I just installed a new Ford 351 EFI in my boat and am cosidering adding the Baldwin 1305 and B50/ B164 bypass filter. I already have a return hose into the pan drain hole ( factory installed for ease of draining oil)and will be adding a remote head for the full flow filter. I could tap into the supply side of the FF head and feed the 1305 and return through the existing drain line. May cost around $40.00. I will be using synthetic oil ( waiting for recomendations fron this site) and would like to go the season without an oil change, maybe 100 hrs or more. Does this sound like the way to go? Are ther any other filter and head combinations that would be better, or could I just go with a high quality FF filter and keep it simple. Thanks, Waterskier
Should I add bypass filter?
- Thread starter waterskier
- Start date
- Status
A quality regular oil should go 100hours...5000 miles/50mph is 100 hours, just for comparison.
For the added benefit of the bypass, I'd do it. Since it is a new engine, you will get a lot of particles in the first couple hours as things break-in and wear-fit and smooth out.
The Baldwin filter seems to be a good choice, there are a lot of people running them with good results.
For the added benefit of the bypass, I'd do it. Since it is a new engine, you will get a lot of particles in the first couple hours as things break-in and wear-fit and smooth out.
The Baldwin filter seems to be a good choice, there are a lot of people running them with good results.
Probably be better off changing the oil . I you run syn go for the bypass filter. Amsoil 15w/40 diesel Marine and the Amsoil single bypass is a nice setup. I don't now use or sell Amsoil,though it is a well proven and tested combination .
Deeter, Those 100 hrs are at 3000 rpm and all up hill. The recomended interval is 50 hrs. I am trying to push it with synthetic and bypass. I have 25 hrs on the engine now. I should have done it sooner.
Steve, I am listening.
Steve, I am listening.
Originally Posted By: waterskier
Deeter, Those 100 hrs are at 3000 rpm and all up hill.
And this is any different from a 4 cylinder how? (under constant load and screaming)
Deeter, Those 100 hrs are at 3000 rpm and all up hill.
And this is any different from a 4 cylinder how? (under constant load and screaming)
Deeter, You a probably right as long as that 4 cylinder is not driven by my 86 year old mother.
USe the AMSOIL bypass filter and the AMSOIL boat oil.
Test the oil yearly (or whenever you want) and let the lab tell you when it is time to change.
Test the oil yearly (or whenever you want) and let the lab tell you when it is time to change.
Originally Posted By: deeter16317
Originally Posted By: waterskier
Deeter, Those 100 hrs are at 3000 rpm and all up hill.
And this is any different from a 4 cylinder how? (under constant load and screaming)
Comparing a street driven 4 cylinder auto engine with this boat engine is sorta laughable. I'd like to see any street car running at a steady BMEP approaching 200 psi.
Joe
Originally Posted By: waterskier
Deeter, Those 100 hrs are at 3000 rpm and all up hill.
And this is any different from a 4 cylinder how? (under constant load and screaming)
Comparing a street driven 4 cylinder auto engine with this boat engine is sorta laughable. I'd like to see any street car running at a steady BMEP approaching 200 psi.
Joe
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Fuel usage is a good indicator of oil fatigue. Being EFI is a great plus. Nice engine.
How well do you maintain coolant temp? Do you have an oil temp gauge?
How well do you maintain coolant temp? Do you have an oil temp gauge?
dnewton3
Staff member
IMO, this boat doesn't see any more heavy loading than if that 351 EFI Windsor engine was in a F-150 truck. Once up on plane, a boat does not represent a heavy load at all. Waterskier, your boat engine isn't seeing any more abuse than any other vehicle on the road.
Further, the OP indicated in the other section that, this engine will not see much idling (trolling), so fuel dilution (especially with EFI) should not be an issue.
At the heart of the issue is this: if he's going to OCI every 50 hours, I don't see ANY need for a bypass system. With 100 hour OCI's, it's still likely a waste of resources. 100 hour OCI's (once a season) is only akin to 5k miles. Gee, he's running 3,000 rpm? So what, that's easy on a Windsor; those engines have very good lubrictaion systems. The NASCAR Ford engines are modified Windsors. It's not like 3,ooo rpm is going to kill that motor.
5k mile yearly OCI's on a fuel injected Windsor running a moderate load DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR BYPASS FILTRATION. If you WANT bypass, go for it. But you don't NEED it.
Further, the OP indicated in the other section that, this engine will not see much idling (trolling), so fuel dilution (especially with EFI) should not be an issue.
At the heart of the issue is this: if he's going to OCI every 50 hours, I don't see ANY need for a bypass system. With 100 hour OCI's, it's still likely a waste of resources. 100 hour OCI's (once a season) is only akin to 5k miles. Gee, he's running 3,000 rpm? So what, that's easy on a Windsor; those engines have very good lubrictaion systems. The NASCAR Ford engines are modified Windsors. It's not like 3,ooo rpm is going to kill that motor.
5k mile yearly OCI's on a fuel injected Windsor running a moderate load DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR BYPASS FILTRATION. If you WANT bypass, go for it. But you don't NEED it.
Garry, Coolant temp is a steady 165-170 and no I do not have a oil temp gauge. I do have an oil cooler I could add to this engine. Would it be of any benefit?
Do a comparison of the wear on a marine engine as compared to the same engine in a car or pickup and the marine engine will astronomical wear in comparison. I wouldn't compare a NASCAR engine to a commercially produced engine as there is no comparsion other than than the parts may look the same. It is the load on the engine not the rpm That stresses the marine engine. .Hint, think about the M.P.G.s in a boat compared to a car cruising at 3,000 rpm.
Originally Posted By: waterskier
Garry, Coolant temp is a steady 165-170 and no I do not have a oil temp gauge. I do have an oil cooler I could add to this engine. Would it be of any benefit?
I would advise you to check the oil temp before adding an oil cooler . Then if the temps warrant an oil cooler go for it.
Garry, Coolant temp is a steady 165-170 and no I do not have a oil temp gauge. I do have an oil cooler I could add to this engine. Would it be of any benefit?
I would advise you to check the oil temp before adding an oil cooler . Then if the temps warrant an oil cooler go for it.
dnewton3
Staff member
Well - here's an opportunity for us to LEARN somthing, rather than GUESS at something.
Perhaps the OP could install an oil sample port (likley easy to do by the way he's described the plumbing). Then he can get UOA's, perhaps every 25 hours.
My suspicion is that the wear results are much more similar to a work-truck engine that most would realize. But, if you want to convince me I'm wrong, then post up results. Let's see the UOA's.
However, to convince me, I'll need to see several successive UOA's, at even intervals, with the understanding that this is a new engine and therefore being "broken in", and using good control theroms such as consistent use of oil brand/viscosity, and noting any atypical usage patterns. Post up the UOA's for all to see, and I'll run them for analysis in my staticial analysis programs.
While I agree that there is a much greater fuel consumption rate in a pleasure boat versus a car or truck, the relationship of BSFC, oil comsumption, wear metals and such is NOT directly proportional. In other words, if a car gets 20 mpg and a boat gets the equivilant of 10mpg, does it also use up 2x as much oil, or generate 2x as many wear metals, or are the insolubles doubled? - DOUBTFULL! The only issue that would be reasonble to suspect highly effected is that the TBN might drop quicker because a marine environment is, by definition, going to provide more moisture for the production of more acids, thereby effecting the TBN.
Still - rather than us guessing, how about the OP posting results in a controlled experiment. That will tell the tale. Rhetoric doesn't provide much opportunity to learn; data does.
Perhaps the OP could install an oil sample port (likley easy to do by the way he's described the plumbing). Then he can get UOA's, perhaps every 25 hours.
My suspicion is that the wear results are much more similar to a work-truck engine that most would realize. But, if you want to convince me I'm wrong, then post up results. Let's see the UOA's.
However, to convince me, I'll need to see several successive UOA's, at even intervals, with the understanding that this is a new engine and therefore being "broken in", and using good control theroms such as consistent use of oil brand/viscosity, and noting any atypical usage patterns. Post up the UOA's for all to see, and I'll run them for analysis in my staticial analysis programs.
While I agree that there is a much greater fuel consumption rate in a pleasure boat versus a car or truck, the relationship of BSFC, oil comsumption, wear metals and such is NOT directly proportional. In other words, if a car gets 20 mpg and a boat gets the equivilant of 10mpg, does it also use up 2x as much oil, or generate 2x as many wear metals, or are the insolubles doubled? - DOUBTFULL! The only issue that would be reasonble to suspect highly effected is that the TBN might drop quicker because a marine environment is, by definition, going to provide more moisture for the production of more acids, thereby effecting the TBN.
Still - rather than us guessing, how about the OP posting results in a controlled experiment. That will tell the tale. Rhetoric doesn't provide much opportunity to learn; data does.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: waterskier
Garry, Coolant temp is a steady 165-170 and no I do not have a oil temp gauge. I do have an oil cooler I could add to this engine. Would it be of any benefit?
Is it a laminar (coolant
il sandwich or other) heat exchanger? That would be what I would use. I'd rather see your coolant temp up to automotive levels. There's some study that shows that coolant temp maintained 180F or lower radically increases wear. You're probably blowing a few extra horse power out the exhaust water jackets due to the lower temperature. On other, older non-exchanged, engines ..even lower coolant temp didn't prevent normalized (for load) engine oil temps. 225F would not be uncommon ..and if you think back to the fuel consumption curve difference, it seems to make sense. Your oil fatigue may be as much due to premature aging as it is TBN depletion due to the environment.
Garry, Coolant temp is a steady 165-170 and no I do not have a oil temp gauge. I do have an oil cooler I could add to this engine. Would it be of any benefit?
Is it a laminar (coolant
il sandwich or other) heat exchanger? That would be what I would use. I'd rather see your coolant temp up to automotive levels. There's some study that shows that coolant temp maintained 180F or lower radically increases wear. You're probably blowing a few extra horse power out the exhaust water jackets due to the lower temperature. On other, older non-exchanged, engines ..even lower coolant temp didn't prevent normalized (for load) engine oil temps. 225F would not be uncommon ..and if you think back to the fuel consumption curve difference, it seems to make sense. Your oil fatigue may be as much due to premature aging as it is TBN depletion due to the environment.The boat would get 4 or 5 mpgs.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Then I'd say that, assuming automotive use as a baseline, you're looking at 3X the fatigue rate in marine use. You can then add any aggravating conditions inherent to the environment. They should make an OLM for marine use.
dnewton3
Staff member
My kingdom for some good, controlled UOA's!
I must agree with Gary on the temp issue. If the engine is not coming above 170 deg F, then it's likely that the oil is not up to temp as well. I'm a firm believer that engine oil in the sump needs to be at least 190 deg, and no more than 220, to be in it's sweet spot. Tranny oil is similar, but perhaps a bit cooler (175-200). Oil that is too cold does not provide good protection. I would think that adding an oil cooler would be going backwards, in this case.
I truly don't understand why a manufacturer of a marine engine would suggest a straight weight at such temps, or have an engine t-stat'ed to such temps. I'll presume they know (or at least think that they know) more than us.
Regarding the wear rates of metals in a marine engine, if they all operate in such a "cold" state, then we cannot really compare them to an on-road engine, at least not directly. On road engines must meet emmisions regs, and that's why they tend to run upwards of 200 deg F nowdays. I think this is part of the reason Toyota has such good results with emmisions; hot temps = high head temps = good emissions = some sludging effects of oil. But boat motors don't operate in an emissions state of tune; they're ususally tuned for max power for the displacement. So, running it cold helps cool in intake charge, but it likely suffers in the wear department. Also, the cold engine might help keep engine pinging to a minimum; some boat motors are know to run a bit higher compression, again in the pursuit of performance over longevity.
Again, UOA, UOA, UOA! Why guess, when you can KNOW! I like Gary's idea of an hour-meter. You can get those things at any auto parts store. Install one, pull uniform UOA's, and start some charting of the progress.
I must agree with Gary on the temp issue. If the engine is not coming above 170 deg F, then it's likely that the oil is not up to temp as well. I'm a firm believer that engine oil in the sump needs to be at least 190 deg, and no more than 220, to be in it's sweet spot. Tranny oil is similar, but perhaps a bit cooler (175-200). Oil that is too cold does not provide good protection. I would think that adding an oil cooler would be going backwards, in this case.
I truly don't understand why a manufacturer of a marine engine would suggest a straight weight at such temps, or have an engine t-stat'ed to such temps. I'll presume they know (or at least think that they know) more than us.
Regarding the wear rates of metals in a marine engine, if they all operate in such a "cold" state, then we cannot really compare them to an on-road engine, at least not directly. On road engines must meet emmisions regs, and that's why they tend to run upwards of 200 deg F nowdays. I think this is part of the reason Toyota has such good results with emmisions; hot temps = high head temps = good emissions = some sludging effects of oil. But boat motors don't operate in an emissions state of tune; they're ususally tuned for max power for the displacement. So, running it cold helps cool in intake charge, but it likely suffers in the wear department. Also, the cold engine might help keep engine pinging to a minimum; some boat motors are know to run a bit higher compression, again in the pursuit of performance over longevity.
Again, UOA, UOA, UOA! Why guess, when you can KNOW! I like Gary's idea of an hour-meter. You can get those things at any auto parts store. Install one, pull uniform UOA's, and start some charting of the progress.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
I would think that adding an oil cooler would be going backwards, in this case.
If he uses an oil:coolant heat exchanger, and restat's to 195F ..the oil should be regulated to very near that temp. The density of the medium, plus the flow differential, makes these very compact.
Quote:
I truly don't understand why a manufacturer of a marine engine would suggest a straight weight at such temps, or have an engine t-stat'ed to such temps. I'll presume they know (or at least think that they know) more than us.
I believe that this is much like stationary installations like gensets and even lawn mower size engines. They're typically run at or near WOT most of the time.
I'd also index the fuel consumption to some per hour rate.
I would think that adding an oil cooler would be going backwards, in this case.
If he uses an oil:coolant heat exchanger, and restat's to 195F ..the oil should be regulated to very near that temp. The density of the medium, plus the flow differential, makes these very compact.
Quote:
I truly don't understand why a manufacturer of a marine engine would suggest a straight weight at such temps, or have an engine t-stat'ed to such temps. I'll presume they know (or at least think that they know) more than us.
I believe that this is much like stationary installations like gensets and even lawn mower size engines. They're typically run at or near WOT most of the time.
I'd also index the fuel consumption to some per hour rate.
As far as the engine operational temps go ,does the boat have a heat exchanger so the cooling is similar to an autos or does it directly use the lake /ocean water directly in the block for cooling. If the engine uses lake /ocean water then there is /can be a problem with mineral deposits . 160*f is good for power output . Straight weights are when recommended for the higher protection they afford" hths" and the viscosity improvers in a steadystate operation mode can cause ring sticking.I would bet that the efi is adjusted on the power side of the feul metering instead of the economy/emission side. To imagine the drag on a boat look up the current top fuel records for cars and compare the top fuel hydro boat records as they have pretty much the exact engines and I would guess a direct comparison..
- Status
