Bypass wizards check in, Cat 1R-0749

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eco-Pur, Puradyn, Onboard, ... and others have bypass filters with a heated evap chamber to deal with fuel dilution, moisture....
The heated bypass filter was available since the 1940s. Fuel dilution is nothing new.
 
Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
Eco-Pur, Puradyn, Onboard, ... and others have bypass filters with a heated evap chamber to deal with fuel dilution, moisture....
The heated bypass filter was available since the 1940s. Fuel dilution is nothing new.


A sub-argument.
fuel dilution with diesel is new since 2007. Gasoline has a much higher vapor pressure and evaporates much quicker. And how many current BP filters are heated (not that it would make any difference with diesel)?
Look at all the posted UOAs for post 2006 DPF-equipped engines. Fuel levels of 4%....

Charlie
 
No, fuel dilution is not new. Its been around since the 1st diesel engine. It just took a turn for the worse with DPF.

Can you prove that the Onboard, EcoPur, PurDYN... have made no difference on a diesel engine which is the market that those companies are targeting?

I don't know or care to know how many bypasses are heated or not. If dilution is an issue, heated bypasses are available to address it. If you cant understand that, then test it yourself.
 
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
Posted abstract SAE paper 952555 Correlating Engine Wear with Filter Multipass Testing:
First of all - this is one thing I'm trying to get across ... QUIT READING THE ABSTRACTS AS THEY ARE MISLEADING; UNTIL YOU READ THE ENTIRE STUDY AND UNDERSTAND ENTIRE TEST THESE ABSTRACTS ARE CLOSE TO USELESS.
....

Results show that a strong correlation exists between engine wear and the filtration efficiency of solid contaminant in the engine lube. It is clearly demonstrated that higher efficiency filtration results in cleaner lube oil and thus less engine wear.
Look - I never, ever said that finer filtration is a bad thing. I completely agree that reducing the pore size of the filter will result in less wear. But (and this is a big caveat) that wear-rate is NOT a completely linear slope in real life, despite it being so in the lab tests; there is a tapered response curve that shows a diminishing return in real world applications. Further, it is ALSO proven that filtration is not the SOLE controlling factor of wear rates; the TCB is also a major player. What I have repeatedly said is that there is a diminishing return to filtration improvements in normal applications because at lower OCI durations filters are not the controlling factor below the established design intent threshold.




I don't know how else to explain this ...
These SAE papers on filtration typically do NOT prove what most of you believe them to prove.

My position is that there is no SAE study known that compares/contrasts each system (FF versus BP) in real world applications where each system is allowed to individually perform to its best achievable wear rate. These studies typically are biased in some manner; they either grossly contaminate the sump artificially, or they have DOE violations in the results.

Even if there were a study such as what I describe, you would then still have to show how each system performs in terms of "normal" variance, and then determine how those performance ranges compare/contrast to each other.

I have been in contact with Fitch; I am awaiting his reply.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
I am not a zombie. I am an experimenter. I try to do things and make things better.

I don't care what you do or don't do to your car, or what data is available for/against. Modify all you want and enjoy it.

Clean oil is beneficial. Whether you keep the vehicle long enough to see the benefit is irrelevant. Whether you ever change the oil again is another consideration. Cost for me isn't even a consideration.

Plumbing a bypass, its mounts, fittings, hoses, clamps, check valve, .... is fun in itself. Pick your method and post your install pictures, bypass brand info, ... and enjoy.

Be a doer or an inventor or a tinkerer or .... Don't ever let anyone tell you that there is no point or it can't be done.

I am a firm believer in real world results and not lab R&D. Studies/papers... have their place. But, too many believe that there is nothing else. Variables are infinite. Trial/error/failure/success is more important than taking anyone's word for it.

I don't care for using a fuel filter for oil. Media selection, flow rates, capacity, fluid visc.... can be specific. Thick cold oil vs easy flowing fuel are worth pondering. I am more of a fan of paper towel, cotton wound, toilet paper, .... filters. I don't think that ANY pleated filter can match dense media filtration. I was a big fan of the stacked plate Amsoil BE90-110 filters. I absolutely hate the EABP90-110 filters.

And, there is no point in debating in a forum. Too many people can't create or do anything at all anymore. If its in writing is good enough for them, but not to experimenters.

SAE papers, books, studies are what I consider as entertainment. I've picked too many apart to worry about any conclusion drawn from them.

Experiment!




Whether you meant to encourage me or not, you did, very much, and I appreciate it. America wasn't built in the lab, it was built by tinkerers who weren't willing to listen to "what couldn't be done." I started looking into bypass filtration because I travel frequently for my job, and my lovely wife doesn't know where the dipstick is. I'd like to sleep easy about her car even if I'm gone for a few weeks. I have a Kleen-Oil bypass filter on her car now, but I've also caught the tinkering bug.

I didn't join BITOG to debate anyone, and I don't know how much money I've spent; that's not even a consideration, although I'm sure it's not even enough to make a few months payments on a new car. I've got a real allergy to those payment books.

I bought a Puradyn PFT-8 unit for my car AFTER looking at the measurements online, http://www.puradyn.com/5-7-product-line/ then going to Walmart and spending $5 on Play-doh, coming home, stacking about 7 cans of Play-doh on my radiator crossmember and then shutting the hood. How else could I check for clearance? Puradyn requires a GRAVITY return to the pan, the filter media is DENSE enough to dissipate 65 psi oil pressure. Puradyn has 5 US patents.

So I got on ebay, bought a spare oil pan, took careful measurements, solvent cleaned and sanblasted it, then drilled a hole in the side of it and TIG welded an aluminum bung fitting onto it. 4043 Aluminum welding wire will weld ALMOST any kind of aluminum that can be welded.

Since I have had three conversations with the salesman at the heavy machinery place that special ordered it for me and two conversations with the friendly engineers at Puradyn, no one they have heard of has ever installed one of these on a CAR.

Meanwhile, the UOA I have been doing has been giving me high silicon counts ON THREE CARS I own using brand new K&N filters. As an experiment, I installed an Amsoil nanofiber air filter on my car, and my silicon counts dropped from almost a thousand to less than 50. (Blackstone and other labs caution at 20ppm silicon). I put Amsoil nanofiber air filters on all three cars and now have test lab results to show how much silicon reduction they do. I have 3 like new K&N filters sitting on my workbench that probably fit 20 million GM cars on the road; they would be free to a good home.

Then I discovered that an aftermarket cone type air filter is a very popular modification; it seems that increased air flow is cost effective cheap horsepower, and it also slightly increases gas mileage, so there are probably lots of minivans out there with racing air filters.

Getting rid of the factory airbox under the hood seemed like it opened up Meramac Caverns, and my tinkering blood got to boiling. I discovered NTZ filters, I think they're made in Belgium, not really sure. I called their US location in Wixom, MI, and they sold me one. The BOX says Made in Germany, the filter media itself is stamped Made in Holland. Go figure. Anyway, the manufacturer claims this filter is 99.97% efficient @ 2 microns: http://ntzfilter.com/sect2a.asp Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "effective filtration." NTZ filters are also patented.

Dropping back 20 yards, it doesn't seem like most US filter manufacturers (Fram, Wix, Purolator, pick your Walmart brand of engine destruction) even want us to know how efficient their filters are or aren't: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb..._filter_Specifi

I spent yesterday fabricating a bracket to mount the NTZ. I need some additional AN4 fittings, which I have to purchase on Ebay and wait for them to come from China or Hong Kong. Right now, I would be happy to post pictures of my installation in progress, but I gotta figure out how to post pictures without my email on a public forum.

I'm going to run two bypass filters in parallel, and I MAY have the most efficient bypass filter setup of any car in America. To the best of my knowledge there IS no test data on where I am. I KNOW I'm in uncharted waters. That's the fun of it. What's possible?
 
DNewton3, do you think these companies are lying to us for some reason?

Cruickshank has been using Kleenoil since 1989 and initially was able to extend oil drain intervals from 200 to 600 hours and then to over 750 hours but were satisfied with the cost savings at 750 hours. The real savings is in engine wear, where, prior to their introduction to Kleenoil, they would do CAT’s recommendation of 15,000 hour bearing replacement. Now they never have to touch the engine for as long as they own the equipment.

About 15 years ago we equipped a few units, which were in our dirtiest working environment to do a trial testing. We extended our oil change interval from 200 hrs to 600 hrs and began intensive oil sampling and monitoring…..We have also given up on the traditional "bearing roll-in" recommended by some engine manufacturers, as a means of achieving the full life of the engine. We have prevented major engine failures from just the visual and physical condition of the Kleenoil filter itself. Our service intervals are now at 250 hours, extending our drain interval to 750 hrs, or twice a year on most pieces of equipment and vehicles. - Mike Felker, Cruickshank Construction Limited


Villeneuve Tank Lines has been using Kleenoil since 1993 and used to change rod bearings at 200,000 km intervals. With Kleenoil, they change main and rod bearings at 1,800,000 miles.




"Prior to installing the Kleenoil filter, we used to change the main and rod bearings on our Tandem Milk Trucks at approximately 200,000 kilometers due to the effect of the liquid load shifting band forth in the tank with no baffles. Now we do not bother to check the bearings until we do an in frame because there is very little wear on them. On our Long Distance Highway Tractors we do not look at or change the rod and main bearings as we used to do in the past." - Glen MacDonald, Villeneuve Tank Lines




Drain Brothers Excavating Limited has been using Kleenoil since 1993.

"To date, we have over 100 Kleenoil systems installed on engines, hydraulics and transmissions….Our largest benefit from the use of the Kleenoil system is the dramatic increase in component life, and the decrease in downtime. For example, the 350 Cummins that was chosen for trial in the beginning now has over 40,000 hours on it without any major repairs. There has not been any oil related engine failure on the engine that has had the Kleenoil system installed. We have just recently had to rebuild the John Deere engine and were surprised when we were told that the crankshaft did not have any wear and did not have to be turned. This engine has 19,000 hours on it." - Gerry King, Drain Brothers Excavating Limited




CRS Contractors Rental Supply has been using Kleenoil since 1989. Since refitting equipment with Kleenoil have not had to rebuild a single engine.

"Rental equipment often has a very hard life since it is not always possible to adhere to regular service intervals. As a result we found that we had to carry out major repairs to some of our engines every year. However, since we fitted our fleet with these filters, we have not had to re-build a single engine and, as you can imagine, this represents a considerable savings to our organization." - Randy Speaker, CRS Contractors Rental Supply




This is the inside of an engine head on a Detroit Diesel 3-71 that has a Kleenoil system installed on the Pentagoet Tug at the Maine Maritime Academy.

This engine has 8,361 hours on it. As you can tell, this is squeaky clean on the inside.
As a matter of fact, when the Detroit Diesel rep came out to look at the inside of the head, it was so clean that the Detroit Diesel representative basically called the Maine Maritime Academy liars when they told the rep how many hours were on the oil in the engine. The Maine Maritime Academy has had a dramatic decrease in engine wear since installing the Kleenoil system.
 
I HAD an Amsoil BP-90 but I wasn't happy with the particle counts I was getting. Amsoil advertizes 98.7% efficient at 2 microns, and they call this "absolute." I guess most people think "absolute" at a given micron rating means "all." It isn't. Here is a beta ratio chart: http://machinerylubrication.com/Read/564/filter-beta-ratios Scroll down the page.

A filter with an efficiency of 98.6667% and a beta ratio of 75 is going to allow 100,000 particles UPstream and 1,333 particles DOWNstream. (after the filter). This is STILL an 18 for a first digit cleanliness code on ISO 4406: http://www.triboservicios.com/isocode.pdf

Compare these numbers to NTZ at 99.97% efficient, which allows 100,000 particles upstream and 25 particles downstream. This is a beta ratio of 4000. Put in layman's terms, 1,333/25=53.32. The NTZ filter is 53 times the filter as the Amsoil.

Of course, I have no data yet to back these manufacturer claims, but the NTZ filter was only $105 plus UPS. For a filter maybe 50 times better than what I had, I'll bet $100. I already have the fittings and the lines, all I really needed to spend was about another $15 for a couple pieces of aluminum off Ebay to fabricate a new bracket.

What IF it doubles the service life of my engine? To directly answer your question, I removed my Amsoil filter and I am installing a Puradyn PFT-8 AND an NTZ ATF-09 in parallel.

I guess it is worth mentioning that the Amsoil (which you sound familiar with) has RESTRICTION to the bypass via the SIZE of the feed line. The Kleen-Oil on my wife's car does the same thing. The Puradyn has an inlet metering jet to meter the inlet flow, and Puradyn offers these in different sizes, depending on your climate and oil pressure and viscosity. The NTZ has an OUTLET restriction.

From what I can see with these 4 different manufacturers of bypass filtration, the engineering of restricting flow to the bypass so as to avoid starving the engine of flow to the main oil galleries has already been done before the consumer opens the box to install the filter. All we have to do is follow the instructions.

HOWEVER, on this thread, the original poster, who is discussing setting up a homemade system combining parts from different suppliers, I wholeheartedly agree with dnewton, "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON, DANGER." If the engineering for restriction isn't done by a filter manufacturer and you're doing it yourself, you're betting your engine that you KNOW what you're doing.

I will add that on my system, the AREA of my supply hose ID is greater than BOTH bypass filters combined restriction orifices, so I'm going to run both filters using less than 10% of my main supply; AND I have installed an aftermarket bypass relief spring upping my oil pressure to Ferrari's recommendations per Motor Oil University Class 105 here on BITOG.

Again, I will post pictures when my installation is complete and UOA will follow unless my car gets T-boned by some other careless driver. Right now, I gotta figure out how to get these pictures to BITOG from photobucket without my perrsonal email showing.
 
Originally Posted By: zpinch
DNewton3, do you think these companies are lying to us for some reason?



Nope - never said that.

I've said, and stand by the statement, that the SAE studies are often biased to prove a point, but that point often does not translate well, if at all, into the real world. The studies are often grossly manipulated in a manner that favors one particular methodology over another, or they simply lack credibility in terms of pragmatic application and common sense.

As for the companies that market BP filtration, I certainly do question them and their motives at times. Are they "lying"? Probably not. But are they exaggerating and/or using references they don't understand? Yes - absolutely.



Far, far too many people get hung up on the inputs and don't focus on results. Whereas I fully agree that finer filtration will result in a cleaner sump, there is a law of diminishing return in terms of wear-control that makes BP filtration impractical for normal, everyday folks. And it is completely false to presume that filtration is the ONLY input that controls wear; the TCB barrier and add-pack play heavily into this as well.
 
"And it is completely false to presume that filtration is the ONLY input that controls wear; the TCB barrier and add-pack play heavily into this as well."

I'm not sure if you've READ any of the links or information I've posted, but I guess it is high time to start repeating myself like some other folks on here.

Step 2.As the oil travels through the filter element, it passes
through our time-released additives. These time-released
additives are designed to replenish depleted additives
without upsetting the balance of the oil’s original additive
package.

This is an excerpt from here: http://processfiltrationproducts.com/Pura inDYNHowItWorks.html

Now, Mr. Hare of Hare Trucking in Michigan went 1 million miles in EACH of his fleet of 100 trucks WITHOUT an oil change: http://www.worktruckonline.com/news/stor...oil-change.aspx (you may have to click a couple times to get past the advertizing and read the article). I challenge you to contact Mr. Hare and tell him he is relying on references he doesn't understand.

Using the Puradyn system, I have changed the oil only four times in 30 years and only two of these oil changes were recommended by oil analysis. The puraDYN System has saved me thousands of dollars in oil changes over the years – and I’ve got the test reports to prove what I say.”
— Bill Tucker
Owner and Captain
‘Love Affair’

These testimonials and others are here: http://www.puradyn.com/5-6-testimonials-2/

Now, Mr. dnewton, which of these BUSINESS people are lying, exaggerating, or simply do not know what they're talking about? I'd say they ALL have REAL WORLD RESULTS.

And I have stated repeatedly, I'm putting one of these on my CAR. And you say there is a "law of diminishing returns." What are you going to do, hire an old lady to T-bone me? What if I get 5 or 600,000 miles out of my car engine?

It's my money and I can waste it if I want to; but right now, I'm willing to bet a few hundred dollars on it. How many new car payments can I make for $400?
 
Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
I am not a zombie. I am an experimenter. I try to do things and make things better.

I don't care what you do or don't do to your car, or what data is available for/against. Modify all you want and enjoy it.

Clean oil is beneficial. Whether you keep the vehicle long enough to see the benefit is irrelevant. Whether you ever change the oil again is another consideration. Cost for me isn't even a consideration.

Plumbing a bypass, its mounts, fittings, hoses, clamps, check valve, .... is fun in itself. Pick your method and post your install pictures, bypass brand info, ... and enjoy.

Be a doer or an inventor or a tinkerer or .... Don't ever let anyone tell you that there is no point or it can't be done.

I am a firm believer in real world results and not lab R&D. Studies/papers... have their place. But, too many believe that there is nothing else. Variables are infinite. Trial/error/failure/success is more important than taking anyone's word for it.

I don't care for using a fuel filter for oil. Media selection, flow rates, capacity, fluid visc.... can be specific. Thick cold oil vs easy flowing fuel are worth pondering. I am more of a fan of paper towel, cotton wound, toilet paper, .... filters. I don't think that ANY pleated filter can match dense media filtration. I was a big fan of the stacked plate Amsoil BE90-110 filters. I absolutely hate the EABP90-110 filters.

And, there is no point in debating in a forum. Too many people can't create or do anything at all anymore. If its in writing is good enough for them, but not to experimenters.

SAE papers, books, studies are what I consider as entertainment. I've picked too many apart to worry about any conclusion drawn from them.

Experiment!




Did you own an Amsoil BE90-110 filter? I too recall the stacked media of these filters... they also absorbed water from the oil, the new BP filters, remove no water. I would like to find an additional way to remove water from the oil, perhaps a toilet paper filter as a supplemental to the BP90?
 
An interesting tidbit is I had the pleasure to meet a courier in the middle 1990s or so that had a Nissan pick up with a 4 cylinder that had close to 500,000 miles doing 25,000 mile oil changes running Amsoil oil and air and oil filters. No bypass. Most wear occurs during the warm up cycle, the more miles put on vehicle when at operating temps the less wear per mile or hour. The return on investment is a valid business decision. For fun go for it. I spent my most of my life working on fleet vehicles and no matter what vehicle or piece of equipment, the fleet managers had it down to a science as what it takes for their equipment to last the longest it can at the lowest cost.
 
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
"And it is completely false to presume that filtration is the ONLY input that controls wear; the TCB barrier and add-pack play heavily into this as well."

I'm not sure if you've READ any of the links or information I've posted, but I guess it is high time to start repeating myself like some other folks on here.

Step 2.As the oil travels through the filter element, it passes
through our time-released additives. These time-released
additives are designed to replenish depleted additives
without upsetting the balance of the oil’s original additive
package.
I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove here? Additives help extend the OCI, right? would that not be EXACTLY my point, in that the add-pack also is a direct player in the control of wear, as stated in the quote you gleaned above?

This is an excerpt from here: http://processfiltrationproducts.com/Pura inDYNHowItWorks.html

Now, Mr. Hare of Hare Trucking in Michigan went 1 million miles in EACH of his fleet of 100 trucks WITHOUT an oil change: http://www.worktruckonline.com/news/stor...oil-change.aspx (you may have to click a couple times to get past the advertizing and read the article). I challenge you to contact Mr. Hare and tell him he is relying on references he doesn't understand.
Again, thanks for using my position to back up your own! In this example, the OCIs were greatly extended. That is a unique benefit to BP filtration. But the longevity of the vehicles is not unique to the filters; there are many, many examples vehicles that have 1 million miles on them as well and have no BP or super-duper filter of any kind. Hence, a perfect example of how I state that equipment longevity is NOT unique to BP filtration. Just google up "million mile ... Ford, Chevy, Toyota ..." etc. Plenty of examples of vehicles going LONG distances with no BP systems.

Using the Puradyn system, I have changed the oil only four times in 30 years and only two of these oil changes were recommended by oil analysis. The puraDYN System has saved me thousands of dollars in oil changes over the years – and I’ve got the test reports to prove what I say.”
— Bill Tucker
Owner and Captain
‘Love Affair’

These testimonials and others are here: http://www.puradyn.com/5-6-testimonials-2/

Now, Mr. dnewton, which of these BUSINESS people are lying, exaggerating, or simply do not know what they're talking about? I'd say they ALL have REAL WORLD RESULTS.

And I have stated repeatedly, I'm putting one of these on my CAR. And you say there is a "law of diminishing returns." What are you going to do, hire an old lady to T-bone me? What if I get 5 or 600,000 miles out of my car engine?

It's my money and I can waste it if I want to; but right now, I'm willing to bet a few hundred dollars on it. How many new car payments can I make for $400?



Again - you're making my point for me!
Go back and read what I state, please.
Superior filtration is NOT a SOLE means to equipment longevity. Long equipment life can be achieved by multiple means. You can either filter out, or flush out, contamination; two roads to the same destination.

I, too, am left repeating myself ...
- BP filtration does not reduce wear in "normal" OCI durations over typical FF filtration, chiefly because filtration is NOT the controlling entity in short-to-moderate OCIs. There is no study I'm aware of, or that any of you have yet to post, that discretely and directly proves this; none whatsoever.
- BP filtration can be a great benefit, one of a fiscal savings, to extend the lifecycle of the LUBE, IF one allows the OCI to managed fully to long extension. If not, then it's a huge waste of money and effort where the data proves it does not affect wear rates outside of "normal" macro data streams.

Your examples are ones of FLUID LONGEVITY, not equipment longevity.
Congratulations on coming around to my point of view, even when you didn't mean to!
 
Last edited:
Where is the OP?

Zpinch, simply plumb any TP or equivalent fancy cellulose media filter after the standalone Amsoil in series. If you run the dual bypass, skip the PH8a sized normal filter and spin on a
Trasko or Stilko.
 
The fact is that several truck manufacturers offer bypass filtration as standard equipment. The reason they were forced to do this was because customers insisted on longer engine life, not shorter OCI's. Sure, Peterbilt could have insisted on shorter OCI's and MAYBE that would have resulted in million mile engines but the truth is they were 350,000 mile engines before bypass filtration and 1,000,000 mile engines with bypass filtration and longer OCI's. If that is not a real world test I don't know what is. Big rig trucks simply could not get to 1,000,000 miles before bypass systems were installed. Any fleet managers are welcome to correct me if my information is wrong as I am not a big rig expert.
 
Originally Posted By: carock
The fact is that several truck manufacturers offer bypass filtration as standard equipment. The reason they were forced to do this was because customers insisted on longer engine life, not shorter OCI's. Sure, Peterbilt could have insisted on shorter OCI's and MAYBE that would have resulted in million mile engines but the truth is they were 350,000 mile engines before bypass filtration and 1,000,000 mile engines with bypass filtration and longer OCI's. If that is not a real world test I don't know what is. Big rig trucks simply could not get to 1,000,000 miles before bypass systems were installed. Any fleet managers are welcome to correct me if my information is wrong as I am not a big rig expert.



That is silly. The OEMs do NOT worry about what the owner/operator has to endure past the warranty period.

It's not that the OEMs chose BP for engine longevity. It's more of a response that the O/Os request it as a fiscal savings tool to extend the OCIs.

I agree with your statement; OEMs do provide BP filters as standard equipment.
I disagree with your assertion as to WHY they do it.
You don't specify which engines you are referring to, nor give any details, so I cannot comment directly; I'm left with generalizations because of your vague statement. Your example is not a "test"; it's anecdotal at best. The "real world test" you mention has no defined parameters or anything else remotely controllable; it's just observational and nothing more.

Sure, customers want long engine life; who doesn't? But that responsive condition is NOT unique to BP filters, and for about the one-millionth time I ask you, or anyone, to show conclusive proof that equipment longevity is exclusive to such treatment. There is not one single SAE study or other credible document that shows BP filtration EXCLUSIVELY extends lifecycle of the equipment past where any normal system can do so.

To my point, I can show you with utmost certainty that in short-to-moderate OCIs, BP (and syns) do not show any statistically significant advantage in wear rates. Go read my "normalcy" article. Look at the micro-data Vulcan example. Look at the UOAs from my Dmax and the other member here. That is real world data that is specific, tangible and quantifiable; it's not vague like your references. My data focuses on wear-rate results.

Show me a credible study, that is not biased in DOE methodology or is wrought with flaws, that conclusively proves what you claim.
I dare you.
I double-dog dare you.
I triple-dog dare you!
I'm so confident of this that I'll put money into escrow with a member here as a wager. You will NOT find a study that compares/contrasts wear rates of "normal" and "bypass" filtration when they are managed to their own best result. Never been done to my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Like before Newton, I am on the fence on the wear reduction associated with BP filtration. I shall see on my next UOA, whenever I do it, I was going to do it @ 20,000km, but just visually looking at the oil, it looks great, so I might leave it for another 10,000km and take a sample @ 30k. I am leaning towards great wear numbers, personally. We shall see.

BTW, my earlier post on the testimonials, it was not a rhetorical question, I was genuinely asking you if you think the companies have an agenda.
 
Last edited:
The "credible study" was by Peterbilt trucks. They attributed most of the improvement from 350,000 mile to 1,000,000 miles service life to bypass filtration. The reason is that the oil is always clean, as in ALWAYS clean. You are drawing too many conclusions from your data of a Duramax truck with a bypass filter and comparing wear metals. IF the bypass filter failed to reduce wear metals there may be something wrong with the installation or maybe UOA comparing wear metals is not the right test as you claim it to be.

You are claiming that Peterbilt only uses bypass filtration to increase OCI's. That is not what they published when they made them available as OEM. They claimed it tripled service life of the engine - and offered a warranty with it.

The foundation of bypass filtration in trucks was that very old studies concluded that particles less than 3 microns contributed to most of regular engine wear, so eliminating those particles would increase engine life. Filter manufacturers set out to show they could eliminate a great number of these particles with bypass filtration. Then the lifespan of truck engines went up after bypass filtration was installed. That is the sequence of proof that the SAE papers and manufacturers settled on. You seem to have missed the logic sequence.

If I read your comments correctly you are saying that since those tests were performed that oil has been changed and the 3 micron and under particles are no longer a problem for engine wear in automobiles (and possibly diesels) based on the Ford-Conoco study, therefore the only purpose of bypass filtration is to extend OCI. Is this correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top