Need input on home made bypass system

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Messages
15
Location
Tennesse
Hello everyone! First time poster LONG time stalker!

So right to the nitty gritty!

I have been for a long time wanting to set up a duel bypass system for multiple reasons. Reduce wear, extend runs to increase R.O.I so on and so forth. But that's not what I want to discuss today!

First this will be for a 93 Toyota camry that has only 133k miles on it and was MATICULOUSLY maintained! Castrol gtx every 3k miles and transmission drain and filled every year. Drives like a DREAM. So got a steal on it for 2k and here I come going to drive it to work 30k miles a year.

So adding up DEALER cost to set up a amsoil kit is for everything right at $300! So I wanted to see if I could do my own for less. So here is what I found.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B000CQ6FBK/ref=pd_aw_sbs_auto_4?refRID=1J4V7VACBWXGA71MNB4P#

a trans-dapt for 77. Now add a amsoil filter, the bypass filter and a thread adapter to make it fit and we come up to 135! Not bad. BUT here is the big question.

I have read across this board and it has been mentioned that due to it being such a dense media that with a dual flow system such as this that no oil would flow through the bypass and all Into the full flow? So it just sounds odd to me that the full flow wouldn't push at least some if not more than being on its own set up. Even if you look at the amsoil set up it takes a " partial flow " from infeed then feeds it back into the same outfeed. So what's the difference? Any help or ideas would be appreciated. Just trying to save more money but get the same result ( if not better ) as a full set up.

Thanks and look forward to hearing from you all!
 
Welcome. Let me know when you're ready to discuss that quote.

Good luck with your project.

Originally Posted By: Wrenchturner
I have been for a long time wanting to set up a duel bypass system for multiple reasons. Reduce wear, extend runs to increase R.O.I so on and so forth. But that's not what I want to discuss today!
 
Oil changer! Thank you for the welcome. I am really not wanting to discuss that quote in this posting. I've read the entire posting of " Do bypass filters reduce UOA usefullness? " and don't want to start that here!
wink.gif


Let's just say that is my personal opinion leave it at that for now. This is mostly to see how everyone feels about the idea of a dual flow with no restriction to the amsoil bypass filter. Cheers!
 
welcome2.gif


Since you are adamant about not discussing the whys/wherefores, we'll let you off, for now. I'll just presume you "want" to do this and leave it at that.


You need a mount set up for parallel flow; where there is a divergent flow from one source into two separate paths. The "full flow" needs to supply pressure back to the engine for consumption into the rest of the lube circuit. The "bypass" needs to return to the sump unimpeded; essentially back to atmospheric. If that mount you show can do that, you're fine. If not, it won't work the way you want.


If you found an Amsoil dealer (we have a few here) that could get you a good price, why not consider the BMK-21, the generic system from them? With a decent discount it would have a lot less headache and come with a warranty.
 
Last edited:
DNEWTON3 Thank you for the welcome.

Yes to avoid the normal pro-cons talk let's just say I WANT to do this.

As for the bmk-21 the dealer price is 146. Then like 44 for oilfilter adapter and 32 for bypass filter. Still around 225 for a full set up.

So my real question is this. Why in a dual flow scenario with the trans-dapt kit would it NOT work? Assuming pressure seeks path of least resistance it would flow mostly through full flow and the left over pressure flow through the bypass? Or am I missing a vital piece of this that would cause it not to work. I've yet to read any reasons given as to why it wouldn't work. So please educate me. Thanks!
 
I have not seen the internal workings of the trans-dapt mount.

I would presume it to be a linear flow path from the "in" and "out" ports of the mount, right? Is that mount set up for parallel or series flow? If you can look into the "in" port and see all the way through it, and same for the "out" port, then I'd have to presume it is parallel flow to each filter location. You would plug one "out" port and one "in" port, thereby using only one of each remaining port type. I think they do it this way so that you have choices as to how/where to route your plumbing lines. (lines could enter from the same side on left, or right, or enter opposite).

Therefore, to slow the flow for the BP element, you'd need a restriction somewhere unique only to that element. Where did you plan on installing the restriction? Also the BP element would be operating at the same in/out dP drop, so I'm not sure you'd get the flow you'd be looking to have.

BP elements generally work on the principle of very low flow and high dP. Unless you mimic that situation it likely won't work as desired. And that might be the crux of you question here. There is a difference between the system working as installed versus working as desired. In your plan, it may "work", but it may not work in an optimal sense. However, I'm not going to pretend to know because I've simply not put a lot of effort into this; never had the desire to build one. One tell-tale item I'd look keenly for is WHERE the restriction is on commercial units. See if you can get info from Amsoil, FS, etc as to where they install their restriction in relation to the media element. If "upstream" then the dP is going to be VERY high; if downstream the dP will be quite a bit lower.


Somewhere, in the bowels of this site, is a discussion about this very topic with our departed member Gary Allan. See if you can dig it up; he had some insight on this.


Why not go ahead and build it and tell us how it goes? With the money you save, why not buy some gauges and monitor pressure and flow, so that you can know, rather than guess, how it works!
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the thoughts dnewton3. I tried doing some searches for Gary Allen and sadly didn't find anything.

You are correct as well about the mounting hardware. It is a straight pipe to both filter inlets. Can come in from either side allowing to either plug the opposite side or install measuring instruments for say pressure or temperature.

I have honestly thought about just trying it. But here are some questions I pose that I've yet to find answers here or anywhere else.

Also please understand that these are all hypothetical questions of things I have been very curious about. So don't take them to heart!

Why do you HAVE to restrict flow to a bypass filter? To my knowledge is it just a filter of super dense media allowing for super fine filtration. So is there a REASON we restrict flow or is that something that we are led to believe just because normal set ups are made to make sure we have plenty and pressure and flow to our engines? In this set up in my mind it would only being using excess pressure that is not forced through a full flow and allowing it through the bypass.

I have also been trying to find to no avail exactly how much a bypass filter restricts flow. No data has been floating around as far as I can tell. I've even thought about testing two bypass filters at once just to see exactly how restrictive they are. Wouldn't be too hard to set this up on a bench before going into a car and testing a few things.

So any thoughts or ideas are welcome! Thanks
 
This is similar to what I use on my 2000 Camry:

Toyota 3/4"-16 Full Flow Engine Oil Cooler Sandwich Adapter Kit Link: Eaby

and

Hayden 2106 Oil Filter Adapter Remote Mount 3/8" NPTF Link: Ebay

I use a Donaldson P550881 filter for the bypass. You could use an Amsoil filter if you had the right adapter. The sandwich adapter has a safety valve, if I remember, set at 4 psi. I'll always have oil flowing, either through the bypass or regular fuel filter. The bypass filter is always hot so I assume I'm getting some flow through it.

bypass%20filter_zpsjegup5fn.jpg
 
Last edited:
Hello tef.

I find it funny your car is the same color as mine and looks identical in the engine bay.

That's a great looking set up. I looked up the filter and see the it is rated for 5 microns which is good. Only thing that strikes me as odd is that it says it's a fuel filter. Have you ran into any issues with it? Done any UOA'S to see if it helps?

To ask a deeper question from one I asked in the post before has anyone seen any data posted about flow rates and bypass filters?

As far as the amsoil bypass filters I've had the thoughts of if you ran two of the larger ones say a 110 on something like the transdapt kit couldn't it give you enough inner surface area to run enough flow for a 4 cylinder? Even if say it's 20 more times restrictive than a normal filter wouldn't that be negated if you had 20 times more area? Just shooting out some thoughts here. Hope to hear everyone's ideas on this!
 
The Amsoil dual remote mount has a restriction nozzle at the downstream end, threaded into the inside part of the clean oil return on the mount. The hole is maybe, IIRC, about 1/16 inch.

I have an Amsoil dual remote setup, it is a very nice kit, everything you need, clean... IMO, just go for it and use their setup, you will KNOW it works without worrying.
 
I would think the restriction would be "downstream" of the media so that the dP across the media would be low. A high dP would likely damage media, even synthetic, if allowed to get too high. There is an age-old adage that goes thus: "when in doubt, meter out". It means if you have to restrict something, do so on the outbound. That keeps pumps from cavitating, media from blowing out, etc.

The need for the restriction is to create an artifically slow volumetric flow across the media; gives the media a good chance to grab the particulate. Much easier to hold a particle in the media bed with a slow flow than a fast flow. It also provides the dP to create flow direction.

I should have done a better job defining what I mean by high dP. Very little dP would not push past a high-density BP media very well. So several PSI or more is beneficial here. But you do not want 40-80 PSI differential; that would damage media. As long as you meter with a restriction downstream of the BP element, using as-supplied pump flow, that would be fine. You have to think of this in terms of both partial and total flow. In a parallel path, the pressure/flow response will be just like those in electrical paths. It's a mathematical relationship. If you used a BP filter fed off the main circuit along with a FF filter off that same circuit, and they are in parallel flow, then the restriction behind (downstream) the FF filter is the engine itself, and represents the largest portion of the back-pressure. If you didn't have a restriction on the BP side, the engine would attempt to pump as much as it could through the BP element and damage it.
- the FF filter loop uses the engine circuit itself as a "restriction"
- the BP filter loop needs a restriction GREATER than that of the engine, or the fluid would prefer the BP loop.
- the flow will not go 100% one or the other; it will find a balance between the two to match the overall pump desired flow for any given rpm.
- the artificial restriction you place in the BP loop will create both a flow restriction and a significant pressure drop


First you have to size the artificial restriction in the BP loop so that the fluid will bias to the FF filter loop. Then, you have to choose where to put the restriction in the BP loop. If you put the restriction ahead of the BP element, then the dP could become great enough across the BP media to do some damage. But if you put the restriction after the BP element, there is little risk of a blowout because the dP across the media is reasonably controlled.

Generally, I think a .050" orifice, downstream of the BP element, will suffice at least as a starting point. However - CAUTION HERE !!! You need to make sure you do the right thing. Because your trans-dapt filter mount uses only one path for the return oil, you cannot put the restriction in that outbound stream or the entire oil feed would starve out quickly. You have to put the restriction after the BP element ONLY, but let the rest of the system flow in it's natural state. So given the way that trans-dapt is made, you need to figure out how to put a restriction somewhere in that hunk of metal that ONLY restricts the outbound BP flow, and not all flow. Now, just maybe, if you put the restriction in the inlet side of the BP element mount, and the return oil from the BP element went back into the main return stream, the balance may be reasonable enough to provide a safe operating environment.
When you see a BP element completely separate from the FF, it needs the restriction downstream of the element. If you see a BP element in parallel on the same mount with the same singular return path, it's concieveable that the restriction could be "upstream".

It has always been my preference to have a completely separate BP mount fed off the FF mount, and then return that BP flow directly to the sump pan (atmospheric), using a restriction AFTER the BP element. You are assured of the right flow, going the right way, with no risk of back-feeding, and not blowing out an element. Here, as long as the restriction is sized even remotely well, you'll never have an issue.

The challenge with your proposed system is that you have to get the orifice restriction size correct, because you're intending to co-mingle the return oil from both filters in the same mount. You MUST get this size right so that the dP of the BP is greater than what the engine represents for any given rpm output of the oil pump. And that is a much narrower window to hit without causing a media blowout, but also not creating a bias to the BP element. You could protect yourself from the risk of backflow by installing a check-valve; such as a captive ball-spring unit? But the real issue here is you're now trying to install both a check-valve AND a restriction in a very small amount of real-estate in the BP element side of your trans-dapt unit.

Essentially, you're trying to make this formula work in a hydraulic sense:
1/RT = 1/r1 + 1/r2
where RT is total resistance, and r1 is the FF resistance (engine) and r2 is the BP element resistance drop
but you want a heavy bias to the engine so that the majority of lube feeds the FF loop.

What you are trying to make at home is not unlike some of the dual-element filters that use a single can to house the elements. They will stack a FF element on top of a bypass element, and use the return inside for both. See this link:
http://www.napafilters.com/filters/oil-filters/heavy-duty-oil-filters/xd-extended-drain-filter/
open the little gallery picture link and you'll see what I mean.

So, you're going to have to accept some risk and play with it a bit. Don't get discouraged. Just realize there is some risk in engineering something yourself.


I have never owned a BP filter set-up. Several years ago I was about the put one one and was going to buy from Gary, but we talked and I could not justify the cost structure for the miles I drive in my various vehicles. Therefore, because I've not owned one, I cannot give a direct comment on how the Amsoil is constructed; never held one in my hands before.

Google this as a starting point:
"hydraulic flow in parallel paths" and start reading!
http://www.carldyke.com/parallel-flow-paths-part-1
this contrasts series and parallel in electricity, but hydraulic works the same way believe it or not
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_1/chpt_5/1.html

Maybe that helps it make sense?
Do you see why this is not really done often, and why most folks just pony up to get a pre-made unit from a major OEM?

It's not that you cannot do it, but it's a challenge to get the balance of pressure and flow correct all the in same mount when you return the oil to the same path, using that little mount you selected.

I'm not trying to talk you out of it. I'm trying to get you to understand why most folks abandon the efforts, and what challenges you have to make it right without harming your filters or engine.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Wrenchturner
Hello tef.

I looked up the filter and see the it is rated for 5 microns which is good. Only thing that strikes me as odd is that it says it's a fuel filter. Have you ran into any issues with it? Done any UOA'S to see if it helps?



So far, I've only had one UOA done. It was done at 8571 miles. It looked OK to me. Currently I'm approaching 18,000 miles on the current oil. I'll probably go 20,000 or 25,000 miles before I get a UOA done. That should be sometime this summer. I just did an oil blot last week. It looked fine. I do about 100 miles per day of stop and go driving with 2/3rds of it on gravel roads. This car takes a beating. It currently about 238,000 miles on it.

Yes, the filter is sold as a fuel filter. The guy who was selling the components said the filter material was made of the same material as the AMSOIL. Don't know if I believe that, but thought I'd give it a try. If I remember correctly, I think the filter was rated for high temps. I've had no problems with it. But we will see.

Some specifications of the filter:

Operating Pressure
0-100 psi (690 kPa)

Temperature Range
-40° to 250ºF (-40º to 121ºC)

Flow Rate
Up to 250 gph / 946 lph

I've had no problems with it. But we will see.

Code:
DATE SAMPLED 10-Apr-14

DATE RECEIVED 02-May-14

DATE REPORTED 05-May-14

SIF NO. 13956728

TIME ON UNIT 216762

TIME ON OIL 8571

OIL BRAND SuperTech

OIL TYPE Conventional

OIL GRADE 5W30

OIL ADDED





Metals (ppm)



Iron (Fe) 7

Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Copper (Cu) 1

Tin (Sn)
Aluminium (Al) 2

Nickel (Ni)
Silver (Ag)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium (V)


Contaminants (ppm)



Silicon (Si) 6

Sodium (Na) 11

Potassium (K)


Additives (ppm)

Magnesium (Mg)
Calcium (Ca) 2284

Barium (Ba)
Phosphorus (P) 742

Zinc (Zn) 841

Molybdenum (Mo) 2

Boron (B) 66



Contaminants

Water (%)
Coolant No



Physical Tests

Viscosity (cSt 100C) 9.8



Physical / Chemical

Base Number (mgKOH/g) 3.2
 
Wow those are some good numbers for conventional with 8k+ miles. You've got me wondering now. If I'm not mistaken I've read that Donaldson does make the filter elements for amsoil. If that filter is made like the amsoil but just slightly less restrictive that might be a good solution to run a double full flow set up on. Not to mention far less expensive. I will look more into this filter when I have time. 5 micron would be great for a full flow possibly with a amsoil BP added to it for super fine filter.

At one point that I have even thought about trying two ph8a sized Trasko filters on the dual set up. Two filter elements every 10k miles. Two quarts of refresh oil every 10k could prolong a full drain 40-60 depending on UOA results. Thoughts?
 
Dnewton3 thanks for all the great information! I'm not strictly new to these things but I'm looking to find answers to questions that either haven't been asked or I have yet to see.

You bring up great points on the dP. Is the kind of thoughts I'm wanting from different perspectives than mine. I don't have a problem paying for an amsoil set up because I would keep it running on one or more vehicles to eventually see a return. BUT if I COULD build my own for a lot less that could potentially be even better I say why not! The issue with things like an amsoil set up is its made to work for a lot of different set ups. Not always perfect for your set up. So is why I want to spend some time collecting different opinions and thoughts before I just dive in.

KEEP IT COMING EVERYONE!
 
Originally Posted By: Wrenchturner
Dnewton3 thanks for all the great information! I'm not strictly new to these things but I'm looking to find answers to questions that either haven't been asked or I have yet to see.

You bring up great points on the dP. Is the kind of thoughts I'm wanting from different perspectives than mine. I don't have a problem paying for an amsoil set up because I would keep it running on one or more vehicles to eventually see a return. BUT if I COULD build my own for a lot less that could potentially be even better I say why not! The issue with things like an amsoil set up is its made to work for a lot of different set ups. Not always perfect for your set up. So is why I want to spend some time collecting different opinions and thoughts before I just dive in.

KEEP IT COMING EVERYONE!


You can't make it better than an Amsoil setup, if spin on filters is what you want. You can go for a single stand alone BP filter like a Kleenoil setup, but they are quite a bit more expensive, both initial cost and replacement BP elements are alot more (you have to replace them 3 times as often, or more.

The Amsoil uint is seriously heavy duty, it's built properly and comes with everything you need to custom cut your hoses and mount it up. Newton gave some great information, and it's true, most people give up on custom BP setups like what you are attempting because of small difference in cost and potentially compromising engine safety.
 
Zpinch don't get me wrong. I have nothing against amsoil set up. I've always read it's a great set up. But even with dealer price ( which I have ) I could do a similar hand made for about 40% of total cost.

I have read on the Kleenoil set ups and they look nice. But as you've said it's a lot of extra cost for what may be a fine line of just a little better than an amsoil set up.

I've also looked Into centrifugal cleaners. But not sure if I'm ready for that to be honest. If it was for a full size diesel or over the road I would mostly, for wanted soot removal. But for a camry I think spin ons or replaceable elements will be what I aim for.

They also make single style transdapt that have a double sided in and out. ( at work right now or I would look up links.. ) could set up a full flow on first single then route that same flow to another base with the bypass. Should be easy enough to find a orifice small enough to restrict flow that way. Will have to see what the total cost is though in comparison.

I'm loving this discussion keep the thoughts and ideas coming!
 
Bypass filtration is simple. Try not to make it more complex than it needs to be.

That Transdapt dual kit is a great choice. Perma-Cool, Derale,... have similar kits.

A 3/4-16 bypass filter PN is Baldwin B7018. Use a TG8a or PL30001, or any PH8a sized filter for the full flow. The full flow's media resistance will send enough oil to the bypass in a simple parallel mount setup.

There is an eBay store, tmvtaylor, that sells an adapter or pipe nipple to convert a 3/4-16 to 1-16 if you want to use Amsoils EaBP 90, 100, or 110 filter, instead of the Baldwin PN.
 
Zpinch yes I have seen your set up. Looks nice. Hope mine will look as good when I'm done.

Greasymechtech, so using the trans-dapt kit you think I will get proper flow through the bypass filter without damaging it? I've been looking into the lf9028 fleet guard filters the past couple days. Weighing the options of a full flow with a built in bypass and still adding a remote to that for full fluid polishing. Going to sit down in next couple days and do a cost analysis for around 100k miles and see the cost versus different units.

Anyone know how long you could run a lf9028 or a Baldwin bd7317 for?
 
Flow will be fine in a parallel setup.

The problem with the LF9028 filter is whether you have enough flow to utilize it effectively ... even though you will probably never be able to clog it, which depends on engine running condition and driving style.. You can run it as long as the oil stays clean and is definitely a worthy test candidate. Newer NanoNet media filters are replacing the stacked plate Venturi filters, makes you wonder if the Venturi was as good as advertised. Cost?

Keep it simple, easily serviceable, and affordable. A Frantz or Trasko is a great way to go.
Frantz is a dedicated bypass that uses TP or Frant media. For a small engine, consider it with a .030 orifice, or a 10psi crack open valve. Jackmaster is another and offers a TP adapter.

The Trasko, in a PH8a size, can be used with the single or dual remote mounts. Media is a little expensive but TP can be bandsawed to fit it.

Even without a bypass, current full flow synth media filters, and synth oil, should make a 10k+ interval. I don't see why you couldn't go 20k with a dual full flow. The extra oil capacity and media area should suffice, especially with UOA with TBN/TAN data to verify. Bypass is for those of us that don't want to change oil. Cost and engine longevity shouldn't even be a consideration, but seems to be the anti-bypass argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top