I need information on these filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
4

4fordsd

Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
9
Location
USA
Hello all. My first message in this forum, although I used the forum for information before.

I modded my diesel truck to have a different oil filtering system. I am currently using BT8851-MPG filter. When I searched, I saw another filter, BT8850-MPG, has the same diameter, same thread size. It also has "enough" gallon per minutes (20 gph) - this info is from my memory, I can't find the source for this. It has a little better micron rating I think (5 micron vs 8-10 micron).

From the document, it says not a replacement of each other. But I don't know exactly why.

Here's the info I found:


BT8850-MPG
Maximum Performance Glass Hydraulic Spin-on
Notes: Rated 1000 PSI minimum burst.
NOT interchangeable with BT8851-MPG.
Can be used with OB8711, OB8712, OB8720, OB8721, OB8722, OB8724, OB8726, OB8731, OB8732, OB8740, OB8741, OB8742, OB8743, OB8744, OB8745, OB8746 filter bases.
Fits: Case, Case-International, Caterpillar, Daewoo, Fiat-Allis, John Deere, Kawasaki, New Holland, Steiger, Thomas EquipmentReplaces: Case D94236; Caterpillar 9T5916; Fiat 73144499; John Deere RE34958

Thread: 1 3/8 -12
O.D.: 3 3/4 (95.3)
Height: 9 17/32 (242.1)
I.Gskt: [1] Included

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

BT8851-MPG
Maximum Performance Glass Hydraulic Spin-on
Notes: Rated 1000 PSI minimum burst.
NOT interchangeable with BT8850-MPG.
Can be used with OB8711, OB8712, OB8720, OB8721, OB8722, OB8724, OB8726, OB8731, OB8732, OB8740, OB8741, OB8742, OB8743, OB8744, OB8745, OB8746 filter bases.Fits: Agco, Caterpillar, Cedarapids, Ford, Gehl, John Deere, New Holland, Vermeer, V.M.E., Volvo EquipmentReplaces: Agco 303506819; Caterpillar 1G8878; Cedarapids 451750014101; John Deere RE47313; New Holland 89821387; Vermeer 73113001; V.M.E. 110366077

Thread: 1 3/8 -12
O.D.: 3 3/4 (95.3)
Height: 9 19/32 (243.7)
I.Gskt: [1] Included

What would you say why they can't be interchanged?
 
Why would you use a hydraulic filter for engine oil? A hydraulic filter doesn't have to be able to filter soot, carbon and other combustion contamination and keep pressure on the bearings in an engine. A 5 micron filter would probably be plugged and in bypass mode in less than an hour thus same as no filter. What micron rating is no filter?
 
I agree, use a quality full flow engine oil filter and if you want better filtration add a bypass filter setup.

Leave the hydraulic oil filters to filter the hydraulic fluid on a bulldozer or similar.
 
I used the filter based on some other's similar effort. The micron rating, is based on my assumption that it's working that way to remove contaminants and also provide the rated gallons per minute. These filters have a "number of grams" of particles rating before become un-usable. Meaning it would remove the particles at the rated number of "mass" before become un-usable.

On the soot, and smoke, I suppose the filter can't distinguish them, other the particle size. So smaller is better, as soon as it can handle the gallons per minute.
Now, I don't know if it can handle the gallons per minutes and got plugged up like you said.

But what good a filter is, if it says it can filter down to 5 microns, and then got plugged up at 5 microns?

I do have a bypass filter set up running in parallel (but output somewhere else).
 
An absolute micron rating is interesting but not especially useful. Most all filters will filter out small particle sizes but at what efficiency? As I've pointed out here before, my window screen, by socks and my underwear will all filter out down to better than 1 micron - but would they make a good oil filter?
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
An absolute micron rating is interesting but not especially useful. Most all filters will filter out small particle sizes but at what efficiency? As I've pointed out here before, my window screen, by socks and my underwear will all filter out down to better than 1 micron - but would they make a good oil filter?

Yes, you're right. I think 5 micron or 10 (some places say 7, some say 12) for the other one, rating is for 90% or 95%. However, it would be good to find that out also. At what pressure difference it operates on, at what efficiency and what gallons per minutes it's doing the job.
I read that some of the special feature of these filters is that it's made of glass fiber vs paper media. Somehow due to that, they don't easily plugged up.


These information are hard to come by.

An example would be the following, missing important pieces of information:

https://ph.baldwinfilters.com/baldw...ure-hydraulic-spin-on-filters/bt8851-mpg

Ok, I got lucky and got a good break here. I found the beta ratio rating:

https://www.hydrafil.com/products/baldwin-bt8851-mpg

Micron Rating & Beta Ratio β12[c] = 1000

Which is 99.9% efficient at removing 12 micron.


For the Bt8850-mpg, the micron rating is at 22:

https://ph.parker.com/us/en/baldwin-medium-pressure-hydraulic-spin-on-filters/bt8850-mpg

Even more lucky break. Somehow I found alot today:

https://www.jupojostechnika.eu/pdf/Filtrai/Pure_Performance_hidrauliniu_filtru.pdf

for the BT8850-mpg, at 20 micron, the efficiency is at 99.38%. 10 micron, it's at 91.13%

No wonder why the BT8851 costs more. They're both very good though, and probably much better than OEM. But cost also more than double.

The BT8850-mpg is tested at 20 GPM at 25 PSID terminated pressure.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 4fordsd
I do have a bypass filter set up running in parallel (but output somewhere else).


Just find a high efficiency filter made for that engine if you're already running a bypass filter setup. No use trying to use hydraulic oil filters in an application they are not specifically designed for.

What are you looking at in terms of the filter bypass valve setting when trying to find a hydraulic filter to use on your engine?
 
I found another gem here. It shows a graph of the pressure drop vs gallon per minutes:

https://www.jupojostechnika.eu/pdf/Filtrai/Pure_Force_techniniu-charakteristiku.pdf

For both filters. It says the flow range to is: 35 gpm.

I don't know how to read the chart though. The BT8851-mpg has a larger pressure drop curve. Does that means for a same GPM, it can handle better pressure drop (meaning when it got more "plugged" up, it still can handle the gpm, or does it mean reverse, that for a same GPM, it would cause the pressure to drop down more, given both are brand new.

The second interpretation appears to be correct. If so, the BT8850 may be a better use, since it's a bit cheaper, but flow better, and at the cost of very little drop in efficiency, which is probably way more than the OEM filter.

Ok, I found the OEM filter efficiency at 95% for 20 micron:

https://www.powerstrokediesel.com/docs/DieselFilterOilReferenceSheet.pdf
 
Last edited:
If you're going to try and use a filter designed for hydraulic oil use, I'd be contacting the filter company tech line/engineers and ask them their thoughts on using thise filters on a diesel engine.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by 4fordsd
I do have a bypass filter set up running in parallel (but output somewhere else).

What are you looking at in terms of the filter bypass valve setting when trying to find a hydraulic filter to use on your engine?

The bypass pressure for the head unit I use is 25 PSI.
 
Last edited:
Based on you advise and updated info, I may go with the bt8850-mpg for a bit less efficiency, but better flow.

Also, the bt8850-mpg cross references to P164384 Donaldson, which is used in Duramax, and has pretty decent efficiency:

Efficiency Beta 1000: 23 Micron
Efficiency Beta 2: Micron 10
Efficiency Beta 20: Micron 17
Efficiency Beta 75 (98.7%): Micron 22

The issue with using the OEM filter, is that the Motorcraft filter is a tube without shell. So I have to make a lot of adjustment to the current system. Either build a shell/housing myself, swap to remote connection, but have to somehow fabricate the ports for the hose I use, or else. Just a lot of work.

Probably going with similar quality would work, but it costs way less though.
 
Last edited:
I think the filters you posted about would be great for an auxiliary transmission filter but hydraulic oil is nowhere near the viscosity of engine oil. 5 microns would make a good fuel filter. I agree, check with the manufacturer.
 
yes, the Duramax naming appears to be for the filter, not for the vehicle.
Not sure if the manufacturer would be willing to even discuss with me on things like this.
 
Originally Posted by OLEJOE
I think the filters you posted about would be great for an auxiliary transmission filter but hydraulic oil is nowhere near the viscosity of engine oil. 5 microns would make a good fuel filter. I agree, check with the manufacturer.


You had a great point about viscosity, so I looked it up.

The chart above, was tested at CST of 32. For an oil used my truck, Rotella 5w-40, it looks like this:

Viscosity @ 100ºC, cSt, (ASTM D445) 12.5 to Viscosity @ 40ºC, cSt, ASTM D445 86.94

100 degree C is a little above the operating temperature. However, it also means it's not too far off from 32 CST at operating temperature (about 195 degree F or about 90.55 degree C).
 
You don't want too fine of filtration on engine oil. Efficient sub-10-micron filtration can start to strip out additive compounds in engine oil. Those additives are there for reason. The "bearing killer" particles are typically isolated to 20um and larger. That's why so many brands advertise their efficiency at 20um or 30um. Also, filters that are that tight (efficient) may not have much dirt capacity or tolerance for high viscosity, meaning they'll plug up quick and will be very restrictive in cold temps.

Typical viscosity of non-industrial gas engine oil is ~10 centistokes (when at running temp).
 
Originally Posted by 4fordsd
Hello all. My first message in this forum, although I used the forum for information before.

I modded my diesel truck to have a different oil filtering system. I am currently using BT8851-MPG filter. When I searched, I saw another filter, BT8850-MPG, has the same diameter, same thread size. It also has "enough" gallon per minutes (20 gph) - this info is from my memory, I can't find the source for this. It has a little better micron rating I think (5 micron vs 8-10 micron).

From the document, it says not a replacement of each other. But I don't know exactly why.

Here's the info I found:


BT8850-MPG
Maximum Performance Glass Hydraulic Spin-on
Notes: Rated 1000 PSI minimum burst.
NOT interchangeable with BT8851-MPG.
Can be used with OB8711, OB8712, OB8720, OB8721, OB8722, OB8724, OB8726, OB8731, OB8732, OB8740, OB8741, OB8742, OB8743, OB8744, OB8745, OB8746 filter bases.
Fits: Case, Case-International, Caterpillar, Daewoo, Fiat-Allis, John Deere, Kawasaki, New Holland, Steiger, Thomas EquipmentReplaces: Case D94236; Caterpillar 9T5916; Fiat 73144499; John Deere RE34958

Thread: 1 3/8 -12
O.D.: 3 3/4 (95.3)
Height: 9 17/32 (242.1)
I.Gskt: [1] Included

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

BT8851-MPG
Maximum Performance Glass Hydraulic Spin-on
Notes: Rated 1000 PSI minimum burst.
NOT interchangeable with BT8850-MPG.
Can be used with OB8711, OB8712, OB8720, OB8721, OB8722, OB8724, OB8726, OB8731, OB8732, OB8740, OB8741, OB8742, OB8743, OB8744, OB8745, OB8746 filter bases.Fits: Agco, Caterpillar, Cedarapids, Ford, Gehl, John Deere, New Holland, Vermeer, V.M.E., Volvo EquipmentReplaces: Agco 303506819; Caterpillar 1G8878; Cedarapids 451750014101; John Deere RE47313; New Holland 89821387; Vermeer 73113001; V.M.E. 110366077

Thread: 1 3/8 -12
O.D.: 3 3/4 (95.3)
Height: 9 19/32 (243.7)
I.Gskt: [1] Included

What would you say why they can't be interchanged?



You say gals per min but in quotes gph. Is that a typo or is this 1/3 gpm?
Absolute rating is 100% as I understand the word. The efficiency is 100%.
I don't believe filtration removes oil additives, if that's true bypass filters need to close shop. Molecules in solution are not filtered out by any oil filter.
 
Originally Posted by 4fordsd
I found another gem here. It shows a graph of the pressure drop vs gallon per minutes:

https://www.jupojostechnika.eu/pdf/Filtrai/Pure_Force_techniniu-charakteristiku.pdf

For both filters. It says the flow range to is: 35 gpm.

I don't know how to read the chart though. The BT8851-mpg has a larger pressure drop curve. Does that means for a same GPM, it can handle better pressure drop (meaning when it got more "plugged" up, it still can handle the gpm, or does it mean reverse, that for a same GPM, it would cause the pressure to drop down more, given both are brand new.

The second interpretation appears to be correct. If so, the BT8850 may be a better use, since it's a bit cheaper, but flow better, and at the cost of very little drop in efficiency, which is probably way more than the OEM filter.


All those filters have essentially the same flow vs delta-p curves except the two outliers being BT8853-MPG and BT8855-MPG.

The lower the curve on the graph, the more free flowing the filter is. Can't really deduce exactly what those filters will do as they load up, but one could logically assume that the filters that are lower on the curve will also have the lower delta-p with the same level of debris loading.

Your engine's oil pump probably doesn't put out more than 10 GPM of oil volume anyway at redline.

[Linked Image]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top