Piecing together a dual remote bypass setup...
- Thread starter chevrofreak
- Start date
- Status
Oil blot with about 7,900 miles on it. This is two good sized drops that were allowed to soak into the paper towel for a couple of days.
click for full resolution
click for full resolution
Cheverofreak,
Great job.
I'm interested in how your 1/8" orifice is working out. I understand most, if not all, bypass systems use a 1/32" orifice on the downstream side of the filter. Based on my limited research a 1/8" orifice will allow a maximum 3 gpm flow rate (well above the rated maximum flow rate for many high efficiency filters), compared to less than one quart per minute using the 1/32" orifice.
Of course, because you have a parallel system you might not be getting the max flow rate because the lower resistance side might be limiting the flow rate to the bypass filter. My concern would be that because of the high flow rate the filter is not actually doing its job and effectively cleaning the oil.
How well do you think the setup is cleaning the oil? I've looked a the UOA's you've posted and they are looking good. (Edit: Oops, I just noticed you posted a more recent UAL.) I'm more concerned about the longer term results. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
BTW I'm going to install a parallel bypass system and the orifice is one of my concerns.
Great job.
I'm interested in how your 1/8" orifice is working out. I understand most, if not all, bypass systems use a 1/32" orifice on the downstream side of the filter. Based on my limited research a 1/8" orifice will allow a maximum 3 gpm flow rate (well above the rated maximum flow rate for many high efficiency filters), compared to less than one quart per minute using the 1/32" orifice.
Of course, because you have a parallel system you might not be getting the max flow rate because the lower resistance side might be limiting the flow rate to the bypass filter. My concern would be that because of the high flow rate the filter is not actually doing its job and effectively cleaning the oil.
How well do you think the setup is cleaning the oil? I've looked a the UOA's you've posted and they are looking good. (Edit: Oops, I just noticed you posted a more recent UAL.) I'm more concerned about the longer term results. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
BTW I'm going to install a parallel bypass system and the orifice is one of my concerns.
Last edited:
How long are you going to run this out? 15K or so at least, I hope. You are doing it the right way by sampling along the way to determine a safe OCI. The bypass will help the oil last longer, so in order to recover your expenses, the you can run the oil lots longer (usually double or more).
There are two reasons to change the oil, because the oil is used up or contamination. The bypass system pretty much eliminates item two so then you need to track the oil condition. The iffy part in all this is that most gas engines don't generate a lot of contaminants so seldom are the oils used in them condemned for that reason even on a long OCI without bypass a (the oil is used up before the contamination reaches dangerous levels) ... unlike a diesel (soot) or a harshly used engine (more wear metals and or external sources of contamination) might be.
I suggest a particle count the next time you sample. And not a pore blockage PC, but an actual optical test (Blackstone does pore, which read optimistically compared to optical). A PC really tells you how the system is doing holding down contamination.
There are two reasons to change the oil, because the oil is used up or contamination. The bypass system pretty much eliminates item two so then you need to track the oil condition. The iffy part in all this is that most gas engines don't generate a lot of contaminants so seldom are the oils used in them condemned for that reason even on a long OCI without bypass a (the oil is used up before the contamination reaches dangerous levels) ... unlike a diesel (soot) or a harshly used engine (more wear metals and or external sources of contamination) might be.
I suggest a particle count the next time you sample. And not a pore blockage PC, but an actual optical test (Blackstone does pore, which read optimistically compared to optical). A PC really tells you how the system is doing holding down contamination.
The TBN isn't looking terribly great after almost 7,100 miles, so I plan on going out to 9k or 10k and dumping it, but not changing either filter. This is the latest UOA, which contains all of the UOA's done at approximately 2,000 mile samplings.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...535#Post3073535
As far as the port, I really have no hard evidence, just speculation. It is my belief that in a parallel flow system that a 1/32" port would be too small to flow enough oil to really do any good. I don't think that there would be enough differential pressure to provide flow approaching anywhere near the amount of a non-parallel system. Even at just 20psi passing oil through a 1/32" port with no back pressure there should be a pretty significant amount of oil flow. At least, according to the videos I've seen on Youtube and pictures found around the web. I just don't see there being much flow through a 1/32" orifice with just a couple PSI of differential pressure.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...535#Post3073535
As far as the port, I really have no hard evidence, just speculation. It is my belief that in a parallel flow system that a 1/32" port would be too small to flow enough oil to really do any good. I don't think that there would be enough differential pressure to provide flow approaching anywhere near the amount of a non-parallel system. Even at just 20psi passing oil through a 1/32" port with no back pressure there should be a pretty significant amount of oil flow. At least, according to the videos I've seen on Youtube and pictures found around the web. I just don't see there being much flow through a 1/32" orifice with just a couple PSI of differential pressure.
I am really surprised at how quickly the TBN dropped but it may hold at 2.5 for a long while. How is the vehicle driven? Is it a short hopper?
I agree with your conclusions about the orifice given it's parallel flow. I had forgotten that's how you set yours up. Parallel flow is very slow acting versus bypass and, as you know (bit others may not), it works via DP at the primary filter to shunt oil over to the secondary. Having talked at length to the Pareto Point people (MagDog parallel system), I know what a delicate balance it can be to achieve parallel flow.
Have you, or how have you, verified that you are getting flow thru the secondary filter? If you aren't, or it's very low, along with the driving situation that could account for the dropping TBN. Again, I suggest you have a particle count (optical) done. That is one way you could verify that the secondary filter is in the look and doing some work.
I agree with your conclusions about the orifice given it's parallel flow. I had forgotten that's how you set yours up. Parallel flow is very slow acting versus bypass and, as you know (bit others may not), it works via DP at the primary filter to shunt oil over to the secondary. Having talked at length to the Pareto Point people (MagDog parallel system), I know what a delicate balance it can be to achieve parallel flow.
Have you, or how have you, verified that you are getting flow thru the secondary filter? If you aren't, or it's very low, along with the driving situation that could account for the dropping TBN. Again, I suggest you have a particle count (optical) done. That is one way you could verify that the secondary filter is in the look and doing some work.
Thanks for the two responses concerning the orifice. I think I'll try 1/8" orifice and see how it works.
I think your UAOs look good with the exception of the TBN. Based on some other posts, I thought a bypass filter would keep this number higher longer. I may have to research this more.
I think your UAOs look good with the exception of the TBN. Based on some other posts, I thought a bypass filter would keep this number higher longer. I may have to research this more.
Originally Posted By: tef
Thanks for the two responses concerning the orifice. I think I'll try 1/8" orifice and see how it works.
I think your UAOs look good with the exception of the TBN. Based on some other posts, I thought a bypass filter would keep this number higher longer. I may have to research this more.
Bear in mind that parallel flow system may flow 25 percent of what a true bypass may flow (averages from some info I have). Also, there may be operational and situational factors in this. What works for most may not work for the one, What works for the one may not work for most.
Thanks for the two responses concerning the orifice. I think I'll try 1/8" orifice and see how it works.
I think your UAOs look good with the exception of the TBN. Based on some other posts, I thought a bypass filter would keep this number higher longer. I may have to research this more.
Bear in mind that parallel flow system may flow 25 percent of what a true bypass may flow (averages from some info I have). Also, there may be operational and situational factors in this. What works for most may not work for the one, What works for the one may not work for most.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I am really surprised at how quickly the TBN dropped but it may hold at 2.5 for a long while. How is the vehicle driven? Is it a short hopper?
I agree with your conclusions about the orifice given it's parallel flow. I had forgotten that's how you set yours up. Parallel flow is very slow acting versus bypass and, as you know (bit others may not), it works via DP at the primary filter to shunt oil over to the secondary. Having talked at length to the Pareto Point people (MagDog parallel system), I know what a delicate balance it can be to achieve parallel flow.
Have you, or how have you, verified that you are getting flow thru the secondary filter? If you aren't, or it's very low, along with the driving situation that could account for the dropping TBN. Again, I suggest you have a particle count (optical) done. That is one way you could verify that the secondary filter is in the look and doing some work.
I've felt the filters and used a thermal gun to check temperature. I can feel the bypass filter can pulsing with the oil pump, just the same as I can with the full-flow. The bypass filter heats up quickly, base to dome, and is just a few degrees cooler than the full-flow.
It is a hybrid, so the engine shuts off regularly and is often off for several minutes at a time. My coolant temperature is usually in the 160-170 range, and the highest temperature I have measured on the outside of the oil filters is around 175 degrees.
The first half of this OCI was during winter, during which there were quite a few short trips made. I currently live about 6 miles from work, through town, so it doesn't really get a chance to stay at temperature. There may also be some fuel dilution issues, simply due to it being a hybrid and the engine starting and stopping frequently. Fuel dilution can lead to increased oxidation, which would deplete the TBN. The UOA that showed a 100C viscosity of 8.4 cSt was done after a good long road trip. Many of the additive levels appeared to also be slightly higher in that one, which could account for the previous ones containing some fuel. I have also been using a bottle of Red Line SI-1 fuel system cleaner just after each UOA, which could potentially be having a negative impact on the detergent pack due to ingress via fuel dilution.
But then again, this is Pennzoil Ultra SN 5w-20, which is new enough that we don't really have a baseline to determine TBN retention of this product.
The oil is significantly more clear in appearance on the dipstick; even with 8,200 miles on it; than any of the previous non-bypass OCI's with less than half of the miles/time.
I am really surprised at how quickly the TBN dropped but it may hold at 2.5 for a long while. How is the vehicle driven? Is it a short hopper?
I agree with your conclusions about the orifice given it's parallel flow. I had forgotten that's how you set yours up. Parallel flow is very slow acting versus bypass and, as you know (bit others may not), it works via DP at the primary filter to shunt oil over to the secondary. Having talked at length to the Pareto Point people (MagDog parallel system), I know what a delicate balance it can be to achieve parallel flow.
Have you, or how have you, verified that you are getting flow thru the secondary filter? If you aren't, or it's very low, along with the driving situation that could account for the dropping TBN. Again, I suggest you have a particle count (optical) done. That is one way you could verify that the secondary filter is in the look and doing some work.
I've felt the filters and used a thermal gun to check temperature. I can feel the bypass filter can pulsing with the oil pump, just the same as I can with the full-flow. The bypass filter heats up quickly, base to dome, and is just a few degrees cooler than the full-flow.
It is a hybrid, so the engine shuts off regularly and is often off for several minutes at a time. My coolant temperature is usually in the 160-170 range, and the highest temperature I have measured on the outside of the oil filters is around 175 degrees.
The first half of this OCI was during winter, during which there were quite a few short trips made. I currently live about 6 miles from work, through town, so it doesn't really get a chance to stay at temperature. There may also be some fuel dilution issues, simply due to it being a hybrid and the engine starting and stopping frequently. Fuel dilution can lead to increased oxidation, which would deplete the TBN. The UOA that showed a 100C viscosity of 8.4 cSt was done after a good long road trip. Many of the additive levels appeared to also be slightly higher in that one, which could account for the previous ones containing some fuel. I have also been using a bottle of Red Line SI-1 fuel system cleaner just after each UOA, which could potentially be having a negative impact on the detergent pack due to ingress via fuel dilution.
But then again, this is Pennzoil Ultra SN 5w-20, which is new enough that we don't really have a baseline to determine TBN retention of this product.
The oil is significantly more clear in appearance on the dipstick; even with 8,200 miles on it; than any of the previous non-bypass OCI's with less than half of the miles/time.
Well the operational cycle explains some of this TBN drop. There are some 10K + runs on Ultra in the UOA area and in those, TBN retention wasn't an issue. Ultimately, it comes down to "It is what it is" with your car. Another guy's situation is completely different.
Yep, you did what many do to verify flow, me included. I have the added advantage of being able to remove the return hose from the truck while the engine is running and observe it. When I first installed my bypass, I actually measured the flow at idle with a graduated container. Made quite a mess too when my hand got a little shaky ( : < ).
Another thing that just occurred to me as a way to look at this. Virgin TBN is 7.4. The last test was 2.5, which is still 34 percent of virgin. First, TBN may hold near this level for a long time and second, you still have 34 percent left. Not so bad.
Yep, you did what many do to verify flow, me included. I have the added advantage of being able to remove the return hose from the truck while the engine is running and observe it. When I first installed my bypass, I actually measured the flow at idle with a graduated container. Made quite a mess too when my hand got a little shaky ( : < ).
Another thing that just occurred to me as a way to look at this. Virgin TBN is 7.4. The last test was 2.5, which is still 34 percent of virgin. First, TBN may hold near this level for a long time and second, you still have 34 percent left. Not so bad.
I sent a virgin sample in and the TBN was 9.1
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2835284
That was from one of the two 5 quart jugs I used. Unfortunately, it was from the jug that only 1.5 quarts was used out of, so it isn't exactly representative of the entire sump full.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2835284
That was from one of the two 5 quart jugs I used. Unfortunately, it was from the jug that only 1.5 quarts was used out of, so it isn't exactly representative of the entire sump full.
I mistook the 1000 mile for the VOA. OK, you have 28 percent TBN left. ( : < ).
Likely your TBN is pretty representative, or close enough. You know enough to do this the right way and get a VOA first for comparison. That puts you miles ahead on the info curve. Whatever "expectations" are as far as TBN drop goes, it is what it is in your situation. Might be a faster or slower drop for other folks.
I just changed the load of MC 10W30 HDEO from my Ford with almost 16K miles on it. TBN At 10K was 3.72 (from 7.70) but I had added 2 quarts ( into a seven quart system when I installed the bypass at 5K... thus bolstering the add pack. TAN was a low 2.68 @ 10K miles.
Likely your TBN is pretty representative, or close enough. You know enough to do this the right way and get a VOA first for comparison. That puts you miles ahead on the info curve. Whatever "expectations" are as far as TBN drop goes, it is what it is in your situation. Might be a faster or slower drop for other folks.
I just changed the load of MC 10W30 HDEO from my Ford with almost 16K miles on it. TBN At 10K was 3.72 (from 7.70) but I had added 2 quarts ( into a seven quart system when I installed the bypass at 5K... thus bolstering the add pack. TAN was a low 2.68 @ 10K miles.
It would almost be a good thing if this engine burned some oil, but it doesn't. At all. I added 8oz about 5,000 miles ago and it put the level above what it was when I started. That's after a couple of samples had been pulled, too. The level on the dipstick hasn't dropped in the last 5,000 miles, except for the tiny amount from each UOA.
- Status
Similar threads
