Ive just install an Frantz Filter,gone 500 miles replaced the TP.All was very clean,Did Cleaning with RX last year.Iam running VP Racing 10w40 Synthetic seems allmost an waste to change the TP every 3000 miles.Do you guys run Synthetic in these Bypass systems?
What type of oil you run?In your Oil Bypass
- Thread starter oilleakbill
- Start date
- Status
oilleakbill, I have been running dino Shell 5W20 for the past 4 1/2 years in my Escape. This vehicle is run all short runs and that is why i change the TP every 2-2500 mi. The inside of the motor is as clean as it was when new if looking inside of the oil fill cap means anything.
I run Rotella T 5W40 with my Frantz. I change TP at 5k and it still looks good. I like the Rotella syn, my uoa's come back very good. This is on a 7.3 Powerstroke.
I use Amsoil ACD synthetic in my Jeep with Motor Guard bypass.
I use Amsoil AME 15w40 in my dodge diesel in conjuction with a frantz. I agree with you that it is almost a waste to run synthetic and lose a quart of expensive oil every 2k (my tp change interval). But for me the synthetic helps with cold starts for the winter and keeps from draining good oil. I ran rotella dino to 10k with 4 quarts of makeup oil and the TBN was still in the high 7's. I am looking for something else to put in front of the frantz like a balwin b50 or an old amsoil bmk11 for cheap. Hopefully this will extend my tp changes out to 5-7k instead of 2 and add another quart or 2 of oil to my sump. I'm thinking the spin on bypass will catch some the larger particles and then go through the tp to get polished off.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
BP80A - the whole setup should be about $60 installed with a EaBP90. Should extend the tp a good bit. Turn it into a polishing filter.
Old formula Havoline 10w/40. I meant to buy 10w30 but I misread the bottle decided to use it anyway. Considering how many miles I drive and the fact that I have two one gallon bottles, this should hold me for oil a good 8-10 years, baring unforseen circumstances.
Esso XD3 15W40 CI4+ right now with my new BMK-11 in my 2006 Dodge Cummins. It was a very good price at Wally- but I should have used Delo instead. I feel better running it to be honest. I would like to see how long I can get out of it, but winter is coming and regular 15W40 in Edmonton can be a little thick. Although I have a Wolverine pan heater to offset that. So, I'll see...
dnewton3
Staff member
This may be a bit of a detour, but I can't resist.
Harley Anderson and Gary Allen - do I understand you correctly in stating that Anderson is considering putting a bypass filter in front of his bypass filter?
One advantage to the Frantz design is that I believe the TP is easy and inexpensive to change. But for a large sump system, such as V-8's and big diesels, you'd have to parallel 3 Frantz units to get a decent OCI. And as he's discovered, if you run only 1 unit, you end up adding quite a lot of make up oil. OR, you could do what you're considering, and add a pre-bypass-filter bypass-filter. But now you've paid for two bypass systems. And why? I can't imagine that saving a couple bucks on the TP is the issue, so it must be the bypass filter TP change interval (actual milage) you're looking to extend.
OR, you could use the pre-Frantz Amsoil-bypass system, and then add a pre-Amsoil-bypass OIl-Guard bypass, and double that over to a Gulf-Coast filter ... While you're at it, better double up the full flow filter too.
Just curious; ever do any UOA's? I'd really like to see a UOA with the current system, then see what a UOA would be with the double-bypass set up. Just how small are the particles your TP filter is catching, compared to the"larger particles" that the "spin on bypass" is missing? And how would those numbers relate to an actual statistical analysis of the insolubles and wear metals?
On the other hand - it's your money, spend it as you see fit.
Harley Anderson and Gary Allen - do I understand you correctly in stating that Anderson is considering putting a bypass filter in front of his bypass filter?
One advantage to the Frantz design is that I believe the TP is easy and inexpensive to change. But for a large sump system, such as V-8's and big diesels, you'd have to parallel 3 Frantz units to get a decent OCI. And as he's discovered, if you run only 1 unit, you end up adding quite a lot of make up oil. OR, you could do what you're considering, and add a pre-bypass-filter bypass-filter. But now you've paid for two bypass systems. And why? I can't imagine that saving a couple bucks on the TP is the issue, so it must be the bypass filter TP change interval (actual milage) you're looking to extend.
OR, you could use the pre-Frantz Amsoil-bypass system, and then add a pre-Amsoil-bypass OIl-Guard bypass, and double that over to a Gulf-Coast filter ... While you're at it, better double up the full flow filter too.
Just curious; ever do any UOA's? I'd really like to see a UOA with the current system, then see what a UOA would be with the double-bypass set up. Just how small are the particles your TP filter is catching, compared to the"larger particles" that the "spin on bypass" is missing? And how would those numbers relate to an actual statistical analysis of the insolubles and wear metals?
On the other hand - it's your money, spend it as you see fit.
Why, and where do you get this information? Just curious.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
You're reading correctly.
Ditto
Not exactly. You would have to parallel 3 filters to get a decent FCI. That would only be done that way to reduce downtime. Otherwise your interval will be identical in reduced mileage as you reduced the units in service.
Hmm...and in your revelation ..the make up oil is reduced with changing out 3 rolls at 3X the mileage?? Interesting.
Yep.
To extend the tp interval by only subjecting it to 2um and smaller particles.
Well, if you look back at your own post, you have the answer. It's not to save a $0.50-$1.00 roll of cheap tp, it's to extend the service interval and reduce the make up oil. This is especially sensible if one is using synthetics as your oil of choice. If you can extend tp service intervals to 5-7k miles, then you're not removing perfectly viable synthetic oil with a mandated tp change due to saturation.
Payback time, if indeed you can extend the tp roll's life span, is not all that long for the added filter.
This is someone who wants to use synthetic AND wants extended service intervals AND wants the finer filtration offered by tp filtration. Then again, this could be also applicable with dino or semi-synth if the annual mileage was up there a bit.
I suppose you could. If there was a sensible reason (as in, "with a attainable goal") to do so ...then why not?
Who knows? Are you saying that there will be no elongation of the tp service interval? That's all that the addition of the spin-on filter was intended for. The level of the tp filter is the level of the tp filter ..why would you expect a (for the moment suppose) sub-micronic filter to become "super" sub-micronic? Why? It may change from a 3k tp roll to a 5k or 7k tp roll.
Yep..good concept. I took an inventory of all of my pals toys and noted that many of them had "stuff" that they didn't need ..all to accomplish relatively simple goals. They had cell phones, PDA's, flat screen monitors ..plasma screen televisions ......heck every one of those suckers had a remote for at least two devices in their living room that enabled them to just sit in a chair instead of moving anywhere from 2 - 20ft. Several had remotes for their car stereo. That reach for the dash was just too much apparently.
You don't have anything like that do you?
dnewton3
Staff member
Gary - that's 1/2 of what I own; stuff I don't need but wanted!
In the first part of my post I didn't quite make my statement clear, but you understood what I meant. The BP-OFCI is attribute that I presumed you two are trying to change (elongate).
I'm swamped at work with an ISO audit right now, but I am still finding a little time here and there to work on the bypass filter study. From what I've already compiled, each bypass filter does no better or worse, statistically, than another. So what I was trying to infer is that I don't believe a TP bypass filter is really any better at catching the small micronic particles than an Amsoil, or GulfCoast, or FS2500 or such. Looking at lots of past UOAs, the insoluble levels for Frantz filters seems to be in line with it's competitors. You'll likely make the TP last longer, but it won't "polish" the oil any better than an Amsoil bypass filter. And I presume the Amsoil filter costs more money. So it's a trade off, you're making an inexpensive filter last longer, by pre-filtering with a more expensive filter.
It's been a while since I've looked at the TP bypass website, but IIRC the suggestion was to run 1 for a 4 cylinder, 2 for a 6, and 3 filters for an 8 cylinder, to get a decent FCI. You guys would know better than I what the actual FCI's are. I just remeber that 1 TP filter lasts on average about 2k miles, so a decent FCI (say 6k or more) would mean 3 units in parallel? And changing 3 TP would necessitate adding a lot of make up oil. I guess where I'm going with this is that in my oppinion, the TP does a good filtering job with inexpensive media, but in the end, it's probably easier to have an Amsoil or Oil Guard unit where the element is changed out (depending on analysis) anywhere from 15-25k miles. That's a nice long interval and the make up is much less. If Harley Anderson is going to use an Amsoil bypass (known to be very good quality), then why use the TP at all with it's added cost of TP and make up oil? The TP isn't (statistically) any better at taking the insolubles down to a finer level than the other options.
Why use TP at all if you're going to pre-filter with an element-type bypass filter? If you're that interested in getting more from your TP, then why not pre-filter each bypass with another bypass, and so on?
In the first part of my post I didn't quite make my statement clear, but you understood what I meant. The BP-OFCI is attribute that I presumed you two are trying to change (elongate).
I'm swamped at work with an ISO audit right now, but I am still finding a little time here and there to work on the bypass filter study. From what I've already compiled, each bypass filter does no better or worse, statistically, than another. So what I was trying to infer is that I don't believe a TP bypass filter is really any better at catching the small micronic particles than an Amsoil, or GulfCoast, or FS2500 or such. Looking at lots of past UOAs, the insoluble levels for Frantz filters seems to be in line with it's competitors. You'll likely make the TP last longer, but it won't "polish" the oil any better than an Amsoil bypass filter. And I presume the Amsoil filter costs more money. So it's a trade off, you're making an inexpensive filter last longer, by pre-filtering with a more expensive filter.
It's been a while since I've looked at the TP bypass website, but IIRC the suggestion was to run 1 for a 4 cylinder, 2 for a 6, and 3 filters for an 8 cylinder, to get a decent FCI. You guys would know better than I what the actual FCI's are. I just remeber that 1 TP filter lasts on average about 2k miles, so a decent FCI (say 6k or more) would mean 3 units in parallel? And changing 3 TP would necessitate adding a lot of make up oil. I guess where I'm going with this is that in my oppinion, the TP does a good filtering job with inexpensive media, but in the end, it's probably easier to have an Amsoil or Oil Guard unit where the element is changed out (depending on analysis) anywhere from 15-25k miles. That's a nice long interval and the make up is much less. If Harley Anderson is going to use an Amsoil bypass (known to be very good quality), then why use the TP at all with it's added cost of TP and make up oil? The TP isn't (statistically) any better at taking the insolubles down to a finer level than the other options.
Why use TP at all if you're going to pre-filter with an element-type bypass filter? If you're that interested in getting more from your TP, then why not pre-filter each bypass with another bypass, and so on?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
It's a simple matter of using a tight lint trap on your dryer. Too tight, it clogs too quickly. So, if practical in terms of service length, you would use progressively tighter traps so that the tighter screen would not be as quickly clogged.
It's the same thing here. No (affordable) spin-on filter is as fine as tp. They are available, but would not be economical in a combustion byproduct environment. They're widely used in industrial hydraulics. The cost in a combustion environment would be very expensive. They would have to be very big to get much life out of them.
My terms "polishing" merely meant that the tp roll would ONLY have to filter what the Amsoil spin-on didn't remove. You would probably cut well below the >2um level that is totally possible with the Amsoil bypass.
This should afford the SAME level of fine filtration for a much LONGER duration without the unnecessarily high make up expense.
Now whether you can get the EaBP filter to last long enough to "overshadow" the cost of the tp rolls and (greatly reduced) make up oil ..that I haven't figured out since I don't think we know how long this will extend the tp roll's life span.
This is a convenience measure for a finer filter. It reduces the detracting elements of tp filtration and allows it to gain higher/longer utility than it normally would. From the Amsoil unit's perspective, you're getting added (finer) filtration with extremely low additional cost (capital acquisition not factored).
You only have to save about 10 quarts of synthetic oil to pay for the cheaper BP80A setup.
But to your assertions on the benefit ..it's going to be hard to gauge. If what you say is "truly true" and not just "apparently true" ..then a setup like this would result in a tp roll that never clogs. That is, your basing your current school of thought on lab indications. You've concluded that since there is no significant differences in measured indicators that there's no benefit from one over the other.
Essentially you're (more or less) saying "You've already done all that there is to do here. To go further yields nothing." Again, if this assertion is true, then a tp roll should never clog since there's nothing more to be done in terms of filtration.
Now if it does clog, and I assure you that it will, then it highly suggests that there is something to be gained. Surely in performance and utility (in a reasonably economical manner) if not in practical realized avoided costs (wear).
I'll accept an alternative view here if it's reasonably defensible.
Let's try out a simple "what if".
Tp by itself (composed of x number of cold starts and whatnot)
3k miles
Tp with EaBP prefiltration
7k
Assuming that the make up rate was enough to carry the sump in TBN retention (and other levels) you would be looking a 4 quarts of oil, 4 tp rolls, and one Eabp fitler in 28k miles (approximately) ..but you'll get the filtration equivalency of nearly 10 tp exchanges and (probably) 10 quarts of oil.
It's the same thing here. No (affordable) spin-on filter is as fine as tp. They are available, but would not be economical in a combustion byproduct environment. They're widely used in industrial hydraulics. The cost in a combustion environment would be very expensive. They would have to be very big to get much life out of them.
My terms "polishing" merely meant that the tp roll would ONLY have to filter what the Amsoil spin-on didn't remove. You would probably cut well below the >2um level that is totally possible with the Amsoil bypass.
This should afford the SAME level of fine filtration for a much LONGER duration without the unnecessarily high make up expense.
Now whether you can get the EaBP filter to last long enough to "overshadow" the cost of the tp rolls and (greatly reduced) make up oil ..that I haven't figured out since I don't think we know how long this will extend the tp roll's life span.
This is a convenience measure for a finer filter. It reduces the detracting elements of tp filtration and allows it to gain higher/longer utility than it normally would. From the Amsoil unit's perspective, you're getting added (finer) filtration with extremely low additional cost (capital acquisition not factored).
You only have to save about 10 quarts of synthetic oil to pay for the cheaper BP80A setup.
But to your assertions on the benefit ..it's going to be hard to gauge. If what you say is "truly true" and not just "apparently true" ..then a setup like this would result in a tp roll that never clogs. That is, your basing your current school of thought on lab indications. You've concluded that since there is no significant differences in measured indicators that there's no benefit from one over the other.
Essentially you're (more or less) saying "You've already done all that there is to do here. To go further yields nothing." Again, if this assertion is true, then a tp roll should never clog since there's nothing more to be done in terms of filtration.
Now if it does clog, and I assure you that it will, then it highly suggests that there is something to be gained. Surely in performance and utility (in a reasonably economical manner) if not in practical realized avoided costs (wear).
I'll accept an alternative view here if it's reasonably defensible.
Let's try out a simple "what if".
Tp by itself (composed of x number of cold starts and whatnot)
3k miles
Tp with EaBP prefiltration
7k
Assuming that the make up rate was enough to carry the sump in TBN retention (and other levels) you would be looking a 4 quarts of oil, 4 tp rolls, and one Eabp fitler in 28k miles (approximately) ..but you'll get the filtration equivalency of nearly 10 tp exchanges and (probably) 10 quarts of oil.
dnewton3
Staff member
It's certainly worth a shot.
I spent some more time yesterday working on the bypass study I'm doing. I've pulled over 30 vehicles with bypass systems (of all major brands). I can tell you right now there is no more evidentiary ability of a TP filter to filter down to a finer level than an elemental type bypass filter.
I spoke with a representative at a major oil-analysis lab yesterday for some insight. I won't mention them or the rep's name because I didn't think to ask for permission to reference them. Anyway, I asked several questions about the traceability of insolubles, wear metals, etc. They agreed with me. These are the main indicators of the health of your lube system. We also discussed the issue of "sub-micronic filtration"; that's just bunk - pure and simple. Bypass systems are proven capable down to 3-4 microns by independent study. So if a TP filter is providing UOAs with an insoluble level of .3%, and an elemental bypass filter is providing UOAs as .3%, they are filtering to the same level. Period. Metals reported in a UOA are both a tell-tale sign of wear, and the actual cause of wear. If your engine is at or near the universal averages, then you're fine. Wear metals are MUCH more important to track for each individual engine, using UOAs in succession, for a better representation of the engine's patterns. Every engine is a slight bit different. One 5.9 CTD might run a bit more iron than another, but as long as that same CTD doesn't see the iron climb, it's fine. If any engine starts a gross trend way past a universal average, say 150% above, that would be cause for concern, but just as we people are all slightly different, so are individual engines.
I've already noticed trends in UOAs that are "stereotypical" for certain engines. Volkswagon TDIs throw a lot of iron. Powerstrokes (especially 6.0s) shear oil down quickly. D-max's tend to have more copper reported when new. CTDs have more soot insolubles then others. This doesn't make the engines bad, it just shows trends in wear indicators that are probably inherent to the specific design of an engine family, and/or manufacturing process.
What is clear to me more and more each day I study this, is that there is an EXTREME amount of hype in filtration, especially bypass filtration. As true with most makers of any product, they claim to be better than the competition. Statistically the finite oil analysis shows this just ain't so. And the analysis is also showing that bypass filtration ony provides better UOAs when the OCI is driven out to a point past where the conventional system is overcome.
Another thing that is apparent with UOAs (and confirmed by talking with the lab personnel) is that UOAs are not static; in other words, the characteristics tracked such as wear metals, insolubles, fuel dilution (etc) all are DYNAMIC and constantly slightly shifting up and down in concentration. To say that a particular engine will have Fe at 20ppm next time because it had "xx"ppm this time cannot be predictied. It's just like your own body temperature. 98.6 deg F is the accepted AVERAGE body temp for humans, but we all vary slightly from that average, and we even vary during the day, depending on activity level. This is why it's very important to do successive UOAs; establishing a baseline and trends tells you much more than just one UOA, even when compared to the "universal" averages.
There are plenty of good posts on this website showing successive UOAs with both bypass and non-bypass set-ups. I have only gone back a little more than a year, and used a fraction of what is available. In fact, Mr. Harley Anderson has a couple of posts out there right now. One posted UOA is pre-Frantz bypass, and one is post Frantz installation. Guess what?; both showed the main wear indicators (Fe, Al, Cu, Pb and insolubles) all near the universal averages, and statistically within reasonable range of each other. The ONLY difference is that the post Frantz filter UOA had TWICE the milage on the oil. I CANNOT STATE THIS ENOUGH, AND YOU CAN ARGUE UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME, BUT YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM, AND MINE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE: BYPASS FILTRATION CAN MAKE YOUR ENGINE OIL LAST LONGER IN SERVICE, BUT IT CAN'T MAKE THE ENGINE LAST LONGER. IF YOU DO REGULAR OCI's OFTEN ENOUGH, THE EFFECTS OF DETRIMENTAL ENGINE DAMAGES CAN BE NEGATED JUST AS EASILY AS USING BYPASS FILTRATION. And regarding stacking bypass filter before bypass filter before bypass filter will NOT filter to a finer level, it will only buy you more time BETWEEN filter changes befor that last filter in line has to be changed.
I spent some more time yesterday working on the bypass study I'm doing. I've pulled over 30 vehicles with bypass systems (of all major brands). I can tell you right now there is no more evidentiary ability of a TP filter to filter down to a finer level than an elemental type bypass filter.
I spoke with a representative at a major oil-analysis lab yesterday for some insight. I won't mention them or the rep's name because I didn't think to ask for permission to reference them. Anyway, I asked several questions about the traceability of insolubles, wear metals, etc. They agreed with me. These are the main indicators of the health of your lube system. We also discussed the issue of "sub-micronic filtration"; that's just bunk - pure and simple. Bypass systems are proven capable down to 3-4 microns by independent study. So if a TP filter is providing UOAs with an insoluble level of .3%, and an elemental bypass filter is providing UOAs as .3%, they are filtering to the same level. Period. Metals reported in a UOA are both a tell-tale sign of wear, and the actual cause of wear. If your engine is at or near the universal averages, then you're fine. Wear metals are MUCH more important to track for each individual engine, using UOAs in succession, for a better representation of the engine's patterns. Every engine is a slight bit different. One 5.9 CTD might run a bit more iron than another, but as long as that same CTD doesn't see the iron climb, it's fine. If any engine starts a gross trend way past a universal average, say 150% above, that would be cause for concern, but just as we people are all slightly different, so are individual engines.
I've already noticed trends in UOAs that are "stereotypical" for certain engines. Volkswagon TDIs throw a lot of iron. Powerstrokes (especially 6.0s) shear oil down quickly. D-max's tend to have more copper reported when new. CTDs have more soot insolubles then others. This doesn't make the engines bad, it just shows trends in wear indicators that are probably inherent to the specific design of an engine family, and/or manufacturing process.
What is clear to me more and more each day I study this, is that there is an EXTREME amount of hype in filtration, especially bypass filtration. As true with most makers of any product, they claim to be better than the competition. Statistically the finite oil analysis shows this just ain't so. And the analysis is also showing that bypass filtration ony provides better UOAs when the OCI is driven out to a point past where the conventional system is overcome.
Another thing that is apparent with UOAs (and confirmed by talking with the lab personnel) is that UOAs are not static; in other words, the characteristics tracked such as wear metals, insolubles, fuel dilution (etc) all are DYNAMIC and constantly slightly shifting up and down in concentration. To say that a particular engine will have Fe at 20ppm next time because it had "xx"ppm this time cannot be predictied. It's just like your own body temperature. 98.6 deg F is the accepted AVERAGE body temp for humans, but we all vary slightly from that average, and we even vary during the day, depending on activity level. This is why it's very important to do successive UOAs; establishing a baseline and trends tells you much more than just one UOA, even when compared to the "universal" averages.
There are plenty of good posts on this website showing successive UOAs with both bypass and non-bypass set-ups. I have only gone back a little more than a year, and used a fraction of what is available. In fact, Mr. Harley Anderson has a couple of posts out there right now. One posted UOA is pre-Frantz bypass, and one is post Frantz installation. Guess what?; both showed the main wear indicators (Fe, Al, Cu, Pb and insolubles) all near the universal averages, and statistically within reasonable range of each other. The ONLY difference is that the post Frantz filter UOA had TWICE the milage on the oil. I CANNOT STATE THIS ENOUGH, AND YOU CAN ARGUE UNTIL THE COWS COME HOME, BUT YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM, AND MINE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE: BYPASS FILTRATION CAN MAKE YOUR ENGINE OIL LAST LONGER IN SERVICE, BUT IT CAN'T MAKE THE ENGINE LAST LONGER. IF YOU DO REGULAR OCI's OFTEN ENOUGH, THE EFFECTS OF DETRIMENTAL ENGINE DAMAGES CAN BE NEGATED JUST AS EASILY AS USING BYPASS FILTRATION. And regarding stacking bypass filter before bypass filter before bypass filter will NOT filter to a finer level, it will only buy you more time BETWEEN filter changes befor that last filter in line has to be changed.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Links? Proof? Which systems? Any of them tp or pt?
Many bypass filters are only rated at 10um. These are the big sump diesel type. Finer filtration would result in bigger filter or a shortened interval. They're probably designed/spec'd around other factors of fatigue in the oil.
Oh, really? So if I have a filter that produces insolubles @ .26 ..and you have one that filters to .34 ..they're equal in the "truth's eye"?..even though the difference in "reality's eye" is nearly 30% reduction? You've got precision and accuracy issues that aren't very "fine" in the fine level that we're dealing with here. Have you ever seen .1 insolubles?
Maybe. Now, sure, if you see some outlandish reading ..or an elevation in readings ..then something is exacerbating the baseline status of the engine's life line. But there's surely just normal "decay" that cannot necessarily be termed "wear". Wear metal indicators are inferential. That's why trending is so important to UOA. That is, any given surface can produce ejecta without having any mechanical factor introduced to it. You can see that in rusting 1st Gen Honda Civics. Impurities or micro flaws can surely evidence themselves in this modality of investigation.
Now larger particles can surely generate many smaller particles. Our full flow filtration is alleged to contain these larger particles in a controlled manner. Combined with a length of service of the carrier lube bath, they "manage" that insult to the engine's internals ..to a predetermined level of life expectancy of the engine in service. You'll note that the more expensive the power plant ..and the longer the expectation of life in service, the more advanced the maintenance systems are. Most engines, beyond a certain level cost, have larger sumps and better filtration system. These are engines that are kept in service until they're rebuilt. Most automobile engines never reach this level of decay before they're retired from service. Very few people put rebuild engines (other than hobby racers) and most don't choose to invest in reman engines in older chassis. It's also unlikely that the chassis will be in as good of shape as the engine ..assuming that it was maintained.
This I'm mostly in agreement with. I'm sure that "typical" indications have their standard deviations above and below averages. As long as you "contour" typical ..without radically readings ..I'd say you're fine.
Well, you can submit this assertion to Cummins, Caterpillar, Perkins, and a host of engine manufacturers that install them OEM. They obviously do this for no gain and no ROI for themselves or the customer.
The bunk in your assertion is along the lines of why it's senseless to repair a $19 boom box from WM. It's not that the repair is invalid, it's just that the cost of labor (in both time and material) makes no sense if it's beyond a certain % of the cost of a new product.
Obviously, bypass filtration has a purpose of merit. What you seem to fail to articulate ..or rather ..miss-focus your objection to ..is that there's no sensible ROI in the use of bypass filtration at the consumer level for even the exceptional user. You probably aren't going to realize the benefit of bypass filtration in your ownership of any given vehicle. What you also don't seem to get a grip on is that you're dealing with a "statistical future" in the formation of your opinions.
Again, I don't think that we truly disagree on the basic argument ..just the pillars that you choose to support your belief.
Yep ...this is surely a reason to assert that bypass filtration has no purpose. Simple enough for me to see
..btw- can you expand on "when the conventional system is overcome" ?? Do you mean "when the conventional OCI is exceeded" ???
I'll point out that the OEM recommendations can be exceeded with or without bypass filtration. "Conventions" are for those who do ..but do not know.
This is somewhat true (that is, yeah, so?). Some indicators track with mileage (Fe appears to) ..while others appear to merely be a "level" of maintained presence. Fuel, OTOH, although being not always fully present (it is a volatile) will leave signature evidence.
There are many levels to this forensic science. Don't assume that any lab tech is a forensic scientist. He may have the awareness to correlate some apparent cause and effects due to repetition of observations, but may have never had the desire to seek "Daddy, why is this so?" from someone who has filled in the blanks.
So you don't have the ability to integrate that the oil was in BETTER shape at the normal OCI limits? That the level of insolubles and "debris" was lower? That abrasive particles were at a much lower level at that time?
You've stated it redundantly ad nauseum ..
A totally undeniable reality
This you cannot say. You've only examined the common sensible usage of bypass filtration. The sensible economics of bypass filtration makes you extend the sump's life as some level of acceptable. You assume that this "acceptable" level has no impact upon the life of the engine. It may not in any sensible (as in common concept) of an engine's life span.
There's also your apparent resistance for admitting that you're basing your opinion on certain assumptions (givens if you will) ..yet don't appear to feel the need to qualify your statements with your given assumptions. You're only delivering empirical data and assigning it properties with your unqualified assumptions (what you take for granted). You need to self critique your assertions ..and run yourself through a series of "How do I know this to be true?" ..and then construct a defensible argument to support it.
Remember, when in any debate, always explode your opponent's bombs for them. It shows that you've weighed both sides of the argument and have choosen one line of thought over another due to (fill in the blank).
Cliff Notes version: Give concession where concession is due. You'll note that throughout this entire exchange ..I've agreed with you on face value at just about every point ..yet continued to find "holes" in stuff that you didn't address.
So far, all you can say is, "Apparently, there's no extension of engine life if bypass filtration is used as an extended drain facilitator". This too can be debated ..but since you (might have) said "apparently" ..it's a "qualified" assumption based on empirical observation (statistics as they're archaically presented).
Yeah ...so? You obviously didn't read anything I said in regard to this. The tp filters finer. In stand alone mode it's subjected to the full spectrum of particle sizes that shorten it's life. Putting a less fine, but still superior LONG LIFE filter ahead of it, lengthens its FINER FILTRATION DURATION.
This is very simple. I think that we're in agreement ..but you don't think so. You keep GENERICALLY saying "bypass before bypass before bypass" as though some idiot is putting three identical filters in line and expecting to get any (sensible) utility out of them all (although, with spin-on cellulose filters ..each would trap some of what the other let through).
You, once again, ignored the "qualifications" that make the assertion valid.
AGAIN, we're mostly in agreement. I just think that you've extended your opinion beyond what can support it.
dnewton3
Staff member
I'll agree that bypass systems have merit, in the extension of usable oil service life. You contend that that in addition to that characteristic, they can extend the life of your engine; I agree with that too, but I contend that that same desirable "end" can be achieve by a different means (more OCI's).
I would challenge you to support your claim that "The tp filters finer". According to what? There are a great many UOAs I've look at from this site that show a Frantz or MG turn in statistically similar results for the wear metals and insolubles when compared to an elemental (cellulose and/or glass mat type such as Amsoil, Oil Guard, etc) filters. If the TP filters "finer", just where is it that you think the resultant benefit is at? Does a TP filter pull out more insolubles or to a lower level? Not according to the data. Does a TP filter result in less wear metals in a UOA? No proof of that in the UOAs. Gary - it's about proof, at least for me. It's not even MY data from MY vehcile; it's from all the people that post to this site.
I will in the next week or so put together a documnet of my findings, and I'll post it up. I'll have to get some help from a friend here becuase I'm not to savy on how to upload an attachment, but I'll get there eventually.
I think we're at the point where we're going to have to agree to disagree. And I'm ok with that. I will say that you've brought up many good points; some I believe you've corrected me on, others I think are worthless. I do appreciate that fact that it's been a good adversarial conversation without becoming personal. It's always nice to debate without debasing one another.
I would challenge you to support your claim that "The tp filters finer". According to what? There are a great many UOAs I've look at from this site that show a Frantz or MG turn in statistically similar results for the wear metals and insolubles when compared to an elemental (cellulose and/or glass mat type such as Amsoil, Oil Guard, etc) filters. If the TP filters "finer", just where is it that you think the resultant benefit is at? Does a TP filter pull out more insolubles or to a lower level? Not according to the data. Does a TP filter result in less wear metals in a UOA? No proof of that in the UOAs. Gary - it's about proof, at least for me. It's not even MY data from MY vehcile; it's from all the people that post to this site.
I will in the next week or so put together a documnet of my findings, and I'll post it up. I'll have to get some help from a friend here becuase I'm not to savy on how to upload an attachment, but I'll get there eventually.
I think we're at the point where we're going to have to agree to disagree. And I'm ok with that. I will say that you've brought up many good points; some I believe you've corrected me on, others I think are worthless. I do appreciate that fact that it's been a good adversarial conversation without becoming personal. It's always nice to debate without debasing one another.
Man, I'm still waiting on my new car! I have a Frantz sitting in the garage ready to go! HAHAHA
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
How many included particle counts? Michael Sparks did a PC on, IIRC, 25k oil with an older (stacked disc) Amsoil filter. The count was virtually void of >10um particles. The lower end particles were in the mega range. Very clean cutoff. Naturally, it's impossible to compare since you can't run a tp filter that long.
Let's say that I'm wrong. Then a tp filter should last forever downstream of a spin-on bypass filter. Keep in mind that a spin-on bypass filter may only have a 10um rating. There are full flow filters that reach that level.
UPC Number: 765809510500
Principal Application: Allis-Chalmers, Fiat, Continental, GM, Hyster, Isuzu, Iveco, Towmotor, Other
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: By-Pass
Media: Paper
Height: 5.178
Outer Diameter Top: 3.660
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 5/8-18
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: None
Burst Pressure-PSI: 380
Max Flow Rate: 1-3 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 10
Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.834 2.462 0.200
Do you still think that tp is NOT finer than that? Is this not a bypass filter? So is your depth of conviction challenged in an "absolutely correct 100% of the time" manner??
I do thank you for the fun we're having here. It's been a privilege to engage in this ongoing exchange
- Status
Similar threads
