.
You'll always end up in an inverted Frantz/Mg scenario of variable length. You'll change the sump around the filter's life span.
The lower the hours of use per year, the harder it is to get to that point since you'll be fatiguing other components of the oil that aren't filter loading or suspension of soot related.
You'll always end up in an inverted Frantz/Mg scenario of variable length. You'll change the sump around the filter's life span.
Wow, who knew this could start such a thread...lots of input and ideas here. Well on the economic side of things, I drive something that tips the scales at 7000 pounds so while like anyone else I care about getting the biggest bang for my buck...economical is a relative term. Now oil filtration on a diesel vs. a gasoline vehicle are a little different many thanks to increase soot in the oil from EGR and in my case my smarty. Numerous OEM put venturi combo bypass systems in their engines. So to some extent I think it will help the engine...I think in the case of a gasoline engine a bypass filter is a solution to a non-problem. I know what I am doing is overkill. A 5.9 rotating assembly with routine maintenance should have no problem hitting 350-400k miles but I am a little crazy and I think filtration is not the worst vice in the world. Haha.
I picked up the filter head for my amsoil bypass filter for all of 46 bucks so I shouldn't take much of a hit if I sell it. It is just the cost per unit of Amsoil's bypass filters that are killer...my local dealer is 40 bucks a pop. I can get a baldwin head for about 35 bucks and B50 elements for about 6. It is rated at 15 microns absolute and 2 nominal. So in the ratings it is behind the amsoil filter but you can't beat the price.
My main concern was would the TP break down in the housing if I left it in for say 7500 miles? With a TP filter I figure I am getting the same (maybe better) filtration vs. an Amsoil but at a replacement cost of 6 bucks for the baldwin and 89 cents for the 1000 sheet single ply.
I picked up the filter head for my amsoil bypass filter for all of 46 bucks so I shouldn't take much of a hit if I sell it. It is just the cost per unit of Amsoil's bypass filters that are killer...my local dealer is 40 bucks a pop. I can get a baldwin head for about 35 bucks and B50 elements for about 6. It is rated at 15 microns absolute and 2 nominal. So in the ratings it is behind the amsoil filter but you can't beat the price.
My main concern was would the TP break down in the housing if I left it in for say 7500 miles? With a TP filter I figure I am getting the same (maybe better) filtration vs. an Amsoil but at a replacement cost of 6 bucks for the baldwin and 89 cents for the 1000 sheet single ply.
Last edited:
Another option I was thinking about was running the baldwin bd7317 venturi filter and a TP filter, that will eliminate the purchase of the OB1305 filter head for the B50 and keep total filter costs about the same. Anyone run this filter on a dodge 5.9 cummins?
Originally Posted By: Steve S
The Amsoil bypass filter isn't expensive if you run it the miles that Amsoil Recommends. JD+ 50 is a syn so he should last a long time and adding a qt of oil each TP change would add up quick. How often do you change the oil bypass filter.
I am running the dino Plus50, it was the only CI-4+ oil I could find...yes I know I drank the coolaid and ran away from CJ-4. Next oil change I am going to run a CJ-4 dino for cost purposes.
The Amsoil bypass filter isn't expensive if you run it the miles that Amsoil Recommends. JD+ 50 is a syn so he should last a long time and adding a qt of oil each TP change would add up quick. How often do you change the oil bypass filter.
I am running the dino Plus50, it was the only CI-4+ oil I could find...yes I know I drank the coolaid and ran away from CJ-4. Next oil change I am going to run a CJ-4 dino for cost purposes.
HDEOS are long life oils capable of extended oil changes. The Amsoil filter is a better value and it filters better the B50 is no different than a high quality full flow filter as far as filtering where as the Amsoil filters way lower "3 microns?" not exactly sure and it will out last the tp filter without having to add 1 qt of oil and a roll or TP and the B50 without servicing. My 02. Look up the Fleetguard or Donaldson websites for their different filters.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: rufushusky
My main concern was would the TP break down in the housing if I left it in for say 7500 miles? With a TP filter I figure I am getting the same (maybe better) filtration vs. an Amsoil but at a replacement cost of 6 bucks for the baldwin and 89 cents for the 1000 sheet single ply.
I don't know if it will last 7500 without saturating and being rendered inert. I'm aware of no break down factor to tp in usage. At least I've never heard of it being an issue.
Originally Posted By: rufushusky
Another option I was thinking about was running the baldwin bd7317 venturi filter and a TP filter, that will eliminate the purchase of the OB1305 filter head for the B50 and keep total filter costs about the same. Anyone run this filter on a dodge 5.9 cummins?
Appears to be a combo filter and somewhat unique.
Quote:
It is just the cost per unit of Amsoil's bypass filters that are killer...my local dealer is 40 bucks a pop.
What size? If it's the 110 ..it should be good for quite a while. Even the 100 should work for a good bit. I'd suspect 2 years.
My main concern was would the TP break down in the housing if I left it in for say 7500 miles? With a TP filter I figure I am getting the same (maybe better) filtration vs. an Amsoil but at a replacement cost of 6 bucks for the baldwin and 89 cents for the 1000 sheet single ply.
I don't know if it will last 7500 without saturating and being rendered inert. I'm aware of no break down factor to tp in usage. At least I've never heard of it being an issue.
Originally Posted By: rufushusky
Another option I was thinking about was running the baldwin bd7317 venturi filter and a TP filter, that will eliminate the purchase of the OB1305 filter head for the B50 and keep total filter costs about the same. Anyone run this filter on a dodge 5.9 cummins?
Appears to be a combo filter and somewhat unique.
Quote:
It is just the cost per unit of Amsoil's bypass filters that are killer...my local dealer is 40 bucks a pop.
What size? If it's the 110 ..it should be good for quite a while. Even the 100 should work for a good bit. I'd suspect 2 years.
Originally Posted By: rufushusky
My main concern was would the TP break down in the housing if I left it in for say 7500 miles?
I ran my GCF to 20k, paper towels are very similar to TP. The roll looked like an oil saturated paper towel roll...no obvious sign of "breaking down".
My main concern was would the TP break down in the housing if I left it in for say 7500 miles?
I ran my GCF to 20k, paper towels are very similar to TP. The roll looked like an oil saturated paper towel roll...no obvious sign of "breaking down".
After thinking about it a bit I am just going to leave the Amsoil filter there. Thanks folks!
Originally Posted By: Steve S
What is the life of the Amsoil bypass filters?
I have run 30,000 miles on my last two Amsoil bypass filters, and my used oil analysis were excellent on both. I'm going to go 35,000 miles on my next set of filters, which for me is also my OCI.
What is the life of the Amsoil bypass filters?
I have run 30,000 miles on my last two Amsoil bypass filters, and my used oil analysis were excellent on both. I'm going to go 35,000 miles on my next set of filters, which for me is also my OCI.
That is what I thought at 30,000 miles they are a bargain. The cost of the TP and an add qu of syn oil adds up quick.
- Status