Bypass (sort of) install on a 2004 Accord

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 4, 2006
Messages
127
Location
Massachusetts
I recently finished installing a CM canister filter in bypass configuration on a 2004 4 cylinder Accord. I tapped off of the FF filter mount using a sandwich adapter and returned to the oil filler cap using the Amsoil threaded port. I used a needle valve to control the flow rate.

My main reason for bothering to do this was to help me get comfortable with extended OCIs, for a combination of environmental and convenience reasons. Honda specs call for 10K OCIs and changing the filter every other oil change - with conventional oils. As a long time 3K or 3 month OCI guy, those long intervals were hard to swallow, but I did want to start consuming less oil and fewer filters.

I now have 61K on the car (purchased it with 12K) and started using synthetics (Amsoil or M1) with 5K OCIs around 21K. The used oil looked so clean at 5K that I switched to 10K intervals. I know looks are not the way to judge oil, but I figured that by using synthetics and still staying well within Honda's OCI specs that it could not be too bad. Also, since then I discovered the BITOG UOA forums and saw UOA's posted by others for this engine that seemed to indicate it could go 10K on these oils without problems.

My next step was to consider going all the way to Honda's spec, including changing the FF filter only every other oil change, but felt a little uncomfortable going that far - so decided to add the bypass unit for some extra filtration, and extra peace of mind.

As long as the car is still under warranty (7 years or 100K as a certified used car), I will not exceed Honda's OCI spec, but after that plan to do some UOAs to see how far I can go. Based on other results for this engine, and with the extra filter, I would not be surprised to get up to 15K OCIs - but I will see about that a few years down the road. If you include the cost of the CM filter setup and synthetic oils, I doubt I am saving any money, but I like the idea of using less oil, and I enjoy tinkering with cars.

I called this a "sort of" bypass install because the CM filter unit has a nominal (I think) rating of only about 8 microns, and I know that most bypass units take out even smaller particles. I chose the CM due to size and installation configuration. I probably could have shoehorned a bigger filter that took out smaller particles in somewhere, but did not want to interfere with any routine maintenance on the car, nor did I want long hose runs. The CM unit fits nicely into a location on the firewall that is out of the way, uses short hose runs, and is easy to remove if needed.

I am not presenting this as in any way the "best" setup for all purposes, just another example of what can be done.
 
Here is a link to some photos.

Photobucket files

I still debate with myself as to whether it is better to plumb the bypass like this or using a permacool type filter that will put the full oil flow through the normal pathways in the engine. Any strong opinions?
grin2.gif
 
I don't have a strong opinion about where to route oil back to (unfamiliar with the motor) .... I'm doing mine like you have yours now (.... back in thru the filler cap)

But I would be a little concerned about the amount of metal (fittings & valve) you have hanging off the oil filler cap (is it secured or supported ?) .... quite a bit of leverage there from the look of it ..... (although it looks like you are using HQ stuff .... steel, etc.)

I'd look at going with an orifice and eliminating as much of it as you can .... dunno .... hard to tell for sure as I'm not standing there .....

As far as OCI's .... no idea, not familiar with that engine ..... but here's what I'm getting with M1 0w40 in a diesel (which is inherently very dirty):

UOA's 2006 Sprinter 2.7L Mobil 1 0w40
 
Last edited:
Quote:
But I would be a little concerned about the amount of metal (fittings & valve) you have hanging off the oil filler cap (is it secured or supported ?) .... quite a bit of leverage there from the look of it ..... (although it looks like you are using HQ stuff .... steel, etc.)

I'd look at going with an orifice and eliminating as much of it as you can .... dunno .... hard to tell for sure as I'm not standing there .....


I'd probably have bushing'd it down to a much smaller hose. A hose barb and trans cooler line would work for that. Not that it would be as pretty.

Look around here. They have everything ..up down ..male ..femaile ..NPT JIC/AN ..barbs ....whatever
21.gif
 
The hose size was governed by the CM filter inlet/outlet ports (-06 JIC) The -06 JIC fittings from the company Gary referenced above use 5/16 ID hose. Regardless, I think the ID on many trans cooler lines is about the same the as the ID on the hose I used.

The number of fittings hanging from the oil filler cap is related to the installation history. I tried at first to control the flow rate using fixed size small orifice (restrictor) fittings, 3 of them in the smallest orifice size I could buy (from Tomkins), but the flow rate was still too fast for my taste. So I swapped out one of the restrictor orifice fittings for a needle valve (which allowed me to avoid rebuilding the hose). If I were starting over, knowing what I know now, I would have taken the hose all the way to the needle valve.

With regard to the weight of the adapters, I don't think it is an issue because it is supported at both ends, and the the hose run at only about 3 inches is fairly stiff. I did, however, decide to not tap off of the oil pressure sender unit port for the oil feed because of the adapter weight that would have been hanging largely unsupported from that tap. In my mind I could envision hitting a speed bump or pothole too hard and losing all my oil in a flash. With this setup, even if there was a problem, I think the worst that would happen is that the threaded fitting in the cap would loosen up a little.
 
Yeah, hindsight is usually super sharp ..there's probably not a lot of stress involved there. It just looks unbalanced for the proposed flow rate and the relatively short distance. #3 hose is available ..but over that short a distance it's not going to mean much aside from the appearance. Nylon gauge tubing will empty your engine in no time too.
 
Does that type of tubing have anything to do with my engine/installation, or was it just a general reference?
 
Just a general reference. It's really small ..yet can pump your engine dry fast enough.

Now that you mention it, it would (perhaps) be a great way to plumb and meter bypass oil flow. It can also be done in copper.
 
I gave the idea of installing a bypass filter lot of thought as well. I review man discussion boards and read a lot of mechanical engineering journal and came to a conclusion of using the best oil filter I can afford instead of having a bypass filter installed. The idea of a bypass filter is to filter what the original filter miss. If the original filter, which is located a best location for maximum filtration effectiveness, does its job then there is really no need for an additional filter. I am using M1 filters and love it.

There is a still a need for bypass filter for steering and AT fluid as these fluid stay in the car much longer and their current filtration device is either non-existing or not all the good.
 
I think you are probably right for "normal" OCIs, but not so sure if you are right for extended OCIs - depending on how extended they are.
 
moe in wichita ks
i had a bad experiance with nyoln tubing, it can crack so you cant see it and spray the bellhousing with oil making you think you have a rear main seal leek. from then on i ONLY use lines that are eather steel brake line or high pressure hose. no copper, no nylon tubing both subject to vibration failure. also never dump a oil return line below the sump oil level, it WILL back up and block the return line. also high pressure hose is not ALWAYS rated for vacuum. buy pressure hose for pressure use, buy vacuum for vacuum use. the hose us old school guys are used to using on carbutors sae j30r7 is rated for 50 psi working 250 burst and full vacuum. under 11/32 dia.
 
Quote:
no copper, no nylon tubing both subject to vibration failure.


I guess mechanical gauges are out for you too....
grin2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom