UOA experiment. Your thoughts.

Messages
709
Location
CT
I decided to go forward and install a bypass filter on my 2004 Honda CR-V. I have the bypass installed, but not using the filter media yet for engine break-in reasons. Anyways, I am planning on doing a UOA at 5k miles. Then without draining the oil, add the bypass media and send in another UOA at 6k to see if the bypass alters the results. What do you guys think? Has this been done already? In theory, bypass filters shouldn't "filter" out the insolubles.
 

Jay

Messages
1,607
Location
Idaho Falls, ID
I think that's a great experiment whose results I'd certainly be interested in seeing. I'm confused about your statement,"I have the bypass installed, but not using the filter media yet for engine break-in reasons." Why would a bypass filter be bad for break-in? Also, does it hurt oil pressure to run the bypass without filter media?
 

MolaKule

Staff member
Messages
21,866
Location
Iowegia - USA
Exactly Jay. I would think you would want to trap as many insolubles (solid particles), of all possible sizes, as possible during "breaking-in."
 
Messages
1,533
Location
Ephraim
I have done it! Now if you had more miles and dirtier engine, maybe it would be easier to see. With todays engines and oils, if you use oil testing...the engine will still last longer than the car in most cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Razl: What do you guys think? Has this been done already? In theory, bypass filters shouldn't "filter" out the insolubles.
 

Razl

Thread starter
Messages
709
Location
CT
I have no scientific basis for not using a bypass filter from the start other than following Honda's break-in guidelines. But I beg everyone, I do not want to get on this topic. Robbie Alexander. What were your results?
 
Messages
39,805
Location
Pottstown, PA
quote:
Then without draining the oil, add the bypass media and send in another UOA at 6k to see if the bypass alters the results.
I think that you will see worse results on the second UOA. That is, you'll see MORE accumulated ppm of wear metals. They may be reduced "per mile" during the second UOA ..but you will not filter ONE ppm of ANY wear metal out of the oil that is already in suspension. The UOA does not read anything above the particle size. The bigger pieces that you DO filter out will not keep spinning around and knocking off other stuff ..but the UOA NEVER SEES THEM to begin with. They don't "digest" the sample with acid to fully suspend all the metals. That is, it is impossible for the wear metals to go "down" with the introduction of a bypass filter on already contaminated oil. You only elimiate the larger particles that can cause "more". If you do see any reduction ..it will fall within the normal testing variable. Ideally ..the results will be almost exactly the same with some reduction in TBN and other indicators (viscosity, etc.).
 

Jay

Messages
1,607
Location
Idaho Falls, ID
I'm not so sure, Gary. Most of the bypass filter makers claim absolute efficiency down to one or two microns and some claim sub-micron efficiency. FTIR analysis can pick up 5 microns and smaller. Terry claims 10 microns and smaller.
 

Razl

Thread starter
Messages
709
Location
CT
Based on the mixed opinions, I think this experiment will be a good one to help me better understand the effect a bypass has on UOA, specifically the PPM readings. Thanks all!!!
 
Top