Wix Bypass Filter 51010 Rated At 32 Microns

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Congratulations! You've found the right answer to the wrong question.

And while I certainly agree that there is a reference as to 10% bypass flow, that manual link is just a spec book, and states nothing as to WHERE the restriction would be in place (or, did I miss it?).



Denial eh? The restriction exist in all engines except for your own car? Hahahahahaha!!! you are indeed very funny. Here is the spec changes for the 1986 and 1987 escort.

http://www.crbscca.com/uploaded files/mvma_vts/Ford_Escort_1986_109.PDF

http://www.crbscca.com/uploaded files/mvma_vts/Ford_Escort_1987_107.PDF

There is no different in the lubrication system between the 1985 and the 1987 Escort. The 10% bypass is in the engine and not in the filter. There is no changes in the filter requirements according to FRAM. The filter part numbers are the same for all years from all manufacturers. I am not making any presumption. The data came from Ford and WIX already told you as much in writing. My friend at FRAM just confirmed my statement of low flow through the bypass filter.

 

[dnewton3]

Thank you for the links. I don't really understand why you posted the 1985 example if you had access to the 1987 example, but no matter.

Again, though, those are spec sheets and not manuals. Where in the world is this restriction supposed to be?

Further, it does not address the fact that the head changed, and the subsequent components that in the engine bay that changed. My own personal experiences trump what some spec book shows. You have not proven the existence of a restrction; you have proven that the spec book is not up to date. But then, I've already answered that as well. Just because a manual states/shows something, do not make it so in the real world.

I have several examples from Ford such as how pinion angles were to be updated in the steering gears, but were not until several months later. How the pertibation specs were changed, but not updated in testing equipment. How contamination standards were ignored, when manuals claimed them to be so. How hardness standards were to be adhered to, but were deviated from. You don't see these in spec books, sir. These are the realities of mass market manufacturing. I've spent my entire adult life in these situations; you are ignorant of the facts if you don't think these exist. MANY compainies do these kinds of things, and do them every day. Ever get a replacment part for a vehicle, and find out it doesn't fit? The alternator the parts guy sold you has the wrong plug receptacle? The water pump they sold you has the wrong bolt hole pattern? Naw - you're right; everything is as a spec book shows.

Where I work now, there are new product introductions that have many errors unforseen, and running changes don't always get properly documented. Deviations are approved where safety and functionality are not at risk, but full intent is not fulfilled. I've seen data dumps from engineering that are so massive, that errors are not discovered until months after implentation. Conversely, I've seen error corrections that do not get implemented, because of cost and production timing constraints. Or, when the do get implemented, they are not properly documented as to the timing.

I suspect that when the head was changed in 1987, and the engine bay redesigned to accomodate model year changes, the filter mount was changed, and not updated in the books. And, after some period of time, the error was discovered. And they had to make a quick running change to find something that simply fit. And I have no idea whether they put any time/effort into redesigned it to work as intended, becaust my 1987 was an early serial number of that model year. It is possible that, because the 1987 was the last year for that application, they may or may not have "fixed" the missing restriction. It's not like having a missing restriction is going to greatly effect the lifecycle when the standard OCI is maintainted. These kinds of decisions happend all the time back then, and they still do today. Is it true that the two filters are spec'd for all four years (1984-87)? Yes, that's true. But you are under a failed assumption that because a spec book claims something, the reality must be so.

There was a big rearrange in the engine bay, and also the the head, for that model year of diesel Escort. The mount changed, and likely the restrction got missed for some period of time.

Sorry if my reality does not equate to your theorhetical hypothesis.

Now, once again, I find myself in agreement with you on some level. If the restriction were there, then it would make sense for the application. I don't deny that. I understand that. But going WAY back, I limited myself to the 1987 Escort Diesel as the example. If you want to throw a huge blanket statement over this topic, then I cannot find any reason to participate further. I purposely limited my comments to the 1987. I have claimed that there is no restrction; I took the mount apart. You have a spec book which no reference to a restiction, but only a flow rating. That spec book is predicated on an assumption of equality that does not exist due to other production changes and errors.

I never took apart the mount in my 1986 diesel Tempo; I have no idea where the restrction might have been. But I know I surely didn't find one in my 1987 diesel Escort when I took it apart.

 

[azsynthetic]

My friend at FRAM send me the info on the 1985 and he said they are all the same for all model years, but you insisted on the 1987 is different. He then send me the 1986 and 1987 info since I did not know where they are. If you go back to the beginning of this thread you will see that you have accused me of being wrong and you are right about the bypass lubrication specs. I told you and WIX told you that there are restrictions in the line but you refused to believe it and stuck to your "I can't find it in my 1987 Escort so it must not be there theory". The bottom line is "there is a restriction" and you are wrong. For a couple cases of beer my friend at FRAM can figure out exactly where the restriction is and show you in details. So, how much do you want to spend to learn the truth?

 

[dnewton3]

Like I said, what's in print and what's in the engine bay do not always agree. The 1987 head and engine are most certainly different from earlier years. I was merely curious as to why you linked a 1985 spec book when we were dicussing a 1987 vehicle. I don't think you did it maliciously; I think it was a error, that's all. I can eaily accept that you also have access to the 1987 data; that seems credible. Still - that does not alter the fact that the spec book does not represent the changes noted.

I am in complete agreement with you that having a restriction would make the system perform as desired. What I'm telling you is that, due to production changes in short order, it wasn't present in the car.



Of course, we have a greater, looming conundrum here ...


In a different thread, you profess that we cannot look at large samples and draw conclusions; your point was that we can only look at individual examples. Isn't that your exact point in the Amsoil/Dmax thread? Did you not directly state that I don't know "science" and infer that we can ONLY use individual samples to know true science?

If that is inded the case, then how can we use any spec book as proof of your concept in this topic? In essence, according to your proffered theory, how are you going to find the EXACT car that I owned? Would you not need to find that exact car to prove your point here? Would not your theory dictate that the car spec books are not a credible source for that blue 1987 Escort I owned?

You see, you cannot have it both ways. Your own words are condeming your concept to failure here, and in the other thread as well. It's not unlike a person that perjurs themselves on the witness stand with contradictory statements; you cannot have it both ways, sir. You do not get to say that UOAs are ONLY viable for individual examples, but then claim that spec book data is applicable to all diesel Escorts. You claim that ONLY individual results are trustworthy, and that no data stream can be applied across larger samples.

You have contradictory theories that fail you.

Checkmate.

 

[azsynthetic]

There is a different between your collection of UOAs of unknown source versus engines produced by the same maker on the same assembly line. Those engine came from the same specs otherwise they would not be on the same assembly line.

Again, you do not understand scientific data hence the confusion between UOAs, bypass filters, and engine design.

I don't play chess because it is a waste of my time. I prefer flying for the Army in my spare time.

 

[dnewton3]

I'll simplify it for you.

You claimed in the Amsoil/Dmax thread that we cannot use statistical modeling for macro analysis. You state that we cannot use one UOA from one engine, and make comparisons/contrasts to other engines or lubes.

Yet you claim in this thread that we can use statisical modeling for macro analysis. You state that we can use one spec book for all the diesel engines in question. Your inference is that if one engine has the restriction, they all have the restriction. Because the spec books claims a restriction, they must exist in all samples. And yet you did not go out into the world, and find every engine produced in this series, and find the restriction. You are, in essence, attributing a sample based upon a specification, with zero validation.


You are caught in your contradiction of theories. If you make a move, you lose. If you stay stationary, you lose. Hence, the checkmate.



As for UOA data, I have the ability to diverge sub-sets (as I already previously stated). I have both macro and micro data. I have UOA data from the entire diesel market; tractors, light duty trucks, generators, etc. But I also have that data segregated into brands, engine models, and even individual engines. I have many, many Dmax UOAs that came from the same engine in the same truck existing in the same annual type of usage.

What I am telling you is that there is corresponding relationships that exist between micro and macro analysis.


You presume that because a spec book states a restriction should be present, it is present. I would agree, on the surface, that should be true. But the REALITY is that when I took the filter mount apart, there was no restriction.

My debate here with you reminds me of a recent conversation with my wife:
Me: Honey - where are the keys to the van?
Her: On the hook.
Me: No, they're not.
Her: That's where they go.
Me: I know that's where they belong; that's why I installed the key hook. They're missing.
Her: But I always put them there ...
Me: "Always" would indicate that the condition "never" deviates, and yet there are no keys on the hook at this moment in time.
Her: I put them there when I got back from the store; they should be on the hook.
Me: Again - I know what the process is. I know what "should" exist. Yet it does not because they are not on the hook where they belong.
Her: Well - I don't know either. They should be on the hook.
And then I found them in a plastic bag with the strawberries in the 'frig when I reached in for a beer ...
She insisted that a condition did exist, because it was supposed to exist, yet it did not exist. Sound familiar?


I hear you, sir. I fully understand that the lube system would make much more sense if a restriction existed. I believe it was the intent of Ford to install one. But when they did the redesign of the head and the engine bay in the 197 Escort, I think it got missed during the redesign.

What "should be" and "what is" are NOT always the same thing, no matter how much you insist it to be so.

I don't know that there is much else to say; I'm tired of this, frankly. You insist on a condition that did not exist; I was there, you were not.

Regardless; have a good day.

 

[LargeCarManX2]

Oh for the life of me.....stop guy's

It's a tie! your both stuborn

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

You claimed in the Amsoil/Dmax thread that we cannot use statistical modeling for macro analysis. You state that we cannot use one UOA from one engine, and make comparisons/contrasts to other engines or lubes.

Yet you claim in this thread that we can use statisical modeling for macro analysis. You state that we can use one spec book for all the diesel engines in question. Your inference is that if one engine has the restriction, they all have the restriction. Because the spec books claims a restriction, they must exist in all samples.


The spec books are traceable to the engines (VIN #) and the assembly line prove the repeatability of the the build. How do you think factory recalls are done? Via VIN #. The UOAs you are using are untraceable and unrepeatable. There is a big different between the UOAs done by Ford and GM in a control setting versus you just randomly pulling UOAs of the internet. You do not have all the information associated with your UOAs, hence the flawed data theory (bad inputs get you bad outputs).

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: LargeCarManX2

Oh for the life of me.....stop guy's

It's a tie! your both stuborn

He is, not me. I don't write a bunch of diatribes that has nothing to do with the subject and then try to pat myself on the back using chess term.