Eliminate oil changes and wear with a bypass filter?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
18,448
Location
East of IGO
I wonder about the claim that a bypass filter will eliminate wear and oil changes read this .It was a spectacular field trial. And it was something
of a nightmare.
Life On The Streets
It was 1984. Lubrizol, the prestigious specialty chemical supplier, launched an ambitious testing program for its additives and formulations. It involved finding a fleet whose normal use exposed the cars to a wide range of stress. One by one, the existing engines would be removed, and replaced by factory new engines. Completing the tests, the fleet's new engines would be removed and disassembled for inspection.

The fleet chosen was made up of New York City taxicabs. Here was a pool of automobiles subject to long periods of idling, strenuous bouts with traffic, and an occasional "follow that car!". Or "get me to the airport no matter what," accompanied by the full range of weather and temperature variables. A classic choice in field testing.

But there were other factors the testers couldn't anticipate. Once the tests began, an astonishing rate of smashed and disabled cabs emerged. The test fleet seemed to ricochet through the New York streets like billiard balls. Added to this was the Chevrolet 229 CID V-6, an engine in its last product year and remembered foundly by mechanics everywhere for its ability to produce income.

Like all field tests, real-life testing would provide something the laboratory never could. Unpredictability.

Welding The Plugs
The AMSOIL test involved sixteen cabs divided into four groups of four cabs each. The first four were controls. Using the same petroleum oil and filters already in use by the fleet, they would follow the existing fleet custom of changing oil every 3,000 miles. They are identified as "Group A".

"Group B" used AMSOIL 10W-40 Synthetic Motor Oil with an AMSOIL Oil Filter. For Group B, the oil change interval was doubled to 6,000 miles.

Using the same AMSOIL products as "Group B", the third division of cars - "Group C" - quadrupled the control interval, changing oil at 12,000 miles.

Click on Picture to Enlarge


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Group A, Unit 100: Control, Petroleum oil, 3,000-mile drain interval
Group B, Unit 076: AMSOIL, 6,000-mile drain interval
Group C, Unit 070: AMSOIL, 12,000-mile drain interval
Group D, Unit 074: AMSOIL, No oil changes, 60,000-miles

But "Group D" ran the ultimate test. Using AMSOIL 10W-40 Synthetic Motor Oil, an AMSOILS Oil Filter and AMSOIL By-Pass Filter (changing the filter at 12,000-mile intervals), the taxis were "filled for life". No oil changes at all. In fact, the drain plugs were welded to the pan.

The life of the test was 60,000 miles. Overall, the AMSOIL test fleet accumulated nearly ¾ million miles.

Inside The Engines
With the tests completed and the engines removed and disassembled, there was no visible evidence that an AMSOIL-filled engine without an oil change in 60,000 miles was worse off than a cab with 20 petroleum oil changes. A systematic analysis of sludge, varnish, rust, and wear showed little variation between taxis with AMSOIL products and those without, even though AMSOIL oil change intevals ranged from double to twenty times the petroleum-filled engines.

In its written conclusions, the testing facility responsible for compiling the test data made this observation:

"The data presented in this report indicates that AMSOIL synthetic SAE 10W-40 passenger car motor oil formulation as desribed here provided protection of test engines from excessive wear and deposit formation far beyond the normal 3,000-mile change interval."

In a separate letter to AMSOIL's Technical Director, the testing facility diplomatically touched on the problems caused by using the Chevrolet engine for testing, while agreeing with the long-drain conclusions produced by AMSOIL Synthetic Oils:

"I believe the general conclusion that your 'four times normal drain' engines appeared as clear as our mineral oil 'normal drain' engines is testimonial to your oil, in spite of the unanticipated severity of the General Motors 3.8 liter engine."

Adding It Up
In the end, the long, grueling test, so riddled with the unpredictable events of real-life, pointed to a product vastly better than ordinary petroleum. It established base-line data that supported AMSOIL recommended drain intervals of 25,000 miles or one year. It gave visible evidence of how AMSOIL Synthetic Oil behaved in the worst of circumstances. And it established the role of the company's synthetic lubricants in the looming age of conservation and environmental awareness.

For those who used their vehicles to make a living, it promised a way to make the vehicle last longer, have fewer down hours for general maintenance, and a way to increase the profitability of their business.

N.Y.C. Field Test
Deposit and Wear
Sludge*
Deposits Varnish*
Deposits Rust*
Deposits Cam + Lifter
Wear
A. Control Group: Petroleum
3,000 Mi. Oil/Filter Change 9.5 6.1 10.0 .02-.06"
B. Group B: Synthetic
3,000 Mi. Oil/Filter Change 9.6 7.0 10.0 .01-.03"
C. Group C: Synthetic
12,000 Mi. Oil/Filter Change 9.4 7.1 10.0 .01-.03"
D. Group D: Synthetic
Fill for Life 9.5 6.6 10.0 .02-.05"
* 10=Clean Duration - 60,000 Miles Per Vehicle


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Steve,

I remember this study very well, since I was an Amsoil dealer at the time....

It was one of the first of many field tests Amsoil ran on their bypass filtration systems, which first came out in 1980 with the original canister type design. As I recall, they had a 6" tall canister and an 8" canister and later on came out with a huge one (to fit a "Luberefiner"
replacement filter.) Amsoil has also done several large field tests using OTR trucks and either their 5w-30 and 15w-40 synthetic diesel oils. Some of these are on their corporate website under: "Peformance Tests"

I'd never claim that bypass filters eliminate wear - however you'll note that the engines that ran for 60k using the Amsoil system (which has since been improved with the dual remote design), had the same wear as the engines with 3000 mile oil changes. The engines that ran for 12,000 miles using the standard Amsoil filters had about 50% less cam/lifter wear.

Have petroleum oils been improved since 1984? Of course...however the product that Amsoil blends is much better than it was even five years ago in terms of wear/deposit protection. The reason I know this for a fact is that I purchase the Amsoil spec sheets on a regular basis and the material properties have continually improved.

As just one example, the Noack volatility of the Amsoil 10w-30 has dropped from about 7.5% to 5.0% in the past five years. The TBN has gone from about 11.0 up to 12.35. The CCS viscosity has dropped from 3400 Cp @ -25C to 3097 Cp @ -25C in that time. FWIW, the scars generated during the Shell Four Ball Wear Test have continued to get smaller.

Ted
 
A couple of things about this report are questionable.

1) Are you sure Lubrizol ran the test? It does not make sense for them to be involved. Any copies of the original report available?

2) The GM 3.8L V-6 is widely regarded as one of the most robust engines around, particularly in it's early version without the plastic intake manifold. It is hardly an engine considered hard on oil.

3) The title of your post is misleading. Assuming that the original report is valid (a big assumption there) they only said that the bypass filter/ 12,000 mile filter change method showed similar wear to those engines which had a traditional 3,000 mile dino OCI. This does not mean that wear was eliminated.

John
 
Tooslick, the 12,000 mile producing less wear is what we should be striving for,yes both syn oils and petro oils have been improved. I would say the petro oils have caught up. Anyway what I have been trying to prove is there is nothing better than changing oil at the proper time or mileage is the best thing to do for the longest engine or component life. Why spend the money for a bypass filter and anaylsis just to say I have done 3 oil changes and have normal wear.I prefer to say I change my oil once a year or twice a year and I have a half a million miles and my car runs great. Do you remember the Amsoil action with the guy that had a nissan pickup with a half a million miles and still ran great I met him by chance ,ran Amsoil 10w/40 12,500 mile filter and 25,000 oil changes ,no need for a bypass on a gasoline engine.
 
quote:

Originally posted by jthorner:
A couple of things about this report are questionable.

1) Are you sure Lubrizol ran the test? It does not make sense for them to be involved. Any copies of the original report available?

2) The GM 3.8L V-6 is widely regarded as one of the most robust engines around, particularly in it's early version without the plastic intake manifold. It is hardly an engine considered hard on oil.

3) The title of your post is misleading. Assuming that the original report is valid (a big assumption there) they only said that the bypass filter/ 12,000 mile filter change method showed similar wear to those engines which had a traditional 3,000 mile dino OCI. This does not mean that wear was eliminated.

John


This is an Amsoil test. Re read the post the 12,000 mile test engines with out a bypass measured 50% less wear. Contrary to what many bypass users think bypass filters don't eliminate the wear. the GM 3.8 engines in that era were bad engines I worked on alot of them. The original may be found on the pecuniry {sp} web site.
 
Steve,

I'm in complete agreement and think that bypass filters are overkill on gas engine passenger cars.
I have one out in the garage that I got about a year ago and I still haven't installed it. The reason is that the 12k-15k change intervals using the standard Amsoil air/oil filters have worked just fine for me.

I'd say that the group II basestocks clearly superior to the Group I, solvent refined stuff of 5-6 years ago (the Group II based, HDEO's are particularly well formulated). The Group III "synthetics" are somewhat better and the high TBN, PAO/Ester synthetics are the best - particularly in terms of resistance to oxidation. There is no doubt in my mind you can run a good petroleum oil with 4000-6000 mile change intervals under most conditions and get excellent long term results. However if you are getting "clean" oil analysis results after 5000 miles with a conventional oil, you can easily run Amsoil for 15,000 miles under those same conditions with wear rates that are at least as low. In addition the engine will stay extremely clean and the performance will change very little even after 250,000-300,000 miles.

The longest I've ever kept a car is my current 1990 Audi 100 (2.3L, five cylinder) w/ 228,500 miles and it's still running strong. I'll probably run it out over 300,000 miles without replacing any parts except the valve cover gaskets....the lobes of the OHC don't show any wear at all on the "nose" and the engine burns no oil to speak of.

Lubrizol was involved in this test as they were evaluating one of their new additive chemistries for the API, SF or SG catagory, I forget which. On occasion they will help support these Amsoil fleet tests in order to get the data for other potential customers. For example, the additive chemistry of the S2000 oil was changed several months back and it's most likely a Lubrizol/Amsoil, jointly developed formulation. I'm sure Amsoil ran some long drain fleet tests to evaluate the performance of this chemistry and I'd bet they shared some of this information with Lubrizol....

Ted
 
Just goes to show, good full synthetic oil, good FF filter, and 10,000 OCI, the best combo!
burnout.gif
 
I learned to drive a car that had 300k miles and
was 16 years old. It had a bypass filter on a Dodge 6 cyl that my dad instaled while he was in the navy.
Oil and engines have changed so much since then,
but the idea of that filter stuck in my head. I have been using M1 syn since 1976 in Honda engines with good results. I did not like the idea of aux hoses and changing tp filters every 3-4k with syn oils.
But if a Trasko or any other filter does fill that function so much the better. I dont think I will be a customer for auto rx and I will not have to worry
about oil filter quality going downhill. I am still thinking about what oci I will use.
 
Let me get this. Some of you are saying a BP is "overkill" in a gasoline engine application, while others are saying it doesn't reduce wear.

My vote is for somewhere in the middle. Meaning, a BP is not needed to achieve a long engine life, but installing a BP using 1yr/20k mile OCI will produce less wear than a standard FF using 10-12 mile OCI. I'm still a while away from my first 20k UOA
frown.gif
 
My current run on my Honda engine with M1 5-30 and a
Trasko bp filter is the only time I have ever
seen bearing and ring go to 0 over an extended
period. I know I have not looked at that many
uoa but it does seem to have changed somthing in the
equation. This was also the first run of M1 ss
in addition to changing the oil filter. Also my
filter install is vertical pointing down.
How much is the engine filter mix?
Will it work as well on all engines?
Will it work better with the second
change with M1 EP?
Wait an see
 
quote:

Originally posted by Razl:
Let me get this. Some of you are saying a BP is "overkill" in a gasoline engine application, while others are saying it doesn't reduce wear.

My vote is for somewhere in the middle. Meaning, a BP is not needed to achieve a long engine life, but installing a BP using 1yr/20k mile OCI will produce less wear than a standard FF using 10-12 mile OCI. I'm still a while away from my first 20k UOA
frown.gif


That puts you with me on the "overkill" side of the argument. What you are saying is the car will drive into the junk yard with a smooth running engine, good compression, and lots of power. That's where my Turbo Subaru ended up. The turbo still had some kick the day I junked it. If anyone ever pulled that engine out I'm sure they were real happy with it.
 
If you are saying that a car driven 3 miles to work and back each day, sometimes in temperatures below zero, using a 12,000 mile oil change interval and synthetic oil will drive into the junkyard at 200,000 miles with the engine running like new, I guess I don't have any data on that, but I would tend to doubt it. With moderate temperatures on longer trips or highway miles, that could be correct. They are "easy" miles.
 
If you check out the report I posted several days ago that is the type of driving I do. Not that we get weather as bad as ND but it does get cold in St Louis. If I lived farther north I would also run 0-30, and then I would do the testing to find out how the engine is holding up. I did have condensation before the Trasko and no H2O afterwards. You have to understand each case is a different combination of car, driver, engine, oil, air filter, I just try to load the dice in my favor as much as I can. My view is that if the
engine runs good all the time I may very well have
saved any number of failures, such as cat converter O2 sensor starter alternator egr battery. This is why I adopted syn oil in the first place in 1976 when I drove 25-30k per year.
Now I am driving 6k a year and I wonder if the
Trasko filter may be more important to me than the oil that I use. Some people on this site try to look at one magic number, particle counts when they have not taken the time to look at the posted UOA or to run a UOA on their own engine. These
cars are very much interactive systems, if you wish to get the highest performance and usage.

[ April 22, 2005, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: willkie ]
 
I wonder about that last guy's case. What do you do with the car that drives 2-3 mile short trips? Would a TP filter help in that case to help keep the moisture out of the oil?

Or if you did not want to use a bypass filter, would the only way to keep the oil in good condition be to change the oil every 3k miles?
 
I sent some filters to Cape Canaveral. The heavy equipment engineer says that the filters are for commercial use only. The average person doesn't keep a car long enough to pay for the filters. There is some truth to that. Personally I think I come out ahead because I don't spend much time transferring a filter from one car to the other. I have a couple of TP filters that are very old and have saved me many thousands in oil changed and engine wear.
I was talking to a guy that doesn't change the oil or filter. He trades the truck off at 100,000 miles. I installed the same filter on three cars for a guy once in less than one year. The filter wasn't doing him any good. To make matters worse he was a friend and I wasn't charging him. I made the mistake of showing him a sample of blue 302 degrees hydraulic hose. He just bought a fancy blue Toyota pickup and thought the hose would look nice.
There was a time when cars came with no filters. A lot of people thought they were overkill if you spent enough money on oil drains. Filters were all bypass types and were sold as optional equipment. The better ones were cotton. About the time they went to the junk pleated paper in 1953 Frantz came out with a filter that cleaned better than the cotton filters. In 1966 Motor Guard came out with the M-100 that I liked better than the Frantz. TP filters have been around since the 30s but have been getting more respect in the last few years. In the seventies Motor Guard beefed up the filters, put an epoxy coating on them and marketed them as a compressed air filter. I had to bring them back because of my day job where I use them for many things that only they can do. I finally ended up with coper internal parts instead of the plastic parts.
I haven't done a six cylinder since I went out of the garage business. I remember some of them had a tube that went down into the full flow filter that I had to cut off to use a sandwich adapter. They took a 3/8" sending unit. The last one I did was a Dodge Aspen. The old slant 6 was one of my favorite engines.

Ralph
fruit.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top