dnewton3
Staff member
Your statements are inaccurate and flawed:
1) there are LOTS of full flow lube filters that are well below 30um. Just one example; check out the oil filter for the 6.7L PSD from Wix
57151 (2/20/75 = 3/12/17). The fact that you only discuss a nominal particle size with no discussion of efficiency relates to my skeptical sense of your understanding.
2) no one here ever outwardly stated or implied that Amsoil is the only choice for BP elements; where'd you get that from???
3) why is doubling oil capacity a good thing? You're probably going to espouse the benefits of dilution of contamination and cooling effects. There is some truth to that. However ... I'll counter with the fact that it can cost more for the volume of oil, and yet give no tangible benefit in wear reduction in some circumstances. Further, cold oil is not a good thing, so larger capacity systems which "cool" better also take longer to warm up and bring the lube up to temp. If you thermostatically control the lube BP system, that would certainly help, but it also induces yet more cost and complexity. In really cold areas, overly large sumps have been proven to be detrimental. Since you're unwilling to share any details about where you will operate, what engine(s) this experiment will exist on, or about anything else other than your willingness to argue and ignore sage advice, well - we're not really able to help you. You want to talk theory; we'd rather talk specifics.
4) there's a sucker born every minute. The fact that some guy is selling massive amounts of these filter conversion applications doesn't impress me. A fool and his money are soon parted. There's a lot of examples of people who spend money on BP systems, and secretly realize they didn't make a good decision, but to avoid embarrassment and ridicule they tout the "benefits" and never mention the failures. The fact that you don't realize this (or are unwilling to admit it) makes me believe you're poised to make the same choices.
I'm fine if you want to experiment. I think experiments can be enlightening and interesting. The great thing is that your choices don't affect me, and vice versa. But you came here for advice; you asked "Is there anything wrong with this?" Kinda an open ended question, is it not? You invited comments; you've got our thoughts. We've heard yours.
I say you should go for it! What concerns me is that you've stated you're unwilling to put the effort into this to make it credible. Without salient and accurate data, you're assured a "success" because you can just declare it so. Wow - that's great science ... NOT.
So do us a favor ...
If you want to convince us that your experiment can be a success, then do a lot of documentation:
- take pictures and be detailed; show us the installation, the system, the dissected filters, etc
- do UOAs to show what effect the proposed system has (to know if there was improvement, you need a baseline as well as after effects)
- do PCs to show what effect the proposed system has (again - before and after)
- detail the full costs of the entire experiment (lube costs, filter costs, mounts, plumbing, etc) and then calculate the ROI
You're not going to be successful coming here and talking trash to us "oil nerds", with no facts to back it up. You have your opinion; we have ours. I say either put up or shut up, as it were. We require facts and data; not hyperbole and hypothetical rhetoric. It's easy to come here and espouse your theory. It's not so easy to wander in and prove you're right beyond a reasonable doubt; it takes effort, time and money. There's no requirement that you do what I ask, but then there's no assurance you're not going to be ignored or challenged for making unsubstantiated claims.
The choice is up to you.
1) there are LOTS of full flow lube filters that are well below 30um. Just one example; check out the oil filter for the 6.7L PSD from Wix
57151 (2/20/75 = 3/12/17). The fact that you only discuss a nominal particle size with no discussion of efficiency relates to my skeptical sense of your understanding.
2) no one here ever outwardly stated or implied that Amsoil is the only choice for BP elements; where'd you get that from???
3) why is doubling oil capacity a good thing? You're probably going to espouse the benefits of dilution of contamination and cooling effects. There is some truth to that. However ... I'll counter with the fact that it can cost more for the volume of oil, and yet give no tangible benefit in wear reduction in some circumstances. Further, cold oil is not a good thing, so larger capacity systems which "cool" better also take longer to warm up and bring the lube up to temp. If you thermostatically control the lube BP system, that would certainly help, but it also induces yet more cost and complexity. In really cold areas, overly large sumps have been proven to be detrimental. Since you're unwilling to share any details about where you will operate, what engine(s) this experiment will exist on, or about anything else other than your willingness to argue and ignore sage advice, well - we're not really able to help you. You want to talk theory; we'd rather talk specifics.
4) there's a sucker born every minute. The fact that some guy is selling massive amounts of these filter conversion applications doesn't impress me. A fool and his money are soon parted. There's a lot of examples of people who spend money on BP systems, and secretly realize they didn't make a good decision, but to avoid embarrassment and ridicule they tout the "benefits" and never mention the failures. The fact that you don't realize this (or are unwilling to admit it) makes me believe you're poised to make the same choices.
I'm fine if you want to experiment. I think experiments can be enlightening and interesting. The great thing is that your choices don't affect me, and vice versa. But you came here for advice; you asked "Is there anything wrong with this?" Kinda an open ended question, is it not? You invited comments; you've got our thoughts. We've heard yours.
I say you should go for it! What concerns me is that you've stated you're unwilling to put the effort into this to make it credible. Without salient and accurate data, you're assured a "success" because you can just declare it so. Wow - that's great science ... NOT.
So do us a favor ...
If you want to convince us that your experiment can be a success, then do a lot of documentation:
- take pictures and be detailed; show us the installation, the system, the dissected filters, etc
- do UOAs to show what effect the proposed system has (to know if there was improvement, you need a baseline as well as after effects)
- do PCs to show what effect the proposed system has (again - before and after)
- detail the full costs of the entire experiment (lube costs, filter costs, mounts, plumbing, etc) and then calculate the ROI
You're not going to be successful coming here and talking trash to us "oil nerds", with no facts to back it up. You have your opinion; we have ours. I say either put up or shut up, as it were. We require facts and data; not hyperbole and hypothetical rhetoric. It's easy to come here and espouse your theory. It's not so easy to wander in and prove you're right beyond a reasonable doubt; it takes effort, time and money. There's no requirement that you do what I ask, but then there's no assurance you're not going to be ignored or challenged for making unsubstantiated claims.
The choice is up to you.
Last edited:
