Thought I should report something from the Society of Automotive Engineers technical papers on bypass filters.From SAE #710813 we get an increase in lifepan for the following components switching from a 60 Micron FF to a 60 Micron FF with a 3 Micron bypass: Top ring +900%, second ring +562%, oil ring +422%, rod bearing +300%, main bearing +261%. This was from a Cummins motor test, not a filter manufacturer.From SAE # 930996 we get a test comapring a 40 micron FF to a FF with submicronic bypass (centrifugal):top ring +792%, second ring +1000%, oil ring +229%, connecting rod bearing +750%, exhaust valve components +282%, piston pin +1000%, turbo bearing +1000%.This was from Glacier, a filter manufacturer.According to SAE 2001-01-0867 we can expect an absolute 2 micron bypass filter to remove several orders of magnitude of transmission fluid contaminants compared to a conventional automatic transmission.If I read the charts right this implies a 300% improvement in the lifespan of the transmission. There are about 20 papers relating to filtration efficiency in engines. One of the most important was done in 1946. This paper showed that full flow filtration cut engine component wear in half compared to the bypass only filtration that was common at the time. They should have kept the bypass when they went to full flow!Several other papers stressed that filtering below the 5 micron level , and even into the submicronic level resulted in large improvements in the lifespan of most engine components including the timing chain, and seals.
SAE On Bypass Filtration
- Thread starter carock
- Start date
- Status
Excellent information carock, I truly believe that partial bypass filteration is the ticket to long engine and drivetrain life. Filter manufactures are even toying with a fullflow and bypass in one filter housing.
Bypass endorsers and manufactures as well as countless users are very happy with the results. Submicron level bypass filters now remove soot and particles so small they can be considered the size of bacteria.
When I check my engine oil dipsticks on various rides I own, the oil on the bypass installed engines just looks and feels better! Great information.
Bypass endorsers and manufactures as well as countless users are very happy with the results. Submicron level bypass filters now remove soot and particles so small they can be considered the size of bacteria.
When I check my engine oil dipsticks on various rides I own, the oil on the bypass installed engines just looks and feels better! Great information.
carock, thanks for that.
When I was in University, which had all of the SAE papers,they had a paper on pre-lubing engines which showed a general halving of wear by pressurising the system before starting.
Add the two technologies, and manufacturers would have to start selling engineless shells to put the partially worn engines into.
When I was in University, which had all of the SAE papers,they had a paper on pre-lubing engines which showed a general halving of wear by pressurising the system before starting.
Add the two technologies, and manufacturers would have to start selling engineless shells to put the partially worn engines into.
I PUT A Motor Guard submicronic bypass filter on a 1966 Beetle that came new with no filter. The first change had about 1/2 teaspoon of metal particles in it. As the filter kept reducing the wear I found less metal in the filter until I almost could find none. I wonder how many millions VW saved by not putting a filter on the cars. The old engines were loaded with large chunks of carbon and metal particles. Modern engines have very little in the oil large enough to be filtered out by the full flow filters The bypass filter is a lot more important than the full flow filter in a modern engine unless you are racing. I have been using submicronic bypass filters for over 40 years. They are pretty impressive in modern engines. They were even more impressive in the old days when the oil got very dirty looking in a short time. The submicronic bypass filters would turn the oil clear in a very short time.
My new 64 Rambler American L head had a bypass filter only. It was a pleated paper filter. The oil would turn black in a short time. I was using Delo 100 30 weight. I tossed the junk pleated paper filter and installed a Frantz oil cleaner. The oil never turned black again. I didn't find out about the Motor Guard until 1966. I have a big Cummins Fleetguard LF-750 that I converted to take a submicronic element. It's an awesome filter for a diesel engine.
Ralph
My new 64 Rambler American L head had a bypass filter only. It was a pleated paper filter. The oil would turn black in a short time. I was using Delo 100 30 weight. I tossed the junk pleated paper filter and installed a Frantz oil cleaner. The oil never turned black again. I didn't find out about the Motor Guard until 1966. I have a big Cummins Fleetguard LF-750 that I converted to take a submicronic element. It's an awesome filter for a diesel engine.
Ralph
Ralph;
What kind of filter media do the standard 750 filters use from Fleetguard? I know you put the towel rolls in them.
What kind of filter media do the standard 750 filters use from Fleetguard? I know you put the towel rolls in them.
Regular paper towels don't have the filtering ability of the Scott toilet paper but they have the size advantage of a big filter. Two rolls of Scott center pull towels have the filtering ability of TP and the size advantage of about three or more rolls of Bounty big roll paper towels. I have seen several types of elements for the big 750 Fleetguards and Luberfiners. The best stock elements I have seen these days is the chopped up newspaper elements. That is the LF-750 A element. You can get pleated paper elements but that doesn't help much.The chopped newspaper elements have a built in secondary filter to catch any loose paper fibers. I screw a sintered bronze filter into the outlet. On a couple of Cat 750 HP marine engines I put 25 micron hydraulic filters in the outlet. On the old Ford diesel I used a Perma-Cool remote filter adapter then put the 750 in line before a Perma-Cool remote filter mount for a Ford. Normally a large filter will clean better than a small filter if the element is of the same depth. I started out by using two rolls of Kleenex Viva and three rolls of Scott TP but the Center pull towels have a lot more paper and save a lot of winding.
My SAE 710813 test results doesn't jive with Carock results. 64% longer life for the lower main bearing shell for example. That's good but not anywhere like 260%.
Ralph
My SAE 710813 test results doesn't jive with Carock results. 64% longer life for the lower main bearing shell for example. That's good but not anywhere like 260%.
Ralph
carock, I don't have access to SAE papers, but I have some questions. First, about the Cummins engine test paper. It seems overwhelmingly probable to me that this was a diesel engine test. Is there data in it or in other SAE papers that would give one the ability to correlate the diesel engine wear data to gasoline engines? The data you present is interesting but definitely not applicable to my use (gasoline engines) unless there is some proven way to correlate it.
Second, was the filter manufacturer's test also on a diesel engine?
Are there papers of this sort that are specific to gasoline engines?
Second, was the filter manufacturer's test also on a diesel engine?
Are there papers of this sort that are specific to gasoline engines?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Luberfiner's large filter (I think it's the same thing) uses cellulous that has an appearance not unlike "rock wool" insulation. Kinda like grey shredded cardboard ..but thicker. It's variable in size and shape. Crunch and Munch cellulous.
Most bypass filter tests performed since 1936 have been on diesel engines. My best guess as to why? Because the Army only uses diesel engines and they pay for these tests, and they often let the information be released to the public. Manufacturers don't publish nearly as much if the money comes from their own pocket. Gasoline engines will behave like diesel enines with respect to filtration, but the thermal/mechanical loads are different.I cannot find formal tests that correlate diesel wear to spark ignition wear, that does not mean that I am not aware of what the correlation is, as are a few other "engine" engineers.In a gasoline engine, the bearing wear is not as big a problem as in a diesel. Some gasoline manufacturers have real trouble with the piston ring land gaps leading to engine failure, some do not. Sometimes valve seat issues lead to failure, some other engines never see real valve seat wear.Ring land gaps and valve seat wear are the big unknowns when you have great filtration in a spark ignition engine. Other than that, the lapping/grinding that occurs from oil contamination is the same for both. Absolute scientific double blind comparison tests? I don't think anybody cares enough.
Ralph,
In regards to SAE 710813:
"However, the 60 micron ful flow filter, in combination with the bypass filter reduced.. the lower main bearing shell wear rate to 37% of the wear obtained with the 60 micron full flow filter alone."
A wear rate reduction to 37% is a 260% increase in service life. Give yourself some credit Ralph, bypass filters really work.
For Blwnkl I say that the comparison between diesel and gasoline engines is best shown with cars that share two different power units, a gas engine and a diesel engine. This is as fair a comparison as possible. Both engines tend to fail for similar reasons, the exceptions noted in the previous post which should be engineered out. FOr instance, GM made some diesels that failed in the bearing area, Fiat made gas engines that failed in the piston ring land gap. These are design flaws. Taking into account the design differences that need to be there,diesel and gasoline engines fail for similar reasons at similar mileages. This is proven by the cars using both power plants.
In regards to SAE 710813:
"However, the 60 micron ful flow filter, in combination with the bypass filter reduced.. the lower main bearing shell wear rate to 37% of the wear obtained with the 60 micron full flow filter alone."
A wear rate reduction to 37% is a 260% increase in service life. Give yourself some credit Ralph, bypass filters really work.
For Blwnkl I say that the comparison between diesel and gasoline engines is best shown with cars that share two different power units, a gas engine and a diesel engine. This is as fair a comparison as possible. Both engines tend to fail for similar reasons, the exceptions noted in the previous post which should be engineered out. FOr instance, GM made some diesels that failed in the bearing area, Fiat made gas engines that failed in the piston ring land gap. These are design flaws. Taking into account the design differences that need to be there,diesel and gasoline engines fail for similar reasons at similar mileages. This is proven by the cars using both power plants.
Thank you for the replies, carock. One of my concerns is soot loading. There is a big focus on soot loading in diesel engine applications of all types. Nowhere that I have seen is there any discussion at all of soot loading in gasoline engines. I often find myself supposing this to be a result of the fact that gasoline engines don't generate anywhere near the amounts of soot that diesels do. I have supposed that to be a result of the fact that diesel engines can and do run under massively wider mixture ranges than gasoline engines can or do. Bypass or 'micronic' filtration therefore can be extremely beneficial to the longevity of a diesel engine because it can remove some/most/all(???) of the soot that becomes suspended in the oil. Since/if soot loading is apparently not a significant issue in gasoline engines when compared with diesel engines, using filtration techniques that would reduce wear through removal of soot in diesel engines would not appear to have significant benefit in a gasoline engine. That is the reason for my inquiry along that line.
As far as similar vehicles with both gasoline and diesel engines available, my most direct, relevant experience is with light- and medium-duty trucks under extremely heavy farm use. In that experience, diesel engines outlast gasoline ones over 3 to 1. That said, in my opinion the two engine types are often not truly built from scratch with the exact same duty/usage in mind. To me this casts such comparisons into serious doubt as to their validity. Again, that's why I asked what I did above.
[ May 05, 2006, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: bulwnkl ]
As far as similar vehicles with both gasoline and diesel engines available, my most direct, relevant experience is with light- and medium-duty trucks under extremely heavy farm use. In that experience, diesel engines outlast gasoline ones over 3 to 1. That said, in my opinion the two engine types are often not truly built from scratch with the exact same duty/usage in mind. To me this casts such comparisons into serious doubt as to their validity. Again, that's why I asked what I did above.
[ May 05, 2006, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: bulwnkl ]
There's some slight mis-information going on in this thread.
Fleetguard 750 style elements contain more than Cellulose.
Considering I sold Luberfiner filters for years and actually worked the production line for the 750 style elements when a rookie. ( Luberfiner are the ones who invented the 750) let me explain what actually is inside a luberfiner 750 element.
It is a blend of shredded newspaper, wood chips, and 5 % of recycled media, also shredded, from the oil filter production lines. And not just any woodchip will do. I'm not mentioning the actual wood used..
Companies like Fleetguard and Baldwin dispense the media into the element and pack it down, add more, pack it again..then add the top endcap.
This leads to channeling between the media as the media is not packed tight enough.
Luberfiner uses an auger to pack the media into the element. This creates a tighter pack of media and a better "micron" rating.
There are two elements; the Fleetpack part number 3845 and Imperial part number 2122. The difference is the amount of media packed into the element. The 2122 weights 1 more pound than the 3845 and has a better micron rating.
When I was at Champ, we sold the units to Mercedes in Germany for their trucks. Mercedes tested various elements and refused to sell the shredded media/woodchip type within Germany claiming they had told everyone paper media was the best filtration and they could not sell the shredded kind. Even though their own testing proved the 3845 was better than the paper element they were selling as a premium filter. The 2122 out performs the 3845. So mercedes promoted the Luberfiner elements outside Germany but not within.
Luberfiner 750-2C are ( were when i was there) used by Caterpiller on all stationary engines in China. 2c is a double size housing.
I have never seen testing of paper towel media with better filtration than the mixed media used by Fleetguard, Baldwin and Luberfiner. And water, condensation, or coolant in oil will effect paper towel media negatively.
Luberfiner also build elements with microcell particles, clay, molecular sieves, etc. These are used in hydraulic and other specialty fluid filtration. I would not recommend using these elements for oil filtration unless you want the additive package taken out of your oil.
Fleetguard 750 style elements contain more than Cellulose.
Considering I sold Luberfiner filters for years and actually worked the production line for the 750 style elements when a rookie. ( Luberfiner are the ones who invented the 750) let me explain what actually is inside a luberfiner 750 element.
It is a blend of shredded newspaper, wood chips, and 5 % of recycled media, also shredded, from the oil filter production lines. And not just any woodchip will do. I'm not mentioning the actual wood used..
Companies like Fleetguard and Baldwin dispense the media into the element and pack it down, add more, pack it again..then add the top endcap.
This leads to channeling between the media as the media is not packed tight enough.
Luberfiner uses an auger to pack the media into the element. This creates a tighter pack of media and a better "micron" rating.
There are two elements; the Fleetpack part number 3845 and Imperial part number 2122. The difference is the amount of media packed into the element. The 2122 weights 1 more pound than the 3845 and has a better micron rating.
When I was at Champ, we sold the units to Mercedes in Germany for their trucks. Mercedes tested various elements and refused to sell the shredded media/woodchip type within Germany claiming they had told everyone paper media was the best filtration and they could not sell the shredded kind. Even though their own testing proved the 3845 was better than the paper element they were selling as a premium filter. The 2122 out performs the 3845. So mercedes promoted the Luberfiner elements outside Germany but not within.
Luberfiner 750-2C are ( were when i was there) used by Caterpiller on all stationary engines in China. 2c is a double size housing.
I have never seen testing of paper towel media with better filtration than the mixed media used by Fleetguard, Baldwin and Luberfiner. And water, condensation, or coolant in oil will effect paper towel media negatively.
Luberfiner also build elements with microcell particles, clay, molecular sieves, etc. These are used in hydraulic and other specialty fluid filtration. I would not recommend using these elements for oil filtration unless you want the additive package taken out of your oil.
Here's a related Frantz thread from TDR that some readers might find helpful:
http://turbodieselregister.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98863
http://turbodieselregister.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98863
I have cut open Baldwin, Fleetguard and Wix elements to see what was inside. About 25 years ago I cut open a few that had cotton waste in them along with cotton seeds and cotton twigs. There are several grades of elements for the big filters. I prefer the Scott Center pull paper towels because it is the nearest to the quality of good old toilet paper. I don't claim to be an expert on chopped up newspaper and wood chip oil filters. It comes down to the fact that your oil still gets dirty and needs to be changed or to have a good filtration system. To me there are two kinds of filters. Those that clean oil and those that don't.
When I was a kid working in a full service gas station an old timer showed me his oil with a lot of miles on it. He pointed to his Frantz Oil Cleaner and told me, "Son install one of these and use Delo 100 oil. You won't need to drain the oil and your engine won't wear out." I learned very well. That was 1963. No I don't sell the Frantz Oil Cleaner now and I don't use Delo 100 now. But I do use a submicronic TP bypass oil filter.
Ralph
When I was a kid working in a full service gas station an old timer showed me his oil with a lot of miles on it. He pointed to his Frantz Oil Cleaner and told me, "Son install one of these and use Delo 100 oil. You won't need to drain the oil and your engine won't wear out." I learned very well. That was 1963. No I don't sell the Frantz Oil Cleaner now and I don't use Delo 100 now. But I do use a submicronic TP bypass oil filter.
Ralph
Hey Gary, most people can't see much of that TDR thread. A while back they changed it so non-members can't see post more than five days old. Too bad there's a lot of good discussion in that thread.
Okay; Diesel engine versus gasoline engine wear rates due to contaminate levels in the oil were tested by Techo Spa. whom I believe is Fiat R&D. Diesel and gasoline main bearings, rod bearings, and turbo bearings wear with the same mechanism. So reducing contaminates by a factor of roughly 10 (!) with a cotton string style of bypass filter reduces wear in both engine types roughly the same amount. Unfortunately, piston ring wear was not mentioned. I think turbo bearing wear was the main concern of the test. My girlfriend can google in Italian, you can try bablefish or google " filtrazione dell'olio lubrificante automobile diesel micron". Look for the author Franco Villani.
That result makes sense (wear mechanisms are the same in mains, rods, and turbo bearings). Thank you for that. I guess the real question is whether contaminant levels are the same for soot-type contaminants in diesel and gasoline engines. See my question(s) above regarding soot levels.
"
Sorry about that - I thought oters could see it just like I can - like you said, too bad...
- Status
Similar threads
