Bypass wizards check in, Cat 1R-0749

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am still quite confused by the true meaning of wear metals in UOA's. Are they directly related to engine wear? Are they strongly correlated to engine wear? Is there just a loose correlation to engine wear?
 
Originally Posted By: carock
I am still quite confused by the true meaning of wear metals in UOA's. Are they directly related to engine wear? Are they strongly correlated to engine wear? Is there just a loose correlation to engine wear?


The wear metals in the UOA come from wear. However, to have a proper wear rate you would have to quantify all of the wear which can not be done with a UOA. There are two reasons why. One, the filter catches some of the wear. Two, the UOA does not analyze all of the particles in the oil, it only analyzes within a certain particle size. So wear that is outside this size range would not be counted.
 
There's more to it than stated.

Generally speaking, particles of Chromium, Nickel, Aluminum, Copper, Lead, Tin, Cadmium, Silver and Vanadium are softer materials (bearing wear) and do not do great harm inside an engine, but DO indicate what is specifically wearing when they show up in UOA in abnormal amounts.

Boron, Magnesium, Calcium, Barium, Phosphorous and Zinc are normal additives that are SUPPOSED to be in most motor oils as anti-wear additives in varying amounts. Sodium and Potassium are intended to be present in many anti-freezes. High Potassium in a UOA is generally indicative of a coolant leak.

Iron and Silicon are the two WORST things you want in your oil. Iron is (microscopically) your engine disintegrating and silicon is rock, which is harder than iron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon Silicon enters through your air filter.

I HAD high silicon counts using K&N air filters in all 3 cars I do UOA on. I switched to Amsoil nanofiber air filters and my silicon counts dropped like a boat anchor. I am not affiliated with Amsoil in any way, I do not sell their products but I DO USE THEM. They work. I would buy Amsoil products if they were sold by Mary Kay or Avon.

So, to move along: "The wear metals in the UOA come from wear. However, to have a proper wear rate you would have to quantify all of the wear which can not be done with a UOA. There are two reasons why. One, the filter catches some of the wear. Two, the UOA does not analyze all of the particles in the oil, it only analyzes within a certain particle size. So wear that is outside this size range would not be counted."

I half agree with this statement. The filter DOES catch some of the wear. Can we all agree that a WEAR RATE is determined by dividing your iron ppm by the mileage on the oil in thousands? For example, if you've got 25 ppm iron and 8,500 on your oil, your wear rate is 25/8.5 or 2.94.

But when I am running bypass filtration 99.97% efficient at 2 microns coupled with particle counting (which does NOT reveal WHAT TYPE of particles) in my UOA, which shows ZERO particles above 14 microns, what's not showing? I'm taking my samples UPSTREAM of the filter, so they ARE representative of what's circulating in the engine.

I look forward to being schooled here. Please take me from fourth grade to high school at BITOG.

Cheers,
 
Last edited:
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.


If you want SAE Journals?

710813 - Dump truck run 120,000 miles using normal maintenance procedures. Wear was reduced 63% after adding bypass filters.

902238 - Bypass filter reduces iron total particle count 65% over 10,000 miles compared to full flow only city buses.

840453 - Service- Diesel delivery trucks making Torino-Lecco 450 km round trip daily for two years. Wear rates reduced about 50% depending on component. This is with OCI's kept at the "normal" for full flow only trucks.

Tank-Army Command (TACOM) A0111689 - Bypass filters reduce diesel engine wear 65% compared to full flow filters but who cares? The IED's blow them up before the engines wear out.
 
Small fleet study done here. We ran Amsoil Bypass Kits on all our service vans in our fleet back in the late 90's and early 2000's. We always sampled the oil and ran most of the trucks nearly a year on one sump with filter changes and top off oil at 3 month intervals.

These trucks do extensive stationary operation and all inner city driving. All were 3500 GMC 5.7 gas trucks.

Engine life was excellent, with averages in the 250-300k mile range and an outlier or two beyond 350k miles. Note that we define "engine life" as quiet, smooth operation with no leaks, smoke, or oil consumption.

Switch to today and we no longer are Amsoil purists. The trucks are all still GM's, 2500 series with 6.0 gas engines. No bypass or special tricks, just whatever synthetic is on sale and a decent filter. Micro filter! They are so tiny I called GM about them, and was politely told by a G Team engineer that the newer engines have far less need for a filter hence the small one works fine.

Engine Life? Just sold an 04 with 500k miles on it with absolutely perfect and quiet engine. No smoke or drips, nothing. Routine life is still around 300k miles or so and expenses are greatly reduced.

All this talk about bypass filtration is very platform specific, and may not be relevant to many modern gas powered trucks. Diesels are a different animal...
 
Originally Posted By: carock
If you want SAE Journals?

710813 - Dump truck run 120,000 miles using normal maintenance procedures. Wear was reduced 63% after adding bypass filters.

902238 - Bypass filter reduces iron total particle count 65% over 10,000 miles compared to full flow only city buses.

840453 - Service- Diesel delivery trucks making Torino-Lecco 450 km round trip daily for two years. Wear rates reduced about 50% depending on component. This is with OCI's kept at the "normal" for full flow only trucks.

Tank-Army Command (TACOM) A0111689 - Bypass filters reduce diesel engine wear 65% compared to full flow filters but who cares? The IED's blow them up before the engines wear out.




Nope - does not prove what you believe it does. If you think these are good evidence, then I ask you to give direct, specific citation (page and paragraph) so that I can counter your points.

NONE of those studies compares/contrasts how one properly managed system performs relative to the alternative. All these studies you folks point to are one-sided; they only study how things are viewed relative to the manipulation of the criteria for the bias of the bypass system.


I have yet to see one single study that shows how a typical FF system (managed to its best result) compares/contrasts to a BP (also managed to its best result), in moderate OCIs.

Note one of those studies shows how the wear rates are viewed in "short to moderate OCI duration" as I have repeatedly stated.


There are two general types of filtration studies in the SAE logs.
1) those that show finer filtration reduces wear; I don't disagree with this
2) those that show BP filtration can extend OCIs; I don't disagree with this either
But NONE of them that I have reviewed show any shred of evidence that in "normal" applications (moderate OCI duration) result in less wear directly attributed (and soley exclusive to) bypass filtration.



BTW - I was able to email Fitch, and he did reply in a generic "hello" manner. But upon my next reply, where I asked him specific, detailed questions about the studies and asked him to discuss them as to applicability and defend his positions, he has not responded for more than a week.
 
I can absolutely assure you that Fitch's book references material that you have "already" discredited.

Not everyone shares your opinions sir. Mining companies, fleet managers, trucking company owners, electric power plant turbine engineers, etc., etc.

And little guys like me who drive daily to work under dusty conditions at construction sites and coal piles the size of small towns.

How much coal dust blows on my car while it is parked at work depends LITERALLY on which way the wind is blowing.

How many vehicles and oil changes and engines do I need to save to see ROI? How about 20-30 years worth?

Do you realize that MOST bypass filters can be transferred from vehicle to vehicle simply by changing mounting and plumbing? For example, unless crushed in a wreck, I do not EVER intend to replace the filters I already have?

Does $400 on filtration get any more economical when spread over 15 years (or more) and/or multiple vehicles?
 
Last edited:
IMO, this debate on whether or not BP filtration reduces engine wear or not, is harder than I thought. I am not entirely sure that UOA is completely reliable and I don't know if it shows the whole picture on what's going on in an engine.

I think you can show, either way, whether bypass filtration is wear reducing or not. There really is not a solid study, that shows ME, beyond a shadow of a doubt, either for or against. I will simply have to see for myself in my own vehicle if it makes a difference, but, we all know how hard that might be to determine...
 
Originally Posted By: zpinch
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?

How do they absorb oil once saturated with oil?
 
Originally Posted By: carock
Peterbilt decided to offer bypass filtration years ago (I think 1990's) as OEM option because it was the only way to go over 1,000,0000 miles between overhauls. Before bypass filters they could only get 350,000 miles and they credited most of the difference to the bypass system. The bypass system they used added three gallons of capacity to a 12 gallon oil system. I remember looking at it and thinking "where the heck are they going to put that?"
Back in the good old days I owned a 1976 International Transtar two with a big cam 350 hp Cummins. My wife and I ran the 48 states for 3 years before I was offered a really good paying job as well as my with was offered a job as an x ray tech . At the time it had a bypass filter and 10,000 mile recommended oil change intervals the expected engine life was 500,000 miles before an in frame overhaul. Bypass filters have been around it seems since the almost beginning of time .
 
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
I can absolutely assure you that Fitch's book references material that you have "already" discredited.

Not everyone shares your opinions sir. Mining companies, fleet managers, trucking company owners, electric power plant turbine engineers, etc., etc.

And little guys like me who drive daily to work under dusty conditions at construction sites and coal piles the size of small towns.

How much coal dust blows on my car while it is parked at work depends LITERALLY on which way the wind is blowing.

How many vehicles and oil changes and engines do I need to save to see ROI? How about 20-30 years worth?

Do you realize that MOST bypass filters can be transferred from vehicle to vehicle simply by changing mounting and plumbing? For example, unless crushed in a wreck, I do not EVER intend to replace the filters I already have?

Does $400 on filtration get any more economical when spread over 15 years (or more) and/or multiple vehicles?

My concern would be a really good air filter.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
carock said:
Nope - does not prove what you believe it does. If you think these are good evidence, then I ask you to give direct, specific citation (page and paragraph) so that I can counter your points.

NONE of those studies compares/contrasts how one properly managed system performs relative to the alternative. All these studies you folks point to are one-sided; they only study how things are viewed relative to the manipulation of the criteria for the bias of the bypass system.


I have yet to see one single study that shows how a typical FF system (managed to its best result) compares/contrasts to a BP (also managed to its best result), in moderate OCIs.



710813 - Pages 12 Figures 23 and 24 compares FF to FF and BP actual on the highway, no loaded sumps, real oil, normal OCI, of dump trucks over 120,000 miles. Read the article carefully, they almost sneak this test in as an afterthought. "Also included in these test data are comparisons with the wear obtained in the truck test using the 40 micron full flow filter and the 40 micron full flow filter in combination with the bypass filter. The results of the truck test with no intentional contaminant fed to the engine crankcase showed definite reduction in all engine component wear, but the percentage reduction was less than the dynamometer tests."

840453 - Figure 7 "Road Test With Standard Filtration Compared to Double Filtration " meaning FF to FF & BP. This compares the actual measured wear rates of road going delivery trucks with no special treatment to the oil. Wear is reduced around 50%.

902238 - Figure 7 FIlter "C" is the FF & BP combination with a 3 micron bypass. Notice wear is less than 50% of the 20 micron FF "B" and about 10% of the 40 micron FF "A". Read the whole article carefully. The 3 micron filter is a bypass filter, not a full flow filter.
"Bypass filtration, when used in conjunction with full flow filtration, provides an additional level or protection in terms of further reduced particle concentrations". The particle concentrations they are talking about are wear metals determined by full particle counts of each metal.

These articles all have real world tests in real world trucks with no loading the sump with abrasives and regular OCI's. They all have similar results. If this isn't proof what is? I have even more convincing tests from filter manufacturers, but they sell the things.
 
Okay, thanks for posting.

I am wondering how much FF & BP filtration reduces wear in a gasoline passenger vehicle?

Thought I would post pics of my setup. Enjoy.









 
Last edited:
Pretty good evidence that wear is reduced nearly as much as the total particle count, so I would expect a 50% reduction. The bypass should remove around 50-65% of all particles in a gas engine.
 
CT8.... cellulose absorbs water and not oil... it will sponge oil but oil will flow right thru... water gets absorbed until its hot enough to evaporate and steam off

Zpinch.. great setup. What kind of flow divertor does Amsoil use now with the BMK23??? The original BMK13 was an oil starving failure prioritizing the bypass flow over full flow.
 
I would stick with a bypass filter that was designed for oil. I believe in keeping the particle size as small as possible to reduce engine wear. A normal full flow filter will only capture around 20 micron sized particles. It is the 5 to 25 micron range of particles that penetrate the clearances between wear-sensitive components.
 
Originally Posted By: tonyz
I would stick with a bypass filter that was designed for oil. I believe in keeping the particle size as small as possible to reduce engine wear. A normal full flow filter will only capture around 20 micron sized particles. It is the 5 to 25 micron range of particles that penetrate the clearances between wear-sensitive components.


I'm using an Amsoil Dual Gard at the moment with used oil analysis to extend oil drain intervals.
Here's some pictures:







Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_-W1zXxImc
 
Originally Posted By: Greasymechtech
CT8.... cellulose absorbs water and not oil... it will sponge oil but oil will flow right thru... water gets absorbed until its hot enough to evaporate and steam off

Zpinch.. great setup. What kind of flow divertor does Amsoil use now with the BMK23??? The original BMK13 was an oil starving failure prioritizing the bypass flow over full flow.



Thanks, it will make oil changes much cleaner and easier. I can catch all the oil that is spilled when swapping filters now, no wiping up oil all over the engine and frame rail anymore.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by flow diverter. The bypass side has a restriction orifice approx. 1/16 inch size.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top