Baldwin bypass and a challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
11
Location
Eagle, Idaho
Greetings,

I recently decided to add an oil bypass filter to my truck. After searching for what systems to put on, I decided to make my own with several goals:

1- Keep the installed cost below $100.
2- Spin on system, I did not want to change the TP style filters.
3- Readily available, inexpensive, filters.
4- Clean installation, in fact, I wanted the system to be relatively invisible when done.
5- Have fun!

Here's how I got it all done:

First, I pulled a “before” oil sample and sent it off to Blackstone. After researching, I decided to try a Baldwin B164 filter (at least for now). After searching for a suitable location to mount the filter, I settled on a spot behind the passenger side of the front bumper. First I pulled the wheel well out. I used a scrap of ¼” aluminum plate I had and cut it to fit. I then drilled mounting holes to attach it to the truck and for the filter base. All was attached with 5/16” hardware. No welding involved!

In order to keep the return line installation clean, I ordered a Cummins 3931827 turbo oil return fitting and associated O ring. I then had a friend braze this closed and tapped one of the four 1/8” NPT x ¼” hose fittings into it. I then used a long screw driver and a pair of vise grips to easily remove the expansion plug from the un-used return galley on the side of the block below the factory oil filter. After installing 30 inches of ¼” Parker high temp hose onto the push-loc fitting, I drove the return fitting into the oil galley.

The pressure side required a 1/8” NPT elbow and another 1/8” NPT x ¼” hose fitting with 28 inches of the Parker hose.

The hoses were carefully routed to the filter base and attached with 1/8” NPT elbows and the remaining 1/8” NPT x ¼” hose fittings.

After that, all that remained was to fire it up, check for leaks, and enjoy a celebratory beverage. I will follow up with “after” oil particle count data when I get it and add it to this post. I'm thinking 1,000 miles or so after the install. Anybody else have an idea of how long I should go to get an accurate read on the system?

Here are the “before” numbers:

ISO Code (2) ... 15/12
NAS 1638 Class ... 1
ISO Code (3) ... 16/15/12
>= 2 Micron ... 833
>= 5 Micron ... 308
>= 10 Micron ... 85
>= 15 Micron ... 33
>= 25 Micron ... 7
>= 50 Micron ... 0
>= 100 Micron ... 0

Approximately 7,500 miles on oil, 76,098 miles on engine.

Following is the parts list for this project. I spent $77.69 for the system. I did NOT pay retail for these items, so your results may vary depending on where you shop and what kind of deals you can make. I estimate the degree of difficulty as 2 beers on a 6 beer scale.

1 Cummins 3931827 oil return & O ring
6 feet of Parker 1/4" high temp hydraulic hose
1 Baldwin OB1305 base
4 1/8” NPT x ¼” push-loc fittings
3 1/8” NPT 90 degree brass elbows
1 Scrap aluminum plate
6 5/16” bolts, nuts, & washers
1 Baldwin B164 filter

THE CHALLENGE
28.gif


Now, I have lurked here long enough to recognize that some will not “approve” of this system. I have read folks post that this system can not be evaluated unless one does before and after testing. That is part of the reason I am doing this. I will provide before and after DATA about what I find and leave the opinion to others. If someone wants me to try another system in this test after the B164 has done its best, with this same oil, I will consider doing so with the following conditions:

1- You provide the adaptor and 1 oil filter.
2- I will install it and plumb it at my expense.
3- I will draw the sample and pay for the test after running the system for a mutually agreed upon number of miles.
4- I will post the results here for all to see.
5- I keep whatever you send me.

PM me if you want to take me up on this before February 15, 2008.

Remember, I’m in this to have fun. I am very data driven and I’d like to learn a little too and share my results with others.

Donning NOMEX suit now…

100 Proof
 
After seeing your before #'s I wouldn't even waste my time running a bypass, other than to cut down on soot. Serious those numbers are great, so which full flow filter are you running? I look forward to your results and I will be doing a particle count soon with my frantz setup on my cummins. My before #'s were much much higher than those.
 
Originally Posted By: Harley Anderson
After seeing your before #'s I wouldn't even waste my time running a bypass, other than to cut down on soot. Serious those numbers are great, so which full flow filter are you running? I look forward to your results and I will be doing a particle count soon with my frantz setup on my cummins. My before #'s were much much higher than those.


It's a Fleetguard Stratopore.

100 Proof
 
Here was mine with a stratapore filter, 5327 on the oil and 26592 on the truck. Much different looking.


ISO Code (2) ... 19/16
NAS 1638 Class ... 5
ISO Code (3) ... 20/19/16
>= 2 Micron ... 12928
>= 5 Micron ... 4789
>= 10 Micron ... 1326
>= 15 Micron ... 512
>= 25 Micron ... 122
>= 50 Micron ... 11
>= 100 Micron ... 0
 
Originally Posted By: Harley Anderson
Here was mine with a stratapore filter, 5327 on the oil and 26592 on the truck. Much different looking.


ISO Code (2) ... 19/16
NAS 1638 Class ... 5
ISO Code (3) ... 20/19/16
>= 2 Micron ... 12928
>= 5 Micron ... 4789
>= 10 Micron ... 1326
>= 15 Micron ... 512
>= 25 Micron ... 122
>= 50 Micron ... 11
>= 100 Micron ... 0


This is my first experience with an oil analysis. Do you think the lab made an error with my sample?

100 Proof
 
I'm not sure, but like I said when I seen your pc, it almost looked like a result of a bp filter. After seeing some particle counts with bp filters and then getting my report back, I couldn't believe how high the numbers were. Also my truck is a 05 which tends to soot the oil up a lot more compared to your 305/555 motor.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Do you think the lab made an error with my sample?


Probably not, but testing modalities do vary.


What I'm wondering is why didn't you just run another 100-200 miles (more than enough to factor enhanced filtration) and submit another sample?
54.gif


That is, if you wait for another 7500 miles to expire ..there will be all kinds of uncontrolled variables added to the span of time/mileage. They may or may not add to the particle accumulations, but it's hard to say. It would have been a true comparison on almost identical fluid. You wouldn't get the aging aspect of the filter determined, but you would get a comparative level of filtration established.
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Do you think the lab made an error with my sample?


Probably not, but testing modalities do vary.


What I'm wondering is why didn't you just run another 100-200 miles (more than enough to factor enhanced filtration) and submit another sample?
54.gif


That is, if you wait for another 7500 miles to expire ..there will be all kinds of uncontrolled variables added to the span of time/mileage. They may or may not add to the particle accumulations, but it's hard to say. It would have been a true comparison on almost identical fluid. You wouldn't get the aging aspect of the filter determined, but you would get a comparative level of filtration established.
21.gif



I've got less than a 1,000 miles since the install and original sample. That's why I asked the question in the original post.

So you think I should pull the sample now? Anyone else with an opinion?

100 Proof
 
Well, not if there's new oil in there. I was only suggesting that if the same sump were still in the engine, then you would have had like particle distribution NOW instead of waiting for it to accumulate. The only element that would be left to variable at that point would have been IF the higher density media improved with time ...but I don't think that this would be as much of an issue with bypass filters as it is with full flows (that's an opinion).
 
More samples will smooth out your curves and reduce the effects of sloppy lab work. If you want a check on accuracy you might consider sending samples to a second lab for a check. Learn about the techniques used and the value of one method over another for things like particle counts and fuel dilution. You might want to get a study guide for becoming certified yourself.

http://www.reliableplant.com/training/course-noria-oa.asp

A bit of education might be useful in turning your upcoming data into information. I find that many are swayed by uninformed comments but you might prefer an academic approach to your upcoming adventure in lubrication enlightment.
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Well, not if there's new oil in there. I was only suggesting that if the same sump were still in the engine, then you would have had like particle distribution NOW instead of waiting for it to accumulate. The only element that would be left to variable at that point would have been IF the higher density media improved with time ...but I don't think that this would be as much of an issue with bypass filters as it is with full flows (that's an opinion).

It is the same sump with the addition of 1 qt of the same oil to make up for the added volume of the new bypass filter. I pulled another sample at 900 miles after the install in order to allow the bypass to do what it would do. I’ll post results after they arrive.

100 Proof
 
Originally Posted By: BarkerMan
More samples will smooth out your curves and reduce the effects of sloppy lab work. If you want a check on accuracy you might consider sending samples to a second lab for a check. Learn about the techniques used and the value of one method over another for things like particle counts and fuel dilution. You might want to get a study guide for becoming certified yourself.

http://www.reliableplant.com/training/course-noria-oa.asp

A bit of education might be useful in turning your upcoming data into information. I find that many are swayed by uninformed comments but you might prefer an academic approach to your upcoming adventure in lubrication enlightment.

I will do some more reading. I will likely NOT get certified. I already have plenty of hobbies that I don’t have enough time to do well!

100 Proof
 
Finally my sample back. Here are the before and after results. Please overlook the [censored] formatting.

Microns Before After
>= 2____833__681
>= 5____308__252
>= 10____85___69
>= 15____33___27
>= 25_____7____6
>= 50_____0____0
>= 100____0____0

I have my opinions about this, but I would love to hear yours!

100 Proof
 
Originally Posted By: 100Proof
Finally my sample back. Here are the before and after results. Please overlook the [censored] formatting.

Microns Before After
>= 2____833__681
>= 5____308__252
>= 10____85___69
>= 15____33___27
>= 25_____7____6
>= 50_____0____0
>= 100____0____0

I have my opinions about this, but I would love to hear yours!

100 Proof


My opinion is that the data is largely fake and nearly worthless.

Divide the before by the after, note that every value from 2 to 25 microns is right about 1.22 to 1.23. That doesn't happen in the real world.

That looks like Blackstone Labs work. They run one test on each sample then calculate the individual values with a simple formula. It's worse than nothing because it misleads you into thinking you know something that you don't know.
 
I would have thought that the curve would have been inverted. That is, I would have expected to see the numbers converge on the lower end instead on the upper end.

I would expect the whole reading shift downward to some terminal level. Lower or NO >25um particles ..etc..etc.

It does show that there's a higher beta in the >2um range over just the ff filter alone.
 
I emailed Ryan at B-S a while back about this. This is a machine that calculates the particle count by a measured amount of oil pushed through a membrane. The upramp in pressure as well as the rate of upramp then generates a particle count based on contouring models that were programmed using the optical method.

So, it is a "facsimile" of a particle count. It's what you do with opaque fluids. The other method, IIRC, is to use a dilution factor and then apply the proper multiplier.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I emailed Ryan at B-S a while back about this. This is a machine that calculates the particle count by a measured amount of oil pushed through a membrane. The upramp in pressure as well as the rate of upramp then generates a particle count based on contouring models that were programmed using the optical method.

So, it is a "facsimile" of a particle count. It's what you do with opaque fluids. The other method, IIRC, is to use a dilution factor and then apply the proper multiplier.


I didn't really understand what you just said....lol Are one of those methods giving results by using a math formula instead of "real" particle counts? What UOA lab is better in your opinion? I'd like to start sending in UOA's to see how I compare, but I'm not wasting my money and sending it to a less than accurate lab.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top