I get it now
Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter
- Thread starter Raidin
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.
Consider two examples:
veh A uses normal oils and filters, and OCIs every 10k miles.
veh B uses syn oils and BP filters, and OCIs every 25k miles.
During the first 10k miles of both, the wear rates of both systems are essentially equal; there is no "better" (lower) wear for the use of premium products in veh B, compared to veh A.
Now, if you forced veh A to extend the OCI out to 25k miles, the wear rates would certainly go up. That is because the sump would become contaminated to a point that the engine could no longer tolerate the debris load, and the "normal" oil/filter products become overwhelmed.
Hello Dave, one question to you pls... Could the following method be a practically possible means "of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates" ?
If we only change the oil filter in veh A (keeping the oil unchanged), at 8k miles mark.
Will it effectively help to lessen the dirt load from the used oil, so as to SAFELY gain say 5k to 8k 'extra miles' out of the oil , just by changing the FF filter?
(Note: Above we will assume that the oil additives are still in sufficient strength after 8k miles, so that another 8k miles are still ok as far as the additives levels are concerned.)
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.
Consider two examples:
veh A uses normal oils and filters, and OCIs every 10k miles.
veh B uses syn oils and BP filters, and OCIs every 25k miles.
During the first 10k miles of both, the wear rates of both systems are essentially equal; there is no "better" (lower) wear for the use of premium products in veh B, compared to veh A.
Now, if you forced veh A to extend the OCI out to 25k miles, the wear rates would certainly go up. That is because the sump would become contaminated to a point that the engine could no longer tolerate the debris load, and the "normal" oil/filter products become overwhelmed.
Hello Dave, one question to you pls... Could the following method be a practically possible means "of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates" ?
If we only change the oil filter in veh A (keeping the oil unchanged), at 8k miles mark.
Will it effectively help to lessen the dirt load from the used oil, so as to SAFELY gain say 5k to 8k 'extra miles' out of the oil , just by changing the FF filter?
(Note: Above we will assume that the oil additives are still in sufficient strength after 8k miles, so that another 8k miles are still ok as far as the additives levels are concerned.)
dnewton3
Staff member
We have to start with a few fair assumptions here, most certainly presuming we're talking about a "healthy" engine (no coolant leaks, no air ingestion issues, no poor-running fuel enrichment resulting in soot loading, etc).
Typically, it's been a successful means to just leave the filter in place, rather than to change it. A "healthy" engine has a very low rate of contamination accumulation.
I've run dino ST lube with a "normal" filter (MC) out to 15k miles, in my wife's former Villager (including the quintessential soccer-mom daily abuse), and yet the insolubles count and the wear metals in the UOA were perfectly fine. While not common place, I've seen other folks UOAs show similar results.
There's a huge amount of reserve capacity in "normal" products; lubes and filters can typically run much further than we're lead to believe.
In your question, we have to ask ourselves these questions ...
Is the contamination loading at a rate that would usurp the filter media holding capacity? (are you in danger of blinding off the media to a point where perpetual BP is eminent?)
Is the contamination loading even at a particulate size that the filter would catch in the first place? (is the particulate large enough to be caught with high occurrence rate?)
Large particles are caught with great efficiency, but they are also quite rare. It's not like 15um bits are floating in the sump everywhere ... To the contrary, most of the particulate is actually sub-micronic in size. Soot starts out this small, and it will want to amalgamate (co-join) with other soot unless something prevents it from happening. Enter the add-pack with it's anti-agglomerates and dispersants. Until the add-pack is overwhelmed (until there is way more soot than the additives can handle), the soot is actually being controlled by the lube and not the filter! So, changing out a filter at 8k miles, then running another 7-8k miles on a second filter but same lube, isn't really changing the game because the OIL (more specifically the add-pack) is what controls the contamination. The FF filter is just there to catch "chunks" of large stuff.
Additionally, the TCB is reducing wear as it matures. While some disagree with (or don't understand) this phenomenon, it's proven in SAE study.
So the lube is controlling contamination, and the TCB is controlling wear. Generally the filter is just along for the ride to do an important job, but one that isn't very frequent.
The topic that is underlying is that of BP filtration. BP filters are great tools, but ONLY when used in a condition that would allow them to alter the wear rates.
As long as the TCB is reducing wear, and the anti-agglomerates are not overwhelmed, the the BP filter can do little to change the equation. At some point, (data would suggest it's somewhere downstream of 15k miles for sure), the oil WILL become overwhelmed and soot will start to become large enough that it will do damage. It's reasonably known that anything less than 3um is size is generally harmless to an engine. The damaging size of particulate is 5-15um, depending upon clearances of any particular engine design. So as long as the particulate is below 5um (most certainly if it's below 3um) there's essentially no harm done.
BP filters will often tout that they can filter "down to 3um" or "down to sub-micron". Fine by me, but that range has no consequence to a normal engine.
But once the lube does become overwhelmed, once the add-pack is compromised, THEN most certainly a BP filter element can help control contamination.
Also, don't ignore the rate of capture in terms of occurrence. I'm not talking about the efficiency of the media, but the occurrence of appearance in the lube stream. While a BP element is HIGHLY efficient above 3um (perhaps 99%?), that does not alter the amount of the particulate in the main lube flow. BP systems only "sample" the full volumetric flow; typically it's about 10%. So while 1 gallon will go through your BP filter, there are 10 gallons going through the FF filter! Any particle that is 8um in size has a HIGHLY likely chance to do damage to the engine, because 9 times out of 10, it will go through the MAIN circuit and not the BP loop! Here's a new flash ... Filters cannot catch what is not directly ahead of them! So a BP filter will only be presented a damaging particle about 10% of the time; the rest of the time that same particle is heading right for your engine!
If it were true that large particulate were present all the time, we'd see lot's of damage on bearings, cyl walls, etc. But we don't. And why not? Because the occurrence rate of large particles is very low. Just because a filter is efficient at catching something, it has to see something present PRIOR to the ability to catch it.
When the lube is controlling soot, and the TCB is controlling wear, filters are just along for a very boring ride.
AFTER the lube is compromised, then filters do a great job.
And so this is why I state that BP filters don't make wear rates low; they keep wear rates low AFTER the lube is otherwise compromised.
So changing a filter, as you suggest, at 8k miles into a 15k mile OCI, isn't really going to do much of piddly squat, because data shows that the typical oil add-pack is still very viable, out to 15k miles. IOW - the FF filter (or even a BP filter) cannot catch what is not yet present. If the lube is keeping the particulate below 3um, then there's nothing much for the filters to do. So why change a filter that isn't really even being fully utilized?
And, my theory is actually backed up with facts. The infamous GM filter study, along with the Conoco wear study, and my 15k UOAs all essentially show the same darn thing.
Typically, it's been a successful means to just leave the filter in place, rather than to change it. A "healthy" engine has a very low rate of contamination accumulation.
I've run dino ST lube with a "normal" filter (MC) out to 15k miles, in my wife's former Villager (including the quintessential soccer-mom daily abuse), and yet the insolubles count and the wear metals in the UOA were perfectly fine. While not common place, I've seen other folks UOAs show similar results.
There's a huge amount of reserve capacity in "normal" products; lubes and filters can typically run much further than we're lead to believe.
In your question, we have to ask ourselves these questions ...
Is the contamination loading at a rate that would usurp the filter media holding capacity? (are you in danger of blinding off the media to a point where perpetual BP is eminent?)
Is the contamination loading even at a particulate size that the filter would catch in the first place? (is the particulate large enough to be caught with high occurrence rate?)
Large particles are caught with great efficiency, but they are also quite rare. It's not like 15um bits are floating in the sump everywhere ... To the contrary, most of the particulate is actually sub-micronic in size. Soot starts out this small, and it will want to amalgamate (co-join) with other soot unless something prevents it from happening. Enter the add-pack with it's anti-agglomerates and dispersants. Until the add-pack is overwhelmed (until there is way more soot than the additives can handle), the soot is actually being controlled by the lube and not the filter! So, changing out a filter at 8k miles, then running another 7-8k miles on a second filter but same lube, isn't really changing the game because the OIL (more specifically the add-pack) is what controls the contamination. The FF filter is just there to catch "chunks" of large stuff.
Additionally, the TCB is reducing wear as it matures. While some disagree with (or don't understand) this phenomenon, it's proven in SAE study.
So the lube is controlling contamination, and the TCB is controlling wear. Generally the filter is just along for the ride to do an important job, but one that isn't very frequent.
The topic that is underlying is that of BP filtration. BP filters are great tools, but ONLY when used in a condition that would allow them to alter the wear rates.
As long as the TCB is reducing wear, and the anti-agglomerates are not overwhelmed, the the BP filter can do little to change the equation. At some point, (data would suggest it's somewhere downstream of 15k miles for sure), the oil WILL become overwhelmed and soot will start to become large enough that it will do damage. It's reasonably known that anything less than 3um is size is generally harmless to an engine. The damaging size of particulate is 5-15um, depending upon clearances of any particular engine design. So as long as the particulate is below 5um (most certainly if it's below 3um) there's essentially no harm done.
BP filters will often tout that they can filter "down to 3um" or "down to sub-micron". Fine by me, but that range has no consequence to a normal engine.
But once the lube does become overwhelmed, once the add-pack is compromised, THEN most certainly a BP filter element can help control contamination.
Also, don't ignore the rate of capture in terms of occurrence. I'm not talking about the efficiency of the media, but the occurrence of appearance in the lube stream. While a BP element is HIGHLY efficient above 3um (perhaps 99%?), that does not alter the amount of the particulate in the main lube flow. BP systems only "sample" the full volumetric flow; typically it's about 10%. So while 1 gallon will go through your BP filter, there are 10 gallons going through the FF filter! Any particle that is 8um in size has a HIGHLY likely chance to do damage to the engine, because 9 times out of 10, it will go through the MAIN circuit and not the BP loop! Here's a new flash ... Filters cannot catch what is not directly ahead of them! So a BP filter will only be presented a damaging particle about 10% of the time; the rest of the time that same particle is heading right for your engine!
If it were true that large particulate were present all the time, we'd see lot's of damage on bearings, cyl walls, etc. But we don't. And why not? Because the occurrence rate of large particles is very low. Just because a filter is efficient at catching something, it has to see something present PRIOR to the ability to catch it.
When the lube is controlling soot, and the TCB is controlling wear, filters are just along for a very boring ride.
AFTER the lube is compromised, then filters do a great job.
And so this is why I state that BP filters don't make wear rates low; they keep wear rates low AFTER the lube is otherwise compromised.
So changing a filter, as you suggest, at 8k miles into a 15k mile OCI, isn't really going to do much of piddly squat, because data shows that the typical oil add-pack is still very viable, out to 15k miles. IOW - the FF filter (or even a BP filter) cannot catch what is not yet present. If the lube is keeping the particulate below 3um, then there's nothing much for the filters to do. So why change a filter that isn't really even being fully utilized?
And, my theory is actually backed up with facts. The infamous GM filter study, along with the Conoco wear study, and my 15k UOAs all essentially show the same darn thing.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
So changing a filter, as you suggest, at 8k miles into a 15k mile OCI, isn't really going to do much of piddly squat, because data shows that the typical oil add-pack is still very viable, out to 15k miles. IOW - the FF filter (or even a BP filter) cannot catch what is not yet present. If the lube is keeping the particulate below 3um, then there's nothing much for the filters to do. So why change a filter that isn't really even being fully utilized?
Thanks for the detailed explanation, Dave
Yes you are right... Filters really become useful safety devices after the oil gas exceeded its dirt loading limits.
If the modern oils can normally control particle contaminants within 3-5um size, then the only need for FF filter will start after this oil no longer keeps particulates within this size limit. However this usually happens once the oil is due for change anyway, so when will oil filter pressure relief valve ever become useful ? Are the forum discussions on likelihood of engine damage caused by dirtloaded oil freely circulating at startup all totally flawed logic ?
Please help to make some sense of this, thanks again.
So changing a filter, as you suggest, at 8k miles into a 15k mile OCI, isn't really going to do much of piddly squat, because data shows that the typical oil add-pack is still very viable, out to 15k miles. IOW - the FF filter (or even a BP filter) cannot catch what is not yet present. If the lube is keeping the particulate below 3um, then there's nothing much for the filters to do. So why change a filter that isn't really even being fully utilized?
Thanks for the detailed explanation, Dave
Yes you are right... Filters really become useful safety devices after the oil gas exceeded its dirt loading limits.
If the modern oils can normally control particle contaminants within 3-5um size, then the only need for FF filter will start after this oil no longer keeps particulates within this size limit. However this usually happens once the oil is due for change anyway, so when will oil filter pressure relief valve ever become useful ? Are the forum discussions on likelihood of engine damage caused by dirtloaded oil freely circulating at startup all totally flawed logic ?
Please help to make some sense of this, thanks again.
dnewton3
Staff member
Oil filters are very important, but it's a question of the frequency of how often they are really helpful.
FF filters, as discussed, really only trap big stuff. And, to be sure, there are going to be occasional large chunks in flight (in the lube stream). But they are not generally soot, as it's too small. They could only be a metal particle (typically from a gouge/streak) or perhaps silica that made it past the air filter. As the oil ages, there will be times when soot gets larger, but unless you do a PC, you'll not know as to how much is present. Funny thing is about PCs, they can tell you size, but not composition (you'll not know if it's soot, Fe, Al, Si, etc). UOAs do the opposite; they can tell you composition, but not size. We don't have a tool that is commonly available that tell us both size and composition.
As much as I believe that FF filters are not bombarded by particulate with impunity, I also would not want to run without one. They are a very important safety net. I do most certainly believe they filter things; I'm just not sure how much they really load up. I don't have good data to know this.
There are lots of filter studies logged in the SAE, but most all are ALT (accelerated life testing) where they grossly manipulate the particulate load to show some form of disparity in filter efficiency. However, I've not seen any decent data from REAL WORLD use, where filter efficiency and capacity were pitted against wear rates. To the best of my knowledge, I cannot find any data that addresses this directly. No study I've seen shows how real world filters used in our typical garage are affected by the OCI duration. We have very little knowledge as to how much capacity is needed for the average engine. All we know is that UOA data shows filters used to long duration (out to 15k miles) work well and do not negatively affect the wear rates. How much (or little) they contribute to the wear rates is unproven, because to the best of my knowledge, it's untested. (at least to a point of being well documented in a SAE study).
The filter BP does come into play. Jim Allen's data logging experiment for filter BP does show that occasionally BP events happen. They are there to protect the filter media, though, not the engine. Essentially:
The oil pump BP relief protects the oil pump from damage (and the filter canister from bursting).
The oil filter BP relief protects the media from rupturing.
The oil protects the engine from wear.
I believe the filter is a necessary safety element, and that BP feature is an important safety element for the media. While they may not be used often, when needed, they are important.
FF filters, as discussed, really only trap big stuff. And, to be sure, there are going to be occasional large chunks in flight (in the lube stream). But they are not generally soot, as it's too small. They could only be a metal particle (typically from a gouge/streak) or perhaps silica that made it past the air filter. As the oil ages, there will be times when soot gets larger, but unless you do a PC, you'll not know as to how much is present. Funny thing is about PCs, they can tell you size, but not composition (you'll not know if it's soot, Fe, Al, Si, etc). UOAs do the opposite; they can tell you composition, but not size. We don't have a tool that is commonly available that tell us both size and composition.
As much as I believe that FF filters are not bombarded by particulate with impunity, I also would not want to run without one. They are a very important safety net. I do most certainly believe they filter things; I'm just not sure how much they really load up. I don't have good data to know this.
There are lots of filter studies logged in the SAE, but most all are ALT (accelerated life testing) where they grossly manipulate the particulate load to show some form of disparity in filter efficiency. However, I've not seen any decent data from REAL WORLD use, where filter efficiency and capacity were pitted against wear rates. To the best of my knowledge, I cannot find any data that addresses this directly. No study I've seen shows how real world filters used in our typical garage are affected by the OCI duration. We have very little knowledge as to how much capacity is needed for the average engine. All we know is that UOA data shows filters used to long duration (out to 15k miles) work well and do not negatively affect the wear rates. How much (or little) they contribute to the wear rates is unproven, because to the best of my knowledge, it's untested. (at least to a point of being well documented in a SAE study).
The filter BP does come into play. Jim Allen's data logging experiment for filter BP does show that occasionally BP events happen. They are there to protect the filter media, though, not the engine. Essentially:
The oil pump BP relief protects the oil pump from damage (and the filter canister from bursting).
The oil filter BP relief protects the media from rupturing.
The oil protects the engine from wear.
I believe the filter is a necessary safety element, and that BP feature is an important safety element for the media. While they may not be used often, when needed, they are important.
304K and the seal started weeping. You'all gotta remember that seals see two environments. The wet side, and the dry side. The wet side has pressure, so when the seal wears, it'll exhibit leakage toward the dry side. But, the seal failure may be caused by the dry side.
If there is a breather port on the torque converter housing or intermediate motor or however this one is configured, it will let in atmospheric dust. It may also allow atmospheric moisture. A crankshaft seal surface can corrode slightly, catch some dust and wear a seal lip from the dry side. And chances are there is ZERO air filtration on that breather ...
All you'alls talk about super clean oil making stuff last works fine for bearings, but may mean absolutely nothing to seal longevity.
Get that seal replaced and find out why it failed ... Take action to make sure that does not happen again. I use small plastic fuel filters and vacuum tubing to remote the air intrusion point into housings with critical seals.
Open one up after a long time and it will be clean. Open the average torque converter housing and they are covered in a thin coat of dirt and oil from the road and all the heat/cool cycles that forced air exchange.
Parked in the hotel lot in a mild dust storm while your car cools off, it'll be sucking dust into unfiltered cavities. Enough of those may have taken the seal? Only way to know is to take it apart and see. If the seal running surface is good on the crank and there is no evidence of "magic engine related debris" behind it on the wet side, it was external particle contamination ... And one you'all have not been filtering ...
If there is a breather port on the torque converter housing or intermediate motor or however this one is configured, it will let in atmospheric dust. It may also allow atmospheric moisture. A crankshaft seal surface can corrode slightly, catch some dust and wear a seal lip from the dry side. And chances are there is ZERO air filtration on that breather ...
All you'alls talk about super clean oil making stuff last works fine for bearings, but may mean absolutely nothing to seal longevity.
Get that seal replaced and find out why it failed ... Take action to make sure that does not happen again. I use small plastic fuel filters and vacuum tubing to remote the air intrusion point into housings with critical seals.
Open one up after a long time and it will be clean. Open the average torque converter housing and they are covered in a thin coat of dirt and oil from the road and all the heat/cool cycles that forced air exchange.
Parked in the hotel lot in a mild dust storm while your car cools off, it'll be sucking dust into unfiltered cavities. Enough of those may have taken the seal? Only way to know is to take it apart and see. If the seal running surface is good on the crank and there is no evidence of "magic engine related debris" behind it on the wet side, it was external particle contamination ... And one you'all have not been filtering ...
I hope I got this right, but...
If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?
If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)
If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?
If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Raidin
I hope I got this right, but...
If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?
If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)
It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.
The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.
How is it do you propose you can do a "visual" on filter pores and clogging? Can you see down to 10um easily on a mat-black corrugated surface with the naked eye? I know I cannot. For that matter how do you get the media out of the filter canister (typical FF or BP element ....) and then get that Genie back into the bottle?
One way you could monitor the filter is by knowing the PSI BP relieve value, and then using a PSID gage system like Jim Allen did to track the PSID. As long as you can operate a few PSI below the crack-open value, then there's no reason to FCI. Essentially, this is similar to those air-filter gages seen on tractors, diesel engines, etc.
I hope I got this right, but...
If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?
If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)
It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.
The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.
How is it do you propose you can do a "visual" on filter pores and clogging? Can you see down to 10um easily on a mat-black corrugated surface with the naked eye? I know I cannot. For that matter how do you get the media out of the filter canister (typical FF or BP element ....) and then get that Genie back into the bottle?
One way you could monitor the filter is by knowing the PSI BP relieve value, and then using a PSID gage system like Jim Allen did to track the PSID. As long as you can operate a few PSI below the crack-open value, then there's no reason to FCI. Essentially, this is similar to those air-filter gages seen on tractors, diesel engines, etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2014
- Messages
- 1,187
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Raidin
I hope I got this right, but...
If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?
If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)
It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.
The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.
How is it do you propose you can do a "visual" on filter pores and clogging? Can you see down to 10um easily on a mat-black corrugated surface with the naked eye? I know I cannot. For that matter how do you get the media out of the filter canister (typical FF or BP element ....) and then get that Genie back into the bottle?
One way you could monitor the filter is by knowing the PSI BP relieve value, and then using a PSID gage system like Jim Allen did to track the PSID. As long as you can operate a few PSI below the crack-open value, then there's no reason to FCI. Essentially, this is similar to those air-filter gages seen on tractors, diesel engines, etc.
Soo....If I remain silent for awhile, you agree with me eh? Interesting...
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
Tomato, tomoto...
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether. This can be done only (for now) with a combination of bypass filtration and a steady supply of "top up oil" added when the level falls below full and when the filter(s) are changed. At this moment, the oil in my car has 27K on it, and I last had UOA done at 25K, the lab said it was "suitable for continued use." There are other BITOG posters that are doing similar things with trucks. I may never change my oil...I'm going to go by test lab results, not any armchair tribologist opinion on BITOG
vs:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.
The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.
You still don't get it, Mr. Newton. It's a fundamental difference of view point. I've been doing UOA, changing oil filter(s), adding top up oil, monitoring conditions, etc....And HAVEN'T changed oil...Look at this thread to see someone else doing similarly: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4445186/1
Additionally,
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
We have to start with a few fair assumptions here...BP systems only "sample" the full volumetric flow; typically it's about 10%. So while 1 gallon will go through your BP filter, there are 10 gallons going through the FF filter! Any particle that is 8um in size has a HIGHLY likely chance to do damage to the engine, because 9 times out of 10, it will go through the MAIN circuit and not the BP loop! Here's a new flash ... Filters cannot catch what is not directly ahead of them! So a BP filter will only be presented a damaging particle about 10% of the time; the rest of the time that same particle is heading right for your engine!
I'm running multiple bypass filters and other devices, and my total (bypass volume) is over 30% of total flow...And my FLOW has been raised significantly from stock (with a calibrated pressure gauge inline)...So where does your "9 times through the engine prior to 1 pass through the bypass media" fit into my paradigm?!?!?
Disprove this HYPOTHESIS (if you can)
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
I'm no longer naming by brand name the filters (and other things) in my filtration system, and I'm tired of posting links no one reads, but I'm doing UOA as evidence and if I'm successful, I will be applying for a US Patent. As a technical consultant for various utilities, I have no on-the-job interaction with Statisticians such as yourself, but I do share office space with Mechanical and Lubrication engineers who have seen under the hood on my vehicle and my UOA, and they do NOT disagree with my hypothesis. Keep changing your oil as often as you like...But I really don't need you to put words in my mouth or do my thinking for me, thank you sir.
This is 2017, not 1950.
This is 2017, not 1980.
This is 2017, not 1999.
This is 2017, not 2007.
Neither oils nor filtration are what they "used to be." The oil protects the engine from wear. “Super fine filtration” leading to “super clean oil” has never been PROVEN to extend equipment life; neither has it been DISPROVEN…Why do you think this is?
I WILL say that I can post examples of “million mile engines” using bypass filtration ten to one of your examples of “million mile engines” using “everyday filters and oil.” I’ve never seen heard or read you admit that “million mile engines” are the RULE with bypass filtration and the EXCEPTION with “normal” products. Why do you think this is?
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
Originally Posted By: Raidin
I hope I got this right, but...
If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?
If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)
It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.
The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.
How is it do you propose you can do a "visual" on filter pores and clogging? Can you see down to 10um easily on a mat-black corrugated surface with the naked eye? I know I cannot. For that matter how do you get the media out of the filter canister (typical FF or BP element ....) and then get that Genie back into the bottle?
One way you could monitor the filter is by knowing the PSI BP relieve value, and then using a PSID gage system like Jim Allen did to track the PSID. As long as you can operate a few PSI below the crack-open value, then there's no reason to FCI. Essentially, this is similar to those air-filter gages seen on tractors, diesel engines, etc.
Soo....If I remain silent for awhile, you agree with me eh? Interesting...
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
Tomato, tomoto...
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether. This can be done only (for now) with a combination of bypass filtration and a steady supply of "top up oil" added when the level falls below full and when the filter(s) are changed. At this moment, the oil in my car has 27K on it, and I last had UOA done at 25K, the lab said it was "suitable for continued use." There are other BITOG posters that are doing similar things with trucks. I may never change my oil...I'm going to go by test lab results, not any armchair tribologist opinion on BITOG
vs:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.
The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.
You still don't get it, Mr. Newton. It's a fundamental difference of view point. I've been doing UOA, changing oil filter(s), adding top up oil, monitoring conditions, etc....And HAVEN'T changed oil...Look at this thread to see someone else doing similarly: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4445186/1
Additionally,
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
We have to start with a few fair assumptions here...BP systems only "sample" the full volumetric flow; typically it's about 10%. So while 1 gallon will go through your BP filter, there are 10 gallons going through the FF filter! Any particle that is 8um in size has a HIGHLY likely chance to do damage to the engine, because 9 times out of 10, it will go through the MAIN circuit and not the BP loop! Here's a new flash ... Filters cannot catch what is not directly ahead of them! So a BP filter will only be presented a damaging particle about 10% of the time; the rest of the time that same particle is heading right for your engine!
I'm running multiple bypass filters and other devices, and my total (bypass volume) is over 30% of total flow...And my FLOW has been raised significantly from stock (with a calibrated pressure gauge inline)...So where does your "9 times through the engine prior to 1 pass through the bypass media" fit into my paradigm?!?!?
Disprove this HYPOTHESIS (if you can)
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
I'm no longer naming by brand name the filters (and other things) in my filtration system, and I'm tired of posting links no one reads, but I'm doing UOA as evidence and if I'm successful, I will be applying for a US Patent. As a technical consultant for various utilities, I have no on-the-job interaction with Statisticians such as yourself, but I do share office space with Mechanical and Lubrication engineers who have seen under the hood on my vehicle and my UOA, and they do NOT disagree with my hypothesis. Keep changing your oil as often as you like...But I really don't need you to put words in my mouth or do my thinking for me, thank you sir.
This is 2017, not 1950.
This is 2017, not 1980.
This is 2017, not 1999.
This is 2017, not 2007.
Neither oils nor filtration are what they "used to be." The oil protects the engine from wear. “Super fine filtration” leading to “super clean oil” has never been PROVEN to extend equipment life; neither has it been DISPROVEN…Why do you think this is?
I WILL say that I can post examples of “million mile engines” using bypass filtration ten to one of your examples of “million mile engines” using “everyday filters and oil.” I’ve never seen heard or read you admit that “million mile engines” are the RULE with bypass filtration and the EXCEPTION with “normal” products. Why do you think this is?
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
dnewton3
Staff member
Given the right conditions, an OCI may not be warranted, that is true.
If your filtration is good enough, and at the right frequency, and your oil use is high enough to warrant a decent top-off to replenish the add-pack, then it's possible. It's not just about getting contamination out, but also the right additives in.
But those conditions are near-impossible to get to, are they not?
However, with your multiple BP units, it's likely.
I once postulated that if one had 10 BP units on an engine, you could eliminate the FF filter if you ran all the BP in parallel, assuring the needed flow. But then, where would one stuff such an albatross under the hood?
There area also things that cannot be affected by a filter, such as fuel dilution and coolant intrusion, etc. No filter will stop those. So if they occur, you're going to have to OCI if the wear escalates to a condemnation limit (either magnitude or rate, as predetermined).
If your filtration is good enough, and at the right frequency, and your oil use is high enough to warrant a decent top-off to replenish the add-pack, then it's possible. It's not just about getting contamination out, but also the right additives in.
But those conditions are near-impossible to get to, are they not?
However, with your multiple BP units, it's likely.
I once postulated that if one had 10 BP units on an engine, you could eliminate the FF filter if you ran all the BP in parallel, assuring the needed flow. But then, where would one stuff such an albatross under the hood?
There area also things that cannot be affected by a filter, such as fuel dilution and coolant intrusion, etc. No filter will stop those. So if they occur, you're going to have to OCI if the wear escalates to a condemnation limit (either magnitude or rate, as predetermined).
Last edited:
Asserting two closely related concepts as both true and false in the same vein seems a bit disingenuous. Please allow me to elaborate on the following oversimplifications:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters make equipment last longer.
TRUE: Bypass filters make lubes last longer in service.
Longer lasting oil = longer lasting equipment.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: More filtration is always better
TRUE: Filtration to a reasonable level will sustain the desired sump contamination level
All other variables being equal (OCI, etc), defining "reasonable" as a desired ongoing lower contamination level in a given system, then "more" filtration is the only viable means to that end.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Overly frequent OCIs will make wear rates drop.
TRUE: OCIs can be managed to a level that sustains the lowest wear rates.
With "overly" (again) undefined, in an un-managed system, more OCIs does in fact slow the always-climbing contamination level over time, resulting in a lower wear rate during that time.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Equipment cannot last a long time without bypass filters.
TRUE: Equipment can last a long time with a clean sump load that sustains the desired wear rates.
The are so many undefined variables and assumptions in the preceding comparison, it can only be evaluated as meaningless.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters are the only way to sustain a sump clean enough to make equipment last a long time.
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.
The preceding comparison poses a strict absolute against a generalization void of fact or detail. Really?
The point never seeming to be recognized by the bypass poo-pooers is running time "during" an OCI. New oil is good, but lube degradation and engine wear begins anew on the first startup after an oil change. What happens between that and next oil change? After a few days, a week or a month - probably not much. The only real questions are how dirty is the oil you are driving on for how long?
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters make equipment last longer.
TRUE: Bypass filters make lubes last longer in service.
Longer lasting oil = longer lasting equipment.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: More filtration is always better
TRUE: Filtration to a reasonable level will sustain the desired sump contamination level
All other variables being equal (OCI, etc), defining "reasonable" as a desired ongoing lower contamination level in a given system, then "more" filtration is the only viable means to that end.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Overly frequent OCIs will make wear rates drop.
TRUE: OCIs can be managed to a level that sustains the lowest wear rates.
With "overly" (again) undefined, in an un-managed system, more OCIs does in fact slow the always-climbing contamination level over time, resulting in a lower wear rate during that time.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Equipment cannot last a long time without bypass filters.
TRUE: Equipment can last a long time with a clean sump load that sustains the desired wear rates.
The are so many undefined variables and assumptions in the preceding comparison, it can only be evaluated as meaningless.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters are the only way to sustain a sump clean enough to make equipment last a long time.
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.
The preceding comparison poses a strict absolute against a generalization void of fact or detail. Really?
The point never seeming to be recognized by the bypass poo-pooers is running time "during" an OCI. New oil is good, but lube degradation and engine wear begins anew on the first startup after an oil change. What happens between that and next oil change? After a few days, a week or a month - probably not much. The only real questions are how dirty is the oil you are driving on for how long?
So what happened to user name Uber_Archetype?
I believe it fell victim to an irrecoverable password conflict for some reason.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters make equipment last longer.
TRUE: Bypass filters make lubes last longer in service.
Longer lasting oil = longer lasting equipment.
Oil can be used nearly infinitely; it will be dirty beyond any reasonable use and degraded horridly.
This is a matter if direct versus indirect effect. Filters do not clean engines; they clean the oil.
A filter cannot affect the life of equipment directly; it can only indirectly affect the lifespan of equipment.
It can, however, extend the life of the lube.
A distinction you clearly missed.
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: More filtration is always better
TRUE: Filtration to a reasonable level will sustain the desired sump contamination level
All other variables being equal (OCI, etc), defining "reasonable" as a desired ongoing lower contamination level in a given system, then "more" filtration is the only viable means to that end.
"Reasonable" is up to the OEM or end user.
If I intend to lease a vehicle for three years, do I "need" a hyper clean sump with bypass? Nope.
If I intend to run really long OCIs, can I benefit from BP filters? Absolutely yes.
If "more filtration is always better", then I guess if one BP filter is good, then two must be better, and three must be best? Or, maybe I should plumb up 10 BP elements all in parallel, so that the reduced flow of each is added in cumulative effect, and the total overall flow would equal one FF filter. Now, where can I installed the albatross under the chassis? Because "more filtration is always better", right? There's no practical limit to filtration needs, right?
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Overly frequent OCIs will make wear rates drop.
TRUE: OCIs can be managed to a level that sustains the lowest wear rates.
With "overly" (again) undefined, in an un-managed system, more OCIs does in fact slow the always-climbing contamination level over time, resulting in a lower wear rate during that time.
Overly frequent is when someone OCIs at 3k miles or less; as a generality. But that would vary by each situation. What is proven beyond any doubt is that shorter OCIs do NOT reduce wear rates. You are wrong. Some wear, such as Fe, will accumulate with the OCI, but the RATE that it happens will slow with the OCI getting longer, out to 15k miles where my data stops. Also, there are many examples of Al, Cr that show only a few ppm in a UOA, regardless how many miles rack up (it essentially stays flat). Now, since you want to play the game of semantics, I'll ask this:
How can an "un-managed system" have "more OCIs"? That's a dichotomy of statement. See - I can play that game, too. Why didn't you "define" what "un-managed" means?
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Equipment cannot last a long time without bypass filters.
TRUE: Equipment can last a long time with a clean sump load that sustains the desired wear rates.
The are so many undefined variables and assumptions in the preceding comparison, it can only be evaluated as meaningless.
Why is that "meaningless"? People often infer that BP filters will make something last a lot longer. The corrolarry to that is that without BP filters, nothing will last long. That's bovine manure. A well managed, clean sump is what makes something last a long time.
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters are the only way to sustain a sump clean enough to make equipment last a long time.
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.
The preceding comparison poses a strict absolute against a generalization void of fact or detail. Really?
Yes, really. What seems untennable about this?
Is it true that ONLY BP filters can make something last a long time?
is it false to say that there is more than one way to manage a filtration system?
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
The point never seeming to be recognized by the bypass poo-pooers is running time "during" an OCI. New oil is good, but lube degradation and engine wear begins anew on the first startup after an oil change. What happens between that and next oil change? After a few days, a week or a month - probably not much. The only real questions are how dirty is the oil you are driving on for how long?
I am not a BP "poo-pooer". They are great products when used with the understanding of their benefits and limitations.
The point BP lovers seem to miss is that today's engines, when treated to normal products in a well managed regime, will last longer than the owner intends to operate it for the VAST majority of people. No one "needs" BP filters to make a vehicle last a "lifetime" for the average person.
As our departed Gary Allan once said ... "You'll have the best running engine in the junkyard."
Most of the filtration studies we discuss here feature the following traits:
- Way out of date; not studied on today's engines with today's lubes
- Are ALTs with obscene conditions no sane person would operate under
- Use disparity of contenders that FAR exceeds what "normal" products would represent
- Are run on equipment that does not represent the typical BITOG experience
BP filters are just a product. A product that has great benefits to offer, and some limitations. I applaud their use when it makes sense. I do not subscribe to the drivel that all engines need BP filters for every application. Products can either be used wisely, or foolishly.
Caveat Emptor.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters make equipment last longer.
TRUE: Bypass filters make lubes last longer in service.
Longer lasting oil = longer lasting equipment.
Oil can be used nearly infinitely; it will be dirty beyond any reasonable use and degraded horridly.
This is a matter if direct versus indirect effect. Filters do not clean engines; they clean the oil.
A filter cannot affect the life of equipment directly; it can only indirectly affect the lifespan of equipment.
It can, however, extend the life of the lube.
A distinction you clearly missed.
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: More filtration is always better
TRUE: Filtration to a reasonable level will sustain the desired sump contamination level
All other variables being equal (OCI, etc), defining "reasonable" as a desired ongoing lower contamination level in a given system, then "more" filtration is the only viable means to that end.
"Reasonable" is up to the OEM or end user.
If I intend to lease a vehicle for three years, do I "need" a hyper clean sump with bypass? Nope.
If I intend to run really long OCIs, can I benefit from BP filters? Absolutely yes.
If "more filtration is always better", then I guess if one BP filter is good, then two must be better, and three must be best? Or, maybe I should plumb up 10 BP elements all in parallel, so that the reduced flow of each is added in cumulative effect, and the total overall flow would equal one FF filter. Now, where can I installed the albatross under the chassis? Because "more filtration is always better", right? There's no practical limit to filtration needs, right?
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Overly frequent OCIs will make wear rates drop.
TRUE: OCIs can be managed to a level that sustains the lowest wear rates.
With "overly" (again) undefined, in an un-managed system, more OCIs does in fact slow the always-climbing contamination level over time, resulting in a lower wear rate during that time.
Overly frequent is when someone OCIs at 3k miles or less; as a generality. But that would vary by each situation. What is proven beyond any doubt is that shorter OCIs do NOT reduce wear rates. You are wrong. Some wear, such as Fe, will accumulate with the OCI, but the RATE that it happens will slow with the OCI getting longer, out to 15k miles where my data stops. Also, there are many examples of Al, Cr that show only a few ppm in a UOA, regardless how many miles rack up (it essentially stays flat). Now, since you want to play the game of semantics, I'll ask this:
How can an "un-managed system" have "more OCIs"? That's a dichotomy of statement. See - I can play that game, too. Why didn't you "define" what "un-managed" means?
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Equipment cannot last a long time without bypass filters.
TRUE: Equipment can last a long time with a clean sump load that sustains the desired wear rates.
The are so many undefined variables and assumptions in the preceding comparison, it can only be evaluated as meaningless.
Why is that "meaningless"? People often infer that BP filters will make something last a lot longer. The corrolarry to that is that without BP filters, nothing will last long. That's bovine manure. A well managed, clean sump is what makes something last a long time.
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
FALSE: Bypass filters are the only way to sustain a sump clean enough to make equipment last a long time.
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.
The preceding comparison poses a strict absolute against a generalization void of fact or detail. Really?
Yes, really. What seems untennable about this?
Is it true that ONLY BP filters can make something last a long time?
is it false to say that there is more than one way to manage a filtration system?
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
The point never seeming to be recognized by the bypass poo-pooers is running time "during" an OCI. New oil is good, but lube degradation and engine wear begins anew on the first startup after an oil change. What happens between that and next oil change? After a few days, a week or a month - probably not much. The only real questions are how dirty is the oil you are driving on for how long?
I am not a BP "poo-pooer". They are great products when used with the understanding of their benefits and limitations.
The point BP lovers seem to miss is that today's engines, when treated to normal products in a well managed regime, will last longer than the owner intends to operate it for the VAST majority of people. No one "needs" BP filters to make a vehicle last a "lifetime" for the average person.
As our departed Gary Allan once said ... "You'll have the best running engine in the junkyard."
Most of the filtration studies we discuss here feature the following traits:
- Way out of date; not studied on today's engines with today's lubes
- Are ALTs with obscene conditions no sane person would operate under
- Use disparity of contenders that FAR exceeds what "normal" products would represent
- Are run on equipment that does not represent the typical BITOG experience
BP filters are just a product. A product that has great benefits to offer, and some limitations. I applaud their use when it makes sense. I do not subscribe to the drivel that all engines need BP filters for every application. Products can either be used wisely, or foolishly.
Caveat Emptor.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
BP filters are just a product.
Right. Too bad useful advice for using the product is rather scarce around here sometimes. What I REALLY hate is veiled obfuscation posing as useful advice.
BP filters are just a product.
Right. Too bad useful advice for using the product is rather scarce around here sometimes. What I REALLY hate is veiled obfuscation posing as useful advice.
I had considered doing bypass filtration as an Amsoil user myself who drives a lot of miles but I just didn't see the need for the cost of the unit, the cost of the filters, the cost of the top-off oil at filter change, and the cost of the UOA's to monitor it.
I simply ran a couple UOA's and found I could go about 25,000km (15K Miles) with a safe margin left and decided that the cost benefit for me over conventional oil changes at 10,000km (6K Miles) would be somewhere around 16,000km (10K Miles) using this synthetic. So that is what I started doing and the UOA's support this.
The other reason I prefer to do it this way is because if a problem develops in-between changes like excess fuel dilution or coolant leak etc. into the oil it's limited in how long it's in there before it's noticed.
The Amsoil Bypass filtration system is well built though and I have every confidence in its ability.
I simply ran a couple UOA's and found I could go about 25,000km (15K Miles) with a safe margin left and decided that the cost benefit for me over conventional oil changes at 10,000km (6K Miles) would be somewhere around 16,000km (10K Miles) using this synthetic. So that is what I started doing and the UOA's support this.
The other reason I prefer to do it this way is because if a problem develops in-between changes like excess fuel dilution or coolant leak etc. into the oil it's limited in how long it's in there before it's noticed.
The Amsoil Bypass filtration system is well built though and I have every confidence in its ability.
Last edited:
My logic on Bypass Filtration is: If I can remove liquid lapping compound (sub 20 micron grit) from my oil and deposit it in a filter for a nominal price, then I'll do it.
Ed Greany's Frantz filter is appx. $200.00, with filters being .25 cent TP, or you can get a Baldwin spin-on filter for $5.00 for the filter and $40.00 for the housing (Zoro on ebay), plus $30.00 for a bypass adapter (if you have a spin-on) and $20.00 hose and fittings (Jegs).
Ed Greany's Frantz filter is appx. $200.00, with filters being .25 cent TP, or you can get a Baldwin spin-on filter for $5.00 for the filter and $40.00 for the housing (Zoro on ebay), plus $30.00 for a bypass adapter (if you have a spin-on) and $20.00 hose and fittings (Jegs).
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
....it's an average that's fair. BP systems only "sample" the total flow, so most of the time a particle large enough to do damage has that chance to do so to the engine several times before being "selected" for the BP diversion loop.
Nahhh..... ^^^^ that's the job for the "full flow" filter. (hopefully 95+ % at 20 micron or greater)
The job for the Bypass filter is to get rid of the stuff that has a very high potential for agglomeration.
....it's an average that's fair. BP systems only "sample" the total flow, so most of the time a particle large enough to do damage has that chance to do so to the engine several times before being "selected" for the BP diversion loop.
Nahhh..... ^^^^ that's the job for the "full flow" filter. (hopefully 95+ % at 20 micron or greater)
The job for the Bypass filter is to get rid of the stuff that has a very high potential for agglomeration.
- Status
