Considering oil filter relocation

[RDY4WAR]

2002 Chevy Tahoe 5.3L with 244k miles.

I'm using Driven LS30 5w30 oil and do a good bit of towing with it. The trailer + drag car + tools + fuel + spare parts = ~6,000 lbs. While towing, I notice the oil temperature occasionally getting into the 230-240*F range. While I'm not worried about the oil handling it, I still want to control it a bit. I also want better filtration so I figured I could kill 2 birds with one stone by going to a bigger filter with higher capacity, but I'm not sure how to go about it.

The oil filter on it now is a Wix 51042 which is 3.4" tall x 2.9" diameter. There's a taller version of this filter, Wix 51522, that's 4.5" tall x 2.9" diameter. Another option is a remote mount with a Wix 51515 filter at 5.2" tall x 3.6" diameter.

With the 51042 filter, it holds exactly 6 quarts.

Filter 51042: (Ï€ x 1.45^2) x 3.4 = 22.46ci / 57.75 = 0.39 quarts
Filter 51522: (Ï€ x 1.45^2) x 4.5 = 29.72ci / 57.75 = 0.51 quarts (+0.12 quarts)
Filter 51515: (Ï€ x 1.80^2) x 5.2 = 52.93ci / 57.75 = 0.92 quarts (+0.53 quarts)

While I'm sure those numbers don't represent the exact oil volume due to unknowns, I'm guessing it's fairly close. At 7.5k mile OCI, the TBN still looks okay. I'd like to be able to go 10k mile OCI if possible. Would going to a remote mount be worth it if mounted somewhere it could get decent airflow?

 

[Bill_W]

Curious what the stock filter size is? Been thinking about why size is what it is on the factory filter.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Take a look at www.summitracing.com and have a look at their motor oil cooler kits.

 

[Linctex]

The oil filter is a pain to get at on my F150, So I went with a remote kit -

I pieced one together from bits on eBay. The 22mm threaded adapter was the hardest piece to find.

I run dual filters.

 

[BigJakeChevy]

This is what I did to mine.

 

[oldhp]

"With the 51042 filter, it holds exactly 6 quarts." So it shows exactly full on the dipstick? Install the adapter kit along with the 1515 oil filter, put your 6 qts in and check oil level. Keep track of how much it takes to put it exactly on full again. That's how much extra oil you gained. Done.
P.S. NAPA 1515XP or FRAM XG8A are the synthetic versions.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by Bill_W
Curious what the stock filter size is? Been thinking about why size is what it is on the factory filter.


The stock filter is the 51042 filter (Fram 3506 equivalent) at 3.4" tall x 2.9" diameter.

Originally Posted by Snagglefoot
Take a look at www.summitracing.com and have a look at their motor oil cooler kits.


I have both the Perma-cool single and dual relocation kits in my cart.

Originally Posted by Linctex
The oil filter is a pain to get at on my F150, So I went with a remote kit -

I pieced one together from bits on eBay. The 22mm threaded adapter was the hardest piece to find.

I run dual filters.


What advantages did you notice from the relocation other than easier changes? Lower oil temps? Longer OCIs?

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by BigJakeChevy

This is what I did to mine.

Now that's what I'm talking about. What bracket is that mounted to? How many quarts does it take now?

 

[BigJakeChevy]

I made one from a steel plate and bolted it to the alternator bracket. Those filters almost hold a quart each. It takes approximately 8-8.5 now.

 

[JC1]

Originally Posted by BigJakeChevy

I made one from a steel plate and bolted it to the alternator bracket. Those filters almost hold a quart each. It takes approximately 8-8.5 now.


Nice setup!

 

[RDY4WAR]

Originally Posted by BigJakeChevy

I made one from a steel plate and bolted it to the alternator bracket. Those filters almost hold a quart each. It takes approximately 8-8.5 now.


I love it. I've been trying to scout the frame rail for somewhere to mount it.

 

[shibby6600]

Originally Posted by BigJakeChevy

This is what I did to mine.

What hose did you use? I have those same adapters ready to go, just need some hoses that can handle 100 psi to make me feel safe on those winter starts.

 

[BigJakeChevy]

Originally Posted by shibby6600
Originally Posted by BigJakeChevy

This is what I did to mine.

What hose did you use? I have those same adapters ready to go, just need some hoses that can handle 100 psi to make me feel safe on those winter starts.

I just used the hose in the kit. I ordered this kit from etrailer.com The oring they use for the base plate adaptor at the original filter spot was no good for winter. It started leaking bad during the first really cold day. I Went and bought better cold weather orings. At the time of running this setup I was doing delveries pulling a 16ft enclosed trailer 5 days a week and doing 500kms a day. Once that ended I took the relocate kit off as with shorter trips the oil wouldn't heat up.

 

[4WD]

So what is the theory on large dual filters if same media … they are near equalized on psi so just net filter area gain ?

PS: reckon a moderator will thin some pictures out …

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I see a couple benefits, but also a couple negatives. You gain 2 quarts of capacity and really slow down the flow across the media because of the additional surface area. This should reap benefits in single-pass efficiency.

Downsides are you've now multiplied your chances for failure, and long-term efficiency has taken a hit. Parallel filtration actually increases the chances of a certain size particle getting through the filter... if both filters are say 95% efficient at 20 microns, when you double the filter count you actually reduce the overall possibility of catching that 20 micron particle to: 95% x 95%= 90.25% efficient at 20 microns.

Personally, the only way I would stack filters like this would be to use a Fram Ultra at 99%@20u, and something like a Stratapore or Baldwin HPG which are just as efficient at a smaller micron rating. This should offset the hit due to the decrease in parallel multipass efficiency. Otherwise you need a true bypass filter and the reduced flow thru the 2nd filter that it requires.

 

[JohnnyJohnson]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
I see a couple benefits, but also a couple negatives. You gain 2 quarts of capacity and really slow down the flow across the media because of the additional surface area. This should reap benefits in single-pass efficiency.

Downsides are you've now multiplied your chances for failure, and long-term efficiency has taken a hit. Parallel filtration actually increases the chances of a certain size particle getting through the filter... if both filters are say 95% efficient at 20 microns, when you double the filter count you actually reduce the overall possibility of catching that 20 micron particle to: 95% x 95%= 90.25% efficient at 20 microns.

Personally, the only way I would stack filters like this would be to use a Fram Ultra at 99%@20u, and something like a Stratapore or Baldwin HPG which are just as efficient at a smaller micron rating. This should offset the hit due to the decrease in parallel multipass efficiency. Otherwise you need a true bypass filter and the reduced flow thru the 2nd filter that it requires.



This.

 

[4WD]

Might eliminate bypass events even with 5w used on the ragged edge of temps

 

[RDY4WAR]

That's the 2nd goal I would want to achieve with a remote mount. I'd like to reduce bypass valve open time.

The 1st reason is to reduce oil pan temps to 175-190*F putting bearing temps most likely around 250-270*F.

 

[shibby6600]

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
Downsides are you've now multiplied your chances for failure, and long-term efficiency has taken a hit. Parallel filtration actually increases the chances of a certain size particle getting through the filter... if both filters are say 95% efficient at 20 microns, when you double the filter count you actually reduce the overall possibility of catching that 20 micron particle to: 95% x 95%= 90.25% efficient at 20 microns.


I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. Could you explain why it lowers the chances? Intuitively I would have guessed it'd be the same regardless the number of filters because the particle can only go through one at a time, making it 95% this filter or 95% that filter.

What if the filters were in series, would it be averaged or the same?

At first guess I would have said parallel filtering is the same and series is slightly better. I genuinely don't understand the reasoning so any clarification is appreciated.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

It's the same principle as parallel coolers; if you have a 95% chance of catching a particle, and a parallel path where it passes to another identical filter, you now again have a 95% chance of catching it on the second filter. It has something to do with failure rate calculations; it's been awhile since I had to do them, sorry. The same holds true for fluid coolers- if you do the same calculation for coolers, the "stacked" 95% coolers will only be 90.25% efficient together. Don't get me wrong- you will remove more overall heat, but how efficiently the combined unit works is reduced to the product of the two efficiencies.

Maybe there's a math person here that can better explain.