Trasko full flow / bypass filter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
159
Location
MI
OK I had a nice report, but I couldn't post the pictures. If anyone wants to post or host the pics I'll be glad to send them along. If anyone wants the word doc report with pics send me an email.

I have to say I was very skeptical as most probably still are about the Trasko. I would have never bought the unit based on their web information, but after seeing another user getting 30k+ on the oil, I figured it was worth a try. At first, I wanted a remote full flow system, but due to the lack of room and the effort to do so was more time than I had, I bought the Trasko for my Taurus dohc V6.

The Trasko web site isn’t all that convincing, mostly sales fluff. They need to explain more about the product and how it works. Now that I have one, taken it apart, and figured out how it works. I’ll show others what it really is. Below is an exploded view of the filter. The TP is 2.95”long, 2.95”OD, 1.5”ID


This unit uses a #60-mesh screen as a full flow filter. 60 mesh is equivalent to .0126”, which is about 320µm, in other words it’s a sieve. This screen is a little different than standard square weaved 60 mesh, it’s diagonally weaved, so all the holes are parallelograms. Using a microscope, I measured the holes to be .009” in its shortest direction and .014” in its longest direction. This is equivalent to 203µm x 355µm. So, that explains how they get the full flow that an engine needs. Below is a 100x view of the screen.


The heart of the unit is what I’ll call the check valve, because that’s really all it is. This check valve opens under a certain amount of oil pressure, judging by the light spring, I’m guessing it’s around 5-10 psi. This 5-10 psi delta is what forces some of the oil through the TP and allows the filtrate to flow back into the downstream side, since the downstream side has 5-10 psi less than the upstream side. Only 1-2 psi is needed to push hot oil though a filter like this.


The TP filter: Trasko claims it’s specially engineered filter paper, I’m not sure I believe it yet. Below is the Trasko sample under 100x and a sample from our men’s room TP roll.

Trasko @ 20x Trasko @ 100x

Single ply “cheap” TP

TP @ 20x TP @ 100x
OK this brand or type of TP is much more open than the Trasko TP. So maybe it is special stuff, still skeptical that I haven’t found the “right” brand of TP yet.

Someone posted that the TP fits loosely, but it doesn’t, it fits snug in the canister, nothing rattling in this filter. I would like the center tube tighter fitting along more of its length to insure no channeling. I can hear the skeptics now, especially RW, who as we know is very passionate about the full size TP filters. The only explanation that I can offer as to why they claim this TP last 10k miles is this: Wrapped depth filters will stop a specific size particle at specific depth within the filter. Large particles near the surface, smaller one’s deeper within the filter. Simple stuff right? The stop depth is directly proportional to the flow velocity and density of the media. Perhaps the flow velocity is even slower than the other full size TP filters, this would allow it to be more efficient for a longer time interval, and Trasko’s TP is more efficient. From the pic’s you can see it will have more dirt capacity than the TP I sampled.
An interesting experiment for Ralph W. or anyone else that has a full size TP filter would be to add an even smaller flow restrictor (say 30-50%) and watch and see if the filter last longer. Come on Ralph or others we’re all on a quest for continuous improvements here, what do you say?

Now back to the Trasko subject. The filter seems well made, there are several parts, and you couldn’t make this unit for less in the states. Some parts are cast, but all have had some machining operation performed to them, mostly threading. You’re getting your money’s worth on the housing but the $9 for filter elements is a racket. If this thing works and I don’t have to change my oil but every 30-40k then I’ll be satisfied. For now I’ll keep an open mind, try it, and report back.
 
I used a weight and the spring compressed around 2lbs. You want a gentle flow through the bypass filter! It still lacks a well sealed anti-drainback valve, meaning longer dry start for an engine (lot's of oil comes out of the filter on my minivan when I change it). After finishing my ARX cleaning I'm thinking the program may be: pop the Trasko on every 2K for a few days to clean up the oil (high end synthetic). Sorry for thinking out loud.
 
I have a Trasko bypass oil filter on my jeep. It does sure work very well. However I put limit as 5000 miles to change the TP filter instead not want go for 10,000 miles.

I am going move my Trasko bypass oil filter as Auto Transmission oil filter and buy a Motor Guard for the Motor Oil with larger TP roll.
 
Schultz raises some good points, although I'd like to clarify one of his comments.
quote:

Originally posted by Schultz: This unit uses a #60-mesh screen as a full flow filter. 60 mesh is equivalent to .0126”, which is about 320µm, in other words it’s a sieve.

Although I agree that it is a sieve, I don't think it is as bad as you state. When I did a Google search, I found that most 60-mesh screens filter to around 250 micron. Given that this is some pretty heavy wire mesh and wire diameter affects filter efficiency at a particular mesh size, I'd guess that the paricle size is probably less than 250 micron.

But I don't think it is anywhere near as good as Trasko's website claims: "Upon relief actuation the secondary efficiency is still between 8-10 microns. An efficiency rating still higher than any stock type full-flow filters." I can't see how they can make that claim.

Steverino's oil analysis (posted by me in the UOA Forum) seems to fit well with this filtration scenario. The oil stays in good shape because the moisture is removed, allowing the TBN to stay high. Also, the TP filter media filters out most of the particulates.

But the wear numbers are more in line with a good full-flow filter, not a conventional bypass filter. This suggests that some big particles are getting through the screen, causing some wear. And since the TP filter is trapping the larger wear particles, the UOA is only showing the amount of wear elements not trapped.

What does this mean? To me, it tells me that you're probably getting wear that is similar to what you'd get with a 3000 mile OCI with a standard full-flow filter, but the oil stays "good" longer. If you were to compare the particle size of suspended solids in the used oil, I'd expect that for a Trasko you'd see a smaller mean (and median) particle size, but you'd see more particles above 200 micron compared to conventional full-flow filters.

I've got 4000 miles on a Trasko on my wife's Toyota Highlander. The oil on the dipstick is noticeably lighter than it was with the other filters it used. I know that the oil's clarity doesn't tell the whole story, but I believe that this level of wear will still get me far more miles than I will keep the car.
 
slalom44
"I'd guess that the paricle size is probably less than 250 micron."

Yes, it's average is smaller than 320µm. Measuring with a microscope the retangular hole size was 203x355µm.

Interresting about the wear numbers. I'd like to learm more about that. What wear numbers are typically seen with a conventional bypass?
 
rg144
(lot's of oil comes out of the filter on my minivan when I change it).

Not, sure I'm clear on what you're discribing. If there is a lot of oil in the filter and above the filter, that would mean the ADBV or check valve is working. The check valve that I discribed will function as a ADBV, however as you mentioned there aren't seals in this valve, just the slip fit of the two components. Have you found that it drains?
 
Any sugestions as to website that I can drop the photos too. I think the pic's discribe a lot as the say goes.

Tim
 
quote:

Originally posted by Schultz:
Interresting about the wear numbers. I'd like to learm more about that. What wear numbers are typically seen with a conventional bypass?

If you do a search in the UOA forum, you'll find some UOAs with various bypass filters. Here's one that I found with a quick search: http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000323

Here's a thread from another website that is a must-read: http://jeepsunlimited.com/forums/sh...99aab&threadid=352127&perpage=20&pagenumber=1

It's hard to find a close correlation because most bypass UOAs are for extended OCIs. From the second link that I posted, you can see clearly that the Oilguard filter actually removes most of the wear metals from the oil. So you're not reading the actual amount of wear metals generated - you're reading the amount too small to get filtered.
 
quote:

you can see clearly that the Oilguard filter actually removes most of the wear metals from the oil. So you're not reading the actual amount of wear metals generated - you're reading the amount too small to get filtered.

Errr ..not true! That is, let me spin what you're saying a different way (I don't necessarily think that we disagree). I communicated with this guy (smart fellow and very friendly). Look at the wear metal figures that he's posting
shocked.gif
. They are through the ceiling ..like to the tune of 100x what we'd consider acceptable. These tests were done by "digesting" the samples.

When you do AA (atomic absorbtion) or IR chromatography you typically either test for "free" metals or "total" metals.


Free metals testing typically filters the sample through a "stone". This reads the metals on the "particle level" ..and only these particles are read. You could have a copper penny in the sample ..and aside from whatever surface copper goes into solution (on the particle level) will be ignored (it's still in the penny). That is, all the big chunks are ignored since they are too big to be read.

..on the otherhand...

If you "digest" the sample (digesting is when you subject the sample to acid to suspend ALL metals into solution at the particle level) the metal count GOES WAY UP. This is "TOTAL METALS". This is how the labs that did this guy's testing did their analysis.

The Motorguard in the test you reference indeed showed less "total" metals because it DID filter out more of them ..and therefore less metals were digested. THESE filtered metals would not have shown up on a Blackstone test ...but WOULD cause MORE wear metals to be present in all the other tests since those (motor guard) filtered (larger) particles would cause abrasive wear and raise the "particle metal count".

A bypass filter cannot filter to the particle level, which is submicronic. It only filters the size stuff that causes that particle level to be higher by causing more abrasion.

[ April 28, 2004, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
 
quote:

"A bypass filter cannot filter to the particle level, which is submicronic. It only filters the size stuff that causes that particle level to be higher by causing more abrasion."

I'm not exactly clear on what your saying, could you elaborate?
 
quote:

quote: "A bypass filter cannot filter to the particle level, which is submicronic. It only filters the size stuff that causes that particle level to be higher by causing more abrasion."

I'm not exactly clear on what your saying, could you elaborate?

Okay ....for a second let's say that I pour an abrasive into your oil that is 8 microns in size. Let's make it a non-silicate (spl?) and a non metal just so it will never show up on a UAO (as it disintergrates to the particle level). Your normal oil filter can't trap it ..so it just keeps spinning around in your engine knocking off metals that are softer than it is and smashing itself hitting metals that are harder.

A bypass filter WILL keep this small abrasive object out of your oil ...therefore reducing the size of ANY abrasives to the filter's media openings (allegedly .5-1.5 microns).

That's why a bypass filter reduces wear metals. It eliminates the larger (but smaller than your full flow filter can eliminate) abrasives that are allowed, in such mass numbers, to just circulate around your engine with impunity (without a bypass filter).
 
We may be splitting hairs, but I don't think you can say that large particles don't get fully measured by some testing procedures. Blackstone labs, for example uses an ICP spectrometer, and not AA or IR. I agree that if done with Atomic Absorption, you're just reading the "surface" of what you're measuring. But in my experience, a spectrometer vaporizes the sample to get a reading.

Admittedly, you cannot compare readings from one method with another. But my point was that the Oilguard does actually remove wear metals from solution, and it removes the largest ones. So even though the amount measured with various test methods can vary, in reality bypass filters result in less wear metals in part because some of them have been removed.
 
quote:

But my point was that the Oilguard does actually remove wear metals from solution, and it removes the largest ones.

I'm not aquainted with ICP ...but unless it can disintegrate compounds to the particle level ..it would never see any of those larger objects. That is, take my example. Dump a bunch of "Black Beauty" (a non-siiicate sand blasting substitute) into your oil. If it is 8 microns in size and is harder than anything else in your engine ..you're gonna have extreme wear metals that will not be present with a bypass ...yet NONE of the abrasive agent will show up on a UOA since the material is not on the list of items measured.

Your stating that the bypass eliminates wear metals. This is true to the extent that it removes those that are "offending" (those over 1 micron ...and not the "resulting" (sub micron). FF filters do the same thing ...just not as good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top