Trasko bypass filter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 31, 2014
Messages
2
Location
Tennessee
Just finished reading the comments on by-pass filtration and need some input on one I have installed on my truck; a '88 Nissan,4x4 desert runner model. It's called a Trasko filter and it is suppose to be a by-pass and full flow filter in one unit. It's a finned aluminum canister that has it's own filter media that you order with it. Just wondering if anybody has used one and there take on it. Can Google Trasko.com for info. Thanks
 
http://www.trasko-usa.com/

When flow is least restrictive the absolute particle rating efficiency is less than a micron. Upon relief actuation the secondary efficiency is still between 8-10 microns. An efficiency rating still higher than any stock type full-flow filters.

spot%20002.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just because a filter like this works as advertised does not guarantee success in the market place. The throwaway filters that most of us use are much more convenient and at lest do the job well enough.

Can you imagine a quickie oil change place or the express lube service at your local dealer cleaning and replacing a Trasko unit? Not a chance.
 
I have one. It's on my 94 Acura Legend. My UOA particle counts are nothing special. Maybe they will improve with more run-time. I sampled at 7,500. I will go 15k on the Trasko element this time and see if the efficiency comes up, I would like to use the Amsoil filter but they don't make one for my Legend or my NSX. As an option, MicroGreen does make a filter for these apps.

However, as for the Trasko my results are equivocal so far.

Dave
 
OK, I'll bite. Short answer, I would not run a Trasko filter if it were given to me for free.

Let's say that there are 3 types of filtration systems out there:
(A) full-flow only (99.99% of modern cars).
(B) full-flow and bypass (some big diesels, otherwise rare).
(C) bypass only.

Trasko seems to market their filter as type (B), but it is really type (C), bypass only.

Their "full-flow" portion is done with a mesh. Here's a quote from their web site "Extra Filter Protection - with 60 mesh screen filtering." 60 mesh filtering is 250 microns. 250 microns is enormous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesh_(scale)

There's a study (SAE 881825) showing that going from 40 micron to 30 micron full flow filtration reduced wear by 50%. I can't imagine what going from 250 to 30 would be like, but it's at least 50%. That study also mentions in passing that full-flow filtering alone (A) was much better for wear than bypass alone (C).

Essentially, a regular full-flow filter will be better for your engine. This Trasko will be better for your oil. Which (engine vs. oil) is cheaper to replace?

Conclusion, use a normal oil filter.

P.S. I don't think that you need to pay up for something exotic, like a Fram ultraguard. A regular oil filter will do.
 
This is yet another spam/sales post, like his only other one on Tufoil. I love how both start off with a variation of "I just got done reading" on here. Sure you did.

The guy can't even get the domain name correct though.
 
Originally Posted By: Skid
There's a study (SAE 881825) showing that going from 40 micron to 30 micron full flow filtration reduced wear by 50%. ... That study also mentions in passing that full-flow filtering alone (A) was much better for wear than bypass alone (C).

P.S. I don't think that you need to pay up for something exotic, like a Fram ultraguard. A regular oil filter will do.



The GM filter study you refer to is heavily biased, and generally flawed in that it has no hope to be able to replicate what happens in the real world (a fact they admit in the study).

I do agree, a decent normal filter will keep wear down low enough that other methods are not a necessity for longevity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top