Toilet paper bypass filter

[kschachn]

I Googled the GCF 0-1 but I couldn't get a good hit. Does this use commercially constructed oil filters for the medium?

And you use a TP roll for coolant? Wow, I was beginning to think you are getting away with it with oil since it is not water. Toilet paper is designed to break down in water and it's OK with coolant? Hot coolant no less.

Originally Posted By: AlaskaMike
To clarify in the context of this thread, I'm not using a Frantz--I've got a GCF O-1 installed on my truck. I do have a Motorguard using TP elements, but that's for coolant.

 

[Doug Hillary]

Hi,
Jim - Based on my own HD diesel vehicles, the following averages may interest you:

OCI = 90kkms (56k miles)
Contaminant uptake per km = 0.0025grm (225grm @ 90kkms)
Soot = 3%
Fe = 97ppm
Lead = 29
Silicate = 28ppm
Cop = 9ppm
Cr = 8ppm
Al = 2ppm

Supplementary filters of the correct type can of course be very cost effective on highly utilised vehicles at extended OCIs

 

[AlaskaMike]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
I Googled the GCF 0-1 but I couldn't get a good hit. Does this use commercially constructed oil filters for the medium?


Nope, it uses paper towel rolls--sort of like a bigger version of the Frantz or Motorguard. GCF = Gulf Coast Filters. They used to have a pretty decent site, but I haven't checked it in a couple years.

Originally Posted By: kschachn

And you use a TP roll for coolant? Wow, I was beginning to think you are getting away with it with oil since it is not water. Toilet paper is designed to break down in water and it's OK with coolant? Hot coolant no less.


Right, but the key is that the roll is compressed in the housing, coupled with the low pressure/flow inherent in bypass systems. I've only changed elements in the Motorguard twice, the first after just a couple months, and the next after 1 year (trying to determine a good change interval). Both looked like nothing more than a TP roll soaked in coolant--granted, they looked nasty because of all the gunk they caught, but the paper remained intact. Strangely that first one I changed was by far the worst even though it was only in for about a quarter of the time vs. the second one. I'll be changing the next one after three years, which will be about a year and a half from now.

For the paper towel elements in the GCF O-1, they recommend 10k mile intervals, but that's in big OTR or marine applications. Because it's hugely overkill for a small truck like mine, I'm probably looking at doubling that at least. Depends on my analysis results, and I'm expecting that the TBN will govern my change intervals vs. the time it takes for the filter to load up.

Mike

 

[Clevy]

I completely agree that a toilet paper roll cannot be tested to be repeatable when there are so many different brands available.
Now if there was a roll engineered and a number attributed to it,and a minimum standard repeatably achieved then that would go a long way to having the system gain some integrity and clout.
I do know an older gent who has been using the same one on every cummins/dodge he's ever owned since the first one was built.
He claims the dense,single ply work the best based on his uoa using different brands.
The type used in public restrooms shows the lowest percentage of insols.
So he's got 20 years on the exact same hardware which one could call great return on investment.
He trades in at 500000 miles,and includes every uoa from every sampling and oil change that was ever performed.
His experience and data over 2 decades is enough for me to see the value in the system however there will always be those who "require" a certified element.
Just like there are guys who insist on only using oil that has the API or other governing bodies actual approval and not just "meets or exceeds".
And I completely understand why they feel that way.
I'm a bit more of a risk taker so I will bite the bullet on occasion.

 

[kschachn]

For it to be a "great return on investment" you would have to show that the performance (actually the increase in performance) exceeds the cost of the equipment including incremental operating costs. The evidence you have given does not show that. Im not being an a$$ here, I just mean it's a long hill to climb. How do you show that any absence of wear was attributed to the bypass system, and how do you quantify that?

For example, on my Sienna which is nearing 300,000 miles it consumes about a half to 3/4 quart in my typical OCI, which is pretty much what it has done since new. My ECHO uses almost no oil in a much longer OCI (using 5w30). So I have a hard time believing that if I had a bypass system I would have had better results, and so much better that it became a "great return on investment". This is my personal experience of course, on gasoline engines used in a typical personal environment. I have no experience with other types of engines used in situations other than my own.

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I completely agree that a toilet paper roll cannot be tested to be repeatable when there are so many different brands available.
Now if there was a roll engineered and a number attributed to it,and a minimum standard repeatably achieved then that would go a long way to having the system gain some integrity and clout.
I do know an older gent who has been using the same one on every cummins/dodge he's ever owned since the first one was built.
He claims the dense,single ply work the best based on his uoa using different brands.
The type used in public restrooms shows the lowest percentage of insols.
So he's got 20 years on the exact same hardware which one could call great return on investment.
He trades in at 500000 miles,and includes every uoa from every sampling and oil change that was ever performed.
His experience and data over 2 decades is enough for me to see the value in the system however there will always be those who "require" a certified element.
Just like there are guys who insist on only using oil that has the API or other governing bodies actual approval and not just "meets or exceeds".
And I completely understand why they feel that way.
I'm a bit more of a risk taker so I will bite the bullet on occasion.

 

[kschachn]

You mean like a commercially available oil filtering element such as those that Champ Labs or Honeywell sell?

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Now if there was a roll engineered and a number attributed to it,and a minimum standard repeatably achieved then that would go a long way to having the system gain some integrity and clout.

 

[dnewton3]

Ironically, what would make for a pleasing experience with TP in the "personal" use market makes it undesirable for use in the filter world. (Soft, fragrant, etc). The better media for TP filters is actually the single ply, tightly wrapped "el cheapo" type.

To really judge how good or bad it would be, you'd have to run a whole slew of repeatable trials. That's difficult on a product that is essentially targeted towards the bottom end (pardon the pun) of the market.


Here's what I believe ...
TP filters work well. But it's difficult to quantify how well, and even more difficult to "rank" them against their alternatives (engineering media bypass filters). TP will certainly "clean" the oil to a finer state. And if you can locate a consistent source of well-fitting TP, the ROI is in the cheap source costs, but you will be FCI'ing more often with TP. What you gain with a TP filter is very economical media and easy sourcing. What you loose is control of the variance in how well it cleans. But to be sure, fluid will be significantly cleaner coming out of a TP filter than when it went in.


As for the efficiency of the bypass filter market in general, I really don't care. Some claim sub-micron effectiveness, and I doubt that. But it's moot because anything smaller than 3um is of no consequence to the typical engine or transmission. And just about ANY bypass filter media is VERY effective from 3um on up. I have always said when it comes to bypass filters, pick the one that is the cheapest to buy and maintain, because any of them will work well more than good enough to extend the OCI much, much further.

 

[kschachn]

So wear reduction is not an objective for a bypass system? It's OCI extension? Do you typically replace the bypass filter medium within the OCI? If so, then isn't the makeup oil your biggest factor in OCI extension? Why not just drain out a quart and add a new one then?

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I have always said when it comes to bypass filters, pick the one that is the cheapest to buy and maintain, because any of them will work well more than good enough to extend the OCI much, much further.

 

[dnewton3]

Yes - bypass filters (and syn fluids) are tools to extend an OCI. Wear control is a function of clean fluids and the tribochemical barrier. The state of being "clean" can be achieved by either filtering out or flushing out contaminants; two means to the same end. And so, maintaining a healthy sump is what holds wear down; clean fluids along with the very important boudary layer of oxidized lube.


It is time to replace a bypass element when it no longer is effective, just as with any filter. That can be judged by many means, including PCs, used oil analysis and (old school) by placing one's hand on the filter to see if it's cool when the engine is warmed, indicating that the flow is so slow from blocked media that the filter does not warm up.

Yes, makeup lube counts into the equation. If you are SERIOUS about lube maintenance programs, then you take ALl costs into account. The ROI is king here and all are subject to it's scrutiny. So it becomes a task to see where that point of ROI is, and if you can beat it.

Frankly, on small sump systems (anything measured in quarts and not gallons), it's almost improbable to ever meet the ROI; it just cannot pay for itself when all true costs are counted.