Ralph Motorguard flow rates

[oilforfun]

Hi,
According to Ralphs website, the flow rate for the Motorguard is as follows.....
"With standard tissue roll, 30 wt oil, 160 degree F, 50 psig Motor Guard will filter two quarts per minute"

In post I have read that by using a sandwich adaptor the flow will less and it will goe thru at its own rate. That this would allow for more complete filtration.

Is anyone aware of what the flow rates will be while using a sandwich adaptor?
Thanks,
Oilforfun

 

[Gary Allan]

It's almost impossible to calculate. There's no easy way to measure it. I don't even think you can say that the flow will be proportional to total flow. The poppet will be reactive ..modulating within its bore to maintain the 2psi differential.

I guess if you put a valve in the feed line on a normal bypass and regulated the 50 psi (or whatever it is on that vehicle) to 2psi on the engine side of the tp filter ..then you would get the flow of oil through it at that temperature.

But that may not be correct either. Sure 2psi is 2psi ..but you've got a reactive component in the poppet valve. It will modulate open or closed depending on the flow ..yet still maintain (in most instances) 2psi. If it was a fixed restriction (and not an reactive/regulated orifice like it is) you would have an almost directly proportional flow. XX amount of passed flow ..xx amount of bypass filter flow.

Tough one

Maybe one of the wizards will chime in here

 

[oilforfun]

Hi,
Okay I will try and make it easier. Assume that you are driving on the highway at a constant speed. Say 55 mph. Your oil temp is 160 F and your using 30wt oil. At 55mph your oil pressure maintains a constant psi of 50 as measured from the factory sending unit.

As you notice, the oil wt., oil temp, and psi are the same ones used on Ralphs website. This is so we can compare apples to apples.

Now using the aforementioned data, what will the flow rate be in comparasion to the non-sandwich adaptor installation (using a tee at the sending unit)?

Thank you for your help,
Oilforfun

 

[canadiantim]

I see a flow of approximately 2 quarts per minute through my Motorguard at 2800rpm (equivalent to approx 70mph - our speed limits are higher), with fully warmed up 5w30 synthetic. Very close to 50psi. I have a return line to my oil cap so I have caught and measured this flow.

This was through a 1/16 restrictor. I'm not stealing oil from the sending port but from a single port Frantz adapter which steals some oil pressure before the FF filter so would have a similar effect to drawing oil from the sending port (at least for this case of measuring the bypass filter flow). This is a different setup than the Permacool as the permacool returns the bypassed oil back to the FF stream.

I am thinking that since the 1/16 restrictor is required in a setup like mine or else the oil pressure can be dropped too drastically, that the MG is capable of flowing significantly more than 2 quarts per minute.

I personally think the flow would be a lot more through the Permacool setup than through the sender port setup though Ralph has always given the impression that with the Permacool, oil can go through the filter more slowly so maybe the poppet does operate in an extreme fashion and keep the pressure to the MG low. I would think the poppet would put maximum pressure on the MG but then the return is to a pressurized location so things are suddenly more complicated than they appear. I'm curious.

Hopefully Ralph will add some info.

 

[oilforfun]

Hi,
Thats what has me curious also, the fact that Ralph mentions that the permacool sandwich allows for slower (more complete) filtration.
If that is true, (slower more complete filtration) than it would be indicative of less flow. Which would mean that it should flow at less than Ralphs (as mentioned on his website)specs.

Of coarse when using the sandwich adaptor its recommended that you remove the orifice restrictor. Now that opens another can of worms.

1. What is the flow rate of the Ralph Motorgaurd using the permacool sandwhich adaptor and leaving the orifice restrictor in place? Any advantages to leaving it in place? Perhaps the flow would be to slow thru it, if left in place.

2. What is the flow rate of the Ralph Motorguard using the Permacool sandwich adaptor with the orifice restrictor removed?

3. Is there any difference between flow rates when using 1/4" ID hose as compared to 1/2" ID for connections to the Motorguard?

I have another quick question. The Ralph Motorguard comes with teflon tape installed on the input/output fittings, is it required to remove that and use sealant? I have heard by some that the fittings can and do leak with tape.
What has been your experiance with this?

Anyone with some knowledge on this one? It would be of great help.
Thanks,
Oilforfun

 

[oilforfun]

Hi,
Has anyone had oil testing done using the different methods mentioned above? Using the oil pressure sending unit with a tee and orifice restrictor intact, as opposed to removed. Than using a sandwich adaptor, with and without the restrictor.

The reason I ask is that logic would dictate that you would recieve better filtration from a slower flow thru the media. Which is why I am trying to establish the comparative flow rates. However, often logic takes a different path from reality in practical applications.

Does having a higher flow rate make for less effective filtering while using a Motorguard? If you say yes, please back it up with facts (oil test).
How do we know that by using higher pressure and flow rates thru the filter that we arent recieving better filtratration? After all, the time that the oil spends in the media shouldnt be that important
Larger objects will not fit thru a smaller hole. So if a particle passed thru the filter at 1 quart per minute or 10, it still cant fit thru a hole that it to small to allow it to pass.

That would mean that higher flow rates (within reason) would allow more effective filtering by virtue of a greater exposure of particles to the filter media allowed by increased flow rates.

The only way this can be proven or disproven is if someone used the same vehicle,the same oil and the same lab for tests. Thats easy enough using a daily driver that takes the same work route everyday.
I hope someone has done this and can help us by supplying there results.
An example to what I have stated above would be a big rig, driven on the highway.
It maintains a constant speed on the highway and a higher oil pressure than at idle. This higher pressure and flow would decrease the time that the oil has in the unit per pass. But would increase the total time spent in the filter, because of increase number of passes.
Now compare that to a big rig at idle. It has much less pressue and much less flow. Now which of the two provides cleaner oil?
Thats my point.
Thanks for the help on this,
Oilforfun

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

After all, the time that the oil spends in the media shouldnt be that important
Larger objects will not fit thru a smaller hole. So if a particle passed thru the filter at 1 quart per minute or 10, it still cant fit thru a hole that it to small to allow it to pass.

---

What you're not factoring is velocity. a 30um nominal filter will trap more 10um particles at a 3 gpm rate than it will at a 8gpm rate. That's the whole theory of the larger cotton ball type filters of yester year. Think of perculator old style drip coffee maker ...'cept instead of introducing something into the stream ..you're removing it. That's how a "sand mound" works ..except there you're "ground filtering". Lots of trickle type clarification/filtration things going on out there

That is, particles have momentum. Low velocity ..decreased ability for things in motion to stay in motion. So you may trap more submicronic particles with a slower flow. Since I don't have any statisitcs on tp subjected to any beta testing ..I can't quote any "facts" ..but these are accepted principles of filtration. The lower the velocity ..the higher the effiency.

 

[RalphPWood]

I have been communicating with a retired Boeng engineer that helped get Frantz and Motor Guard going. He is the guy that wrote the technical manual that I got the flow rate information from. I read some information from an expert on a North Carolina web site that said the larger the filter and the slower the flow rate the better the filtering. When Frantz came out with the two port sandwich adapters I thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. They didn't have a spring loaded relief valve. The faster the flow rate thru the adapter the bigger the pressure difference was between the inlet and the outlet of the filter. If you bought a Frantz with the adapter the filter didn't have the orifice. The same for the Frantz with the Frantz transmission adapter. I really don't think it matters if the orifice is in or out. One thing about the Perma-Cool adapter is the relief valve holds pressure on the filter at low flow rates on my lawn mower with a Kohler 20 HP engine. Anything you can do to lower the flow rate thru the filter will help the filtering. A pleated paper filter is pretty much useless at 10 quarts per minute. Reduce the flow rate to one quart one quart a minute and it will do better.
I just purchased a large Luberfiner filter off a large truck. When I pulled out the old element it was very heavy because of being saturated with oil. There are about three grades of elements for these large filters. That is probably a Grade A. I took an element out of a large Fleetguard that is a grade C. It is pleated paper. The grade A is by far the best but the customer has no clue. They all filter better than the stock full flow filter because they are orificed. When I get thru with them they will take a Scott element and will filter at the same rate as the Motor Guard. I can set them up to take nine rolls of TP and they will out filter the Motor Guard, Frantz, Amsoil, Oil Gard or anything on the market. Can I prove it? Yes. Do I need to prove it? No. It's basic stuff -- nine rolls of TP filtering at two quarts per minute. The Luberfiner will go on my Ford diesel pickup. There is a good place for it between the frame and the drive shaft. It will have a 1/16" orifice at the inlet. If I put the orifice at the outlet like the origional it will take all the oil from the oil pump until the filter gets full.I don't have the equipment to check the flow rate with a sandwich adapter. If I touch the filter and it is hot it is filtering fast enough. In cold weather it might take 20 miles for it to warm up.
I sent two filters up to the Edmonton Alberta area for use with Perma-Cool adapters. The guy was an experienced TP filter user and told me he needed a heater. At one time Frantz sold heaters for cold country. I told him he probably would be better off using the ATF model with the sandwich adapter because the extra flow thru the element bypass orifice would heat up the filter. The size of the hose doesn't matter unless you are using the ATF filter in series with an oil cooler then you need the same size hose as the cooler takes. The ATF model only works with ATF or motor oil when using a sandwich adapter. For large ATF lines like the new trucks it is better to use something like a Perma-Cool ATF filter with a sandwich adapter on the mount and two lines going to the Motor Guard, Frantz or other submicronic filter.
With teflon tape I wrap about two rounds around the brass and put a little lubricant on the teflon. That way the tape will go in with the fitting instead of bunching up. My reality is with dope I get leak complaints. With tape I don't. The threads are not as smooth as the brass. Also I run a tap into the ports to smooth them out. I took Motor Guards advice and used dope on a transmission installation on a new Dodge Cummins. The guy was headed to California from Dallas pulling a show car. Somewhere in west Texas he noticed ATF on his show car. The ATF had washed out the thread dope. He removed the fittings from the Perma-Cool remote mount and taped them. What if he hadn't noticed the leak? What if he wasn't mechanical enough to deal with the problem? Some times people will remove the fittings and dope them. Then they will keep tightening the fittings until they break the die cast aluminum. I have broken a few Frantz and Motor Guards thinking all I need is to turn the elbo another 1/4 turn after it is tight enough. I use a lot of teflon tape at work dealing with hydraulics. Teflon tape is hard to beat if it stays between the threads when tightening.

Ralph

 

[jamesn]

i cracked the case on a 50 year old boiler (cast aluminum) using the lastest greatest teflon pipe dope. water everywhere. DOH! i had to tell the owner that i just trashed his only source of heat on a -5 degree day. be careful of the new teflon pastes. that stuff is so slick that you can roll the threads right out of what you are working on.