Bypass vs. conventional systems

[dnewton3]

I'd like some thoughts on bypass systems, but I want to qualify what I'm asking and why. I do believe that bypass filtration is a good idea for those who intend to extend OCI's. It makes economical sense if you can cost justify the expense of the filter system compared to longer OCI's. This much I agree with.

My question I pose for discussion is this; can you extend your life of your engine by using bypass filtration, or are you just extending the life of your oil cycle?

It is my contention that bypass filtration does not add to engine life, but only makes the useful oil life last longer. We can all agree that oil does not wear out. The additive package gets depleted and the contamination accumlates, but the oil itself does not really wear out. Bypass filters can only filter, they cannot add.

With this in mind, consider two people with identical engines. Joe uses regular OCI's with regular oil analysis and develops a reasonable OCI expectation. Jim uses bypass filtration and oil analysis for longer OCI's. Who's engine would last longer? I say that as long as Joe changes his oil frequently enough (although not wastefully) his engine will last as long as Jim's bypass filtered engine.

I am aware that bypass filtration draws down much deeper into the micron world, but isn't the design of today's oils so much better that the effect of super filtration would be the somewhat negated by simply changing oil more often?

Again, it's not a question of financial effectiveness. Given a sump large enough and a proper bypass system, the super filtration makes monetary sense. I'm talking about which engine would actually last longer?

I believe that with today's beter made engines, and better made oils, each engine would last so long that Joe and Jim would be old and gray (and probably dead) before any significant event would transpire regarding oil related failure.

Consider this also. Bypass filtration routes roughly 5% of the total flow into the bypass filter. That means for every 1 particle of small micron size it catches, 19 more go right past the junction where the oil path gets the super filtration. So in effect, for every 5 quarts of micro contaminated oil you bypass filter, 95 quarts still go right to (and through) the full flow and back to the engine. Yeah, I know that they will eventually get picked up, but still, 19 out of 20 times that particle gets right back to the engine.

I am aware of all the web pages for FS2500, OIL Guard, Amsoil, Motor Gard, etc that show particle size comparisons pre and post filter, but I still contend that they improve oil life, not engine life.

I belive that bypass filtration DOES NOT make any engine last longer, it makes the OIL last longer. With regular OCI's and analysis, a conventional system does nearly as good a job.

With all this said, I do lust for a bypass system because it is vehicle love to the nth degree, but I don't believe it will make any engine last longer.

Let me put this another way; do you bypass filter your laundry water????????

 

[johnd]

Quote:

---

Let me put this another way; do you bypass filter your laundry water????????

---

Probably would if it cost $10/gallon or more. I wish I had the time and money to answer your question scientifically. If anecdotal evidence means anything, your assumption is wrong. I did not always believe this. When I first heard of bypass filtration and it's claims, I thought the person concerned was an uninformed complete idiot. I don't anymore. I was wrong.

 

[salvageyardteen]

I don't agree, I believe the engine will last longer.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Consider this also. Bypass filtration routes roughly 5% of the total flow into the bypass filter. That means for every 1 particle of small micron size it catches, 19 more go right past the junction where the oil path gets the super filtration. So in effect, for every 5 quarts of micro contaminated oil you bypass filter, 95 quarts still go right to (and through) the full flow and back to the engine. Yeah, I know that they will eventually get picked up, but still, 19 out of 20 times that particle gets right back to the engine.

---

That wouldn't be such misleading an assertion if particle production outpaced particle capture at the 5-10% rate. It makes certain assumptions.

Quote:

---

I am aware that bypass filtration draws down much deeper into the micron world, but isn't the design of today's oils so much better that the effect of super filtration would be the somewhat negated by simply changing oil more often?

---

This has some merit ...one that I often cite when commenting about using cheaper full flow filters. If one is going to refresh the sump often, then you can't get the utility out of the more expensive (finer) filters. You're, effectively,dumping the sump and resetting the counter. You won't capture the larger particles ..but will limit their number and the duration of their presence.

Quote:

---

I believe that with today's beter made engines, and better made oils, each engine would last so long that Joe and Jim would be old and gray (and probably dead) before any significant event would transpire regarding oil related failure.

---

This is probably true too. The assumption here is that failure is a criteria for suitable use of a bypass filter. You're probably going to live as long as your genetic disposition dictates ..your design. What shape you're in when you expire and are sent to the organ bank can/will be somewhat variable depending on the level of care employed in the aging process.

For the typical user, bypass filtration may never pay off. If you're someone who treats a vehicle as though it was an appliance that you're going to extract the maximum utility out of then bypass filtration will be a big step in reducing avoidable insults to the engine/trans/etc. If you're someone changes vehicles like underwear and is always seeking some "viola~!" with every next car/truck purchase ..then skip it unless you're a techno/mechanical junkie.

Don't discount the need to tinker and improve the wheel.

 

[RalphPWood]

Its the same old story. The people that sell motor oil tell you you need more oil changes. The people that sell filters that don't work tell you oil is supposed to get dirty. People that sell filters that are not economical tell you you get what you pay for. People that sell filters that clean oil tell you your engine will last longer with clean oil.
My oldest submicronic bypass filter is a 71 model and has saved me thousands of dollars. I will take my chances with analytically clean oil 100% of the time. My engines last until I get tired of the car. I don't change cars very often. Filters don't make oil last longer. They clean the oil.

 

[dnewton3]

RalphPWood - I agree with your statements of sales related claims; each believes his is the best alternative. I don't however understand your last statement that "Filters don't make oil last longer. They clean the oil." I guess I'm unsure what you mean. Wouldn't cleaner oil be more useful for a longer period? In esscense, cleaner oil lasts longer, right? By lasting longer, I would say that the oil's useful life realitive to effective engine protection can be enhanced by filtration.

Gary - I disagree with your comment about the particle count filter ratio. It doesn't matter what total count of particles (for any given size) are in the system. The filtering ratio of a bypass filter (say 5%) would effectively pull out a particle ON AVERAGE 1 out of 20 times it gets to the juction of full-flow or bypass filtration. 19 of 20 times, that same particle will go right back to the engine. So I say that ANY filter cannot eliminate engine damage, it can only reduce it. The finer the filter, the smaller the particles left to circulate in the system. The liquid oil system as a whole will have a fairly even distribution of particles through out the entire system. Therefore, if the bypass filter only sees 5% of the oil at any given time, it can only filter out 5% of the particles that even it is capable of catching. It is fair to say that bypass filtration holds the total particle count in the oil down, but that doesn't mean that the particles are caught the 1st time. Each particle has a 95% chance of bypassing the bypass filter all together. So whether you have 1, or 100, or 1000 particles in the system, each particle will see the engine 19 times before it gets caught.

The reason conventional filtering leaves oil looking black is because the total count active in the system continues to grow. Bypass filtering holds that particulate at the filter, but not before each particle gets out there 19 of 20 times.

Part of the oil additive package includes dispersants that encapsulate and hold particulates in suspension. Also, the dispersants are supposed to keep particles from cojoining and growing larger. If the oil didn't have these additives, the particulate matter would fall out nearly right where it was created, or grow into balls of true gunk. In fact, without this ability of oil to hold particulate, the filters would do nothing. The filter counts on the oil picking up particulate, of any size, and carrying to the filter to be "scrubbed" out of the oil. So if the oil can hold particulate in suspension, it can continue that UNTIL the total particle count overwhelms the effect of the additive package. That is where the concept of OCI versus better filtration takes hold.


Take a look at the extremes, and you can better understand how to come into the middle. Consider method A: change oil every 100 miles. Wasteful to be sure, but you probably woundn't need any filter because you'd be flushing the system so often filtration would be meaningless. The oil would even appear clean because the total particle count had not overwhelmed the oil. Consider method B: you change bypass and full flow filters every 100,000 miles. The filters would probably plug up and bypass any filtration, and no particulate would be scrubbed out past a detrimental point. So somewhere inbetween lies the realm where an OCI in a convention system coincides with bypass filtration. You could change oil just often enough that the particulate count active in the system would approximately equal the count in a bypass system. OIl analysis would provide the data that shows wear particles and insolubles at milage intervals.

So my contention still stands, and I would challenge anyone with actual oil analysis data to show me that bypass filtration makes an engine actually last longer than one without bypass filtration. The trick is to find the balance point between conventional OCI and bypass OCI. Even oil filtered by bypass still eventually needs to be changed, right? So, each method will protect for a given time (milage), and after that point damage has the propensity to occur.

Bypass filtration is about saving money by extending the useful life of oil, not extending the life of an engine.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Gary - I disagree with your comment about the particle count filter ratio.

---

Okay. It's a free country

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter what total count of particles (for any given size) are in the system.

---

So 999 10um particles is the same as 5? I see your point. Since an inch and a mile have an infinite number of points ...and we can reason that infinity = infinity...and inch is as good as a mile. QED (yes, there are magnitudes of infinities). This sounds like in a vacuum reasoning instead of weighing the practical factors involved.

Quote:

---

So I say that ANY filter cannot eliminate engine damage, it can only reduce it.

---

Well, I'd use the term "normal wear" ..but you're right. So

I don't think anyone asserts, except perhaps in a rhetorical sense, that you can have ZERO wear. Most of our wear is unavoidable. In terms of cylinder/ring wear, it's the ill fitment of parts during warm up. You won't alter that wear ..or any normal ejecta from any surface on the engine. What you will reduce, to varying degrees depending on the level of filtration, is the resultant wear of having larger particles continually recirculating.

The same argument could be made for using no filter at all. The deeper you go into fine filtration, the lower the rate of coincidental/consequential wear.

Quote:

---

Each particle has a 95% chance of bypassing the bypass filter all together. So whether you have 1, or 100, or 1000 particles in the system, each particle will see the engine 19 times before it gets caught.

---

Again, just for counter enlightened assertion...

So, 1000 particles banging around produces the same consequential/incidental wear as 1 or 10?? I think you'll disagree with yourself if you stated it that way.

You're attacking this as though someone said that bypass filtration was perfect 24/7/365. No one said that it was.

Quote:

---

So somewhere inbetween lies the realm where an OCI in a convention system coincides with bypass filtration. You could change oil just often enough that the particulate count active in the system would approximately equal the count in a bypass system. OIl analysis would provide the data that shows wear particles and insolubles at milage intervals.

---

Now this is a revelation!

dnewton3, there is a filtration triangle that's very hard to trump. It's level, size, lifespan. Finer filters have a short life per square inch of media. They're lifespan is limited by their size. Oil has a lifespan of its functional sacrificial additives and its anti acid formation properties. Your choice of which bypass filtration to use is surely dictated by your intended service profile.

With something like an MG/Frantz, the media is very fine ..and very cheap ..and has a short(er) life as the resultant end of the triangle. In a 5 quart sump (6 w/filter) ..you're not to a mature sump until somewhere around 24months/24k miles. You're replacing the sacrificial/depleted additives routinely.

Now with other setups ...it's mainly a matter of convenience/practicality. Although one could swap out a tp roll 6-8 times a year, you're challenging your sensible OCI deal there. That is, if you're traveling 18-20k miles a year, you probably would use the same 6-8 additional quarts of oil anyway. Hence, you're ONLY getting the value of the higher level of filtration and not in reduced oil usage. Due to the, mostly immutable, filtration triangle, you're either sacrificing super fine filtration for longevity ..or are spending much in space and costs to accomplish the same level of filtration.

You've left out one factor in your reasoning/critical review. Time. Now in commercial fleet operations, even with bypass and centrifuge usage, there's no significant extension of engine life ..even with synthetic oils. So, you're right from the narrow interpretation that, in the commercial usage (something you didn't mention) it's all about downtime. That is, you don't waste time taking a unit out of service to change the oil. Now in our passenger car/light truck usage, age and other stuff that's indifferent to mileage would be something that a TP filter (or other bypass filter) could surely alter. Not that this necessarily equates to longevity ..but then we're back to its condition when it's taken out of service.

But you're missing the reciprocal inference. That the bypass filter eliminates the contamination that would otherwise result in shortening of engine life (also includes other incidentals that may require remediation that don't actually shorten the lifespan of the engine).

You can't have one without the other being the "avoided result".

Something like a MG/Frantz was outstanding when oil's were lousy and every engine had sludge formation and fuel management was lousy. Now that deposit control and oil degradation ...and insoluble production are greatly reduced, the utility has somewhat narrowed. Engines last far longer now than ever before.

That is, the benefits have narrowed a bit on how bypass filtration can effect longevity. Again, longevity may not mean catastrophic failure. There are vast differences in condition without failure. Cleanliness being a major contributor to a more favorable outcome.

 

[jjinco]

Quote:

---

Bypass filtration is about saving money by extending the useful life of oil, not extending the life of an engine.

---

Not in my case.

The reason I run a bypass (Frantz) is simply cleaner oil. My oil is cleaner throughout my oci with a bypass than it would be without.
((cleaner oil = less wear) = engine in better condition)
I only go 5k on the oil anyway but on the margin it may help at least a little.

I know this is simplistic but I also think it is accurate.

 

[dnewton3]

"So 999 10um particles is the same as 5? I see your point. Since an inch and a mile have an infinite number of points ...and we can reason that infinity = infinity...and inch is as good as a mile. QED (yes, there are magnitudes of infinities). This sounds like in a vacuum reasoning instead of weighing the practical factors involved. " But this is exactly where I'm going with this point. I am trying to weight the "practical factors involved".

Engines are so well made in the last 15 years, and oils are so good now, that bypass filtration is probably un-neccessary for the average guy with vehicles in his garage.

Two case examples: one - my old Taurus my sister is drving; two - a post a few months back on this site about a Saturn UOA.

Case one - my 1992 is now with my sister, and is 15 years old, with 267K miles on it, still running fine and turning in good UOA's with routine oil/filter maintenance and no bypass filtration. I'm wondering if this car actually has an end to it's life cycle. It's starting to rust, and will probably fall apart before it quits running.

Case two - a person posted a UOA a few months ago about a Saturn his (son in law?) had that was given to him from a realative. The car had 225K miles on it, had reportedly NEVER had an oil change (filter change? I don't recall) and was only topped off when the dip stick showed low. Now the UOA showed VERY high counts for wear metals, but when those values were normalized to a 5k mile OCI, they were close to universal averages. Think about that; no oil changes and only topped off. No bypass filtration. I'd never treat my car like that, but Holy Cow! it was still running.

So my original post still begs the question. Can you reap the benefits of bypass filtration today when routine good maintenance practices can provide engine life so long that "practical" experience says that the return on investment for the average guy just isn't justified.

Large sump, (near)continuous operation, industrial/commercial operations can justify the extended oil life that bypass filtration provides.

The rest of us might suppose, guess, feel, believe, and suspect they get longer engine life (and they probably would) with bypass filtration, but to what benefit when your engine will already outlast your intended use? If you can't get at least 350,000 miles (or the hourly equivilant) with just routine maintenance, you're not even trying. And how many people with bypass systems actually can cost justify such an expense? Very few.

jjinco runs a 5k OCI, WITH a Frantz filter? WHY? To enjoy it? OK, I'll buy that. But not to add life to his engine. Most people average 15K miles per year, so even without bypass filtration, he should get 20 years out of his vehicle.

No one has so far shown me any PRATICAL reason to run a bypass filter for any car, truck, van, lawmower, motorcycle, or such that you have any intention of running for more than the equivilant of 300k miles. Commercial/Industrial large sump engines with high useage can benefit. The rest of us are just babying a loved vehicle to the nth degree. It's not necessary, it just makes us feel good.

 

[unDummy]

Engine so well made? Get a job at ANY dealership and see how many are getting replaced.

The only question is whether the vehicle will last as long as the engine.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Engines are so well made in the last 15 years, and oils are so good now, that bypass filtration is probably un-neccessary for the average guy with vehicles in his garage.

---

The average guy? No, you're right. The average guy is doing a couple of things. He's either just waking up to the notion that a vehicle doesn't make a fashion statement ...or is needing to keep the wife off his back due to her auto-hypochondria. That is, the average guy hasn't a clue about true economies and the (mostly) senseless waste of money that most automobiles represent. Assuming common, but gainful employment, married w/children, he's resigned himself to some form of payment book ..perpetually. If he's the commuting bread winner, he takes the hit and drives the appliance ..and leaves some newer model for the wife to play soccer mom with. Both may or may not be upgraded on some type of schedule as the vehicle(s) annoy them as their "run yourself ragged" scheme unfolds. The guy may buy 3-5 year old clean cars and discard them every 3 years. They may retire the family truckster when the payment book is done (maybe sooner depending on how the new vehicle worked out).

alter as needed for minor variations...blablabla.

Quote:

---

Case one - my 1992 is now with my sister, and is 15 years old, with 267K miles on it, still running fine and turning in good UOA's with routine oil/filter maintenance and no bypass filtration. I'm wondering if this car actually has an end to it's life cycle. It's starting to rust, and will probably fall apart before it quits running.

---

Good example. My daughter's 91 Taurus is running strong @ 160k+. We paid $300 for it at the end of her freshman year at college with, IIRC, 130k. Great beater. The body, like your sister's, is rusting. I don't care. As long as it gets an inspection sticker ..it's being driven.

Quote:

---

Case two - a person posted a UOA a few months ago about a Saturn his (son in law?) had that was given to him from a realative. The car had 225K miles on it, had reportedly NEVER had an oil change (filter change? I don't recall) and was only topped off when the dip stick showed low. Now the UOA showed VERY high counts for wear metals, but when those values were normalized to a 5k mile OCI, they were close to universal averages. Think about that; no oil changes and only topped off. No bypass filtration. I'd never treat my car like that, but Holy Cow! it was still running.

---

And I drove @ 70 mph up the NJ turnpike on glare ice with (what they called them at the time) hydrophyle tires on my 79 Rabbit diesel while everyone else was honking their horns and flashing their lights as they were resigned to 35 mph.

Am I any example of sensible driving ability? No. I'm someone who got lucky and managed to jeeeest avoid bumping the walls of failure.

Quote:

---

Large sump, (near)continuous operation, industrial/commercial operations can justify the extended oil life that bypass filtration provides.

---

Yes...but I don't see where that negates any benefit of it in other applications.

Quote:

---

The rest of us might suppose, guess, feel, believe, and suspect they get longer engine life (and they probably would) with bypass filtration, but to what benefit when your engine will already outlast your intended use?

---

Who knows what their intended use will include? How can you determine, generically, that their engine won't benefit from bypass filtration? I think that a few Saab and VW ..and Toyota sludge engines would have surely benefited from bypass filtration.

Quote:

---

If you can't get at least 350,000 miles (or the hourly equivilant) with just routine maintenance, you're not even trying. And how many people with bypass systems actually can cost justify such an expense? Very few.

---

If is a big IF. Now 250k is getting more and more common (this is more a function of our throw away auto industry running out of steam in that the stuff thrown away is in far better shape than it used to be)...350k of usage with one COMMON owner is kinda a stretch. Police ..taxi ..sure ..but Joe average? Not at all likely.

Then again, BIG FOOT is still sighted from time to time.

Quote:

---

jjinco runs a 5k OCI, WITH a Frantz filter? WHY? To enjoy it? OK, I'll buy that.

---

Because it's one factor that he can effect.

Quote:

---

But not to add life to his engine.

---

Speculation, at best. You have no idea what his engine will encounter in terms of service ..nor how how such insults are effected by bypass filtration. Again, it may not alter his engine's lifespan ...just how well/long it maintains 100% utility during his usage.

You're not too far off the mark ..really ..but you've got a slant on it that simply eliminates/discounts/rejects alternative factors that may not, necessarily, effect lifespan ..but may effect condition.

You don't, apparently, see a difference between an engine that smokes, ticks, consumes oil ..and one that doesn't do any of the above. The overlaying notion is that you won't care at that point as long as it runs. The dried and worn oil seals ..the fouled plugs ..and a plethora of other POTENTIAL conditions just aren't considered here.

Quote:

---

No one has so far shown me any PRATICAL reason to run a bypass filter for any car, truck, van, lawmower, motorcycle, or such that you have any intention of running for more than the equivilant of 300k miles.

---

Aside from your insistence that 300k is a given, I'll concede that, for most people, there is no PRACTICAL reason to employ the use of bypass filtration. Most will never see the benefit in $$ and cents in terms of longer ownership. This is, again, most people. There's also no PRACTICAL reason for you to have a spare tire given the statistical probability of likely use..or various forms of insurance ...lots of stuff. It's merely one more defensive mechanism that can be employed to avoid potential issues.

Plans change all the time. What you intended to do ..often doesn't make sense later on. My wife and I never intend to EVER have a car payment. So, it's whatever we can manage to keep the current stable roadworthy. If we don't employ auxiliary filtration, then we're going to potentially find the folly of not doing it in the commercial-like ownership cycle.

 

[jjinco]

Here is practical:

The Frantz setup I have cost $200 and they last decades so it should be the last one I ever need. I will move it from truck to truck to truck as I get new vehicles. I figure I will be willing/able to use it for the next 30-35 years. If I use it for 30 years and spread the cost over that period, it will cost me $6.67 per year to own. Now for the operational expenses. I change the TP every 5k and drive 12k per year. I buy the "expensive" TP from wefilterit for $1.56 per roll. I use 2.5 rolls per year, which means the "filters" cost me $3.90 annually. Of course I do use a little more oil due to what the bypass holds (about a quart per oci) so I use 2.5 extra quarts per year at $4.00 (Rotella syn and yes I know I am wasting money on the syn

) per quart. So extra oil usage costs $10 annually. Now if we total this up the bypass filter costs me $20.57 per year to own and operate. Another way to look at it would be that it costs me the same as 6 ½ gallons of diesel or 1/6 of a tank of diesel on an annual basis.

The bypass does have a cost but hardly impractical.

I would imagine that over a period of 30 years the Frantz will save me quite a bit of wear. I would also imagine that the wear the bypass prevents will translate into tangible benefits. Now I know that it will be impossible to prove the derived benefits but I do not doubt that they will be there.

I know it is heresy to run a bypass without running extended oil drains but I think it makes perfect sense. I pay $20.57 annually to own/operate the bypass and decrease wear. I also have my oil analyzed every oil change and the results are great.

 

[dnewton3]

jjinco - if you "use it for the next 30-35 years" and "move it from truck to truck to truck" that is exactly the kind of un-necessary use I'm getting at. You're extending the life of your "engine" by getting new engines each time you move from vehicle to vehicle! You are seeing a benefit so minute that you aren't able to capitalize on the benefit of bypass filtration in the long haul. You're basically supercleaning an engine that would, with conventional OCI's, most likely never fail anyway, before you get rid of the vehicle. With that being said, I support your right and decision to do so. I firmly believe "to each his own". Those vehicles belong to you, and you may treat them as you see fit. You obviously want the "best" for your vehicle, at any cost.

Gary - you make a good point about the 250k vs. 350k milage issue. But I think that just plays right back to my point in the end. Let's agree that nearly everyone who is a member of this site is just a little "over the top" considering all the "lube" topics covered here. We all, myself included, tend to want more for and from our vehicles than the average guy. But I think even we get caught up in our own minutia, and lose sight of what is pratical. I am convinced that with examples such as Case 1 and Case 2, as well as a couple of my friends that have vehicles with similar longevity, vehicles made in the last 10-15 years don't need bypass filtration to give a good service life. Service life defined as reasonable and reliable driving with safety, economy, and performance in mind, as intended by the manufacturer. I wouldn't sleep at night if my vehicles smoked from internal oil consumption, oil leaks on the floor, etc. I have a high standard for performance like most on this site. I still am not convinced from any position put forth that bypass filtration is NEEDED to extend engine life.

I still have yet to hear any convincing argument or see any data from oil analysis that shows bypass filtration will make an internal combustion engine last longer than a conventional OCI, IF the conventional OCI's are managed at a level that keeps the contaminants down and minds the wear metals. YES, YES, YES I understand and agree that cleaner oil keeps the engine cleaner, but it's probably to a point that the cleanliness is unwarranted.

I would presume that most of us wash our hands several times in our daily lives, to cleanse away the routine germs for our own good health. I could stand at the sink and scrub each time for 15 minutes with a super-soap and brush like a surgeon, but it's UN-NECCESSARY for the intended use of my hands. My hands will last just as long as the surgeons, and the need of cleaning to ensure my health needs will be met WITHOUT the supercleaning. A surgeon needs to to that for the health of his patient; it's a requirement because the NEED is much greater. But for most of us, there is no need for supercleaning - we'll function just fine without it for as long as we live. Supercleaning like a hypocondriac isn't going to hurt anything, but it doesn't means it's helping either. The same applies to most people that have bypass systems. On two other web sites, I read all the time about guys with bypass systems who change oil/filters every 5-7.5K miles. I am happy for them because it gives them a sense of security, but when questioned about their use, they can't give data or details about how they are extending the life of the engine; they just quote a manufacturer's claims.

I still contend that if I change oil often enough, the contaminants caught with a bypass filter would be contained within the oil itself and flushed out with the OCI.

What would convince me I'm wrong is someone here who ran 50K miles without bypass filtration and collected UOA's every 5k miles, then ran with bypass filtration and 50k more miles of UOA's that showed a significant and statistical drop in wear metals and insolubles. THAT would be convincing. Until I see that data, until I see those numbers that can be posted on this website as a true comparison from the same person from the same vehicle, I won't be convinced.

I whole heartedly agree that bypass filtration does a better job of cleaning the engine oil, and thereby keeping the engine cleaner internally. But my original post still has not been answered. Do you NEED bypass filtration to extend the expected life of your vehicle engine, or can you just change oil more often?????????

SHOW ME THE DATA! I am a statistical quality engineer. PROVE IT, don't CLAIM IT!

 

[dnewton3]

Just for fun, I checked some of the diesel UOA's here. Here's a quick synopsis of just a few I saw. All the units had anywhere from 5-10k miles on the oil samples, except one I included for an extreme comparison. I got this data from just the 1st page available today on the diesel UOA section of this website. You doubt my research? Check the numbers yourself.

Units with bypass systems:
Duramax with FS2500, insolubles at .3%
Powerstroke with FS2500, insolubles at .3%
Cummins 5.9 with Frantz, insolubles at .4%

Units without bypass systems:
Powerstroke, insolubels at .3%
Ford 6.9L (pre-P/S) at .4%
Volks'TDI insolubles at 1.0% (20K miles on oil!)


According to the FS2500 website main page, a FS2500 unit was used to run a Detroit engine to 80k miles with only make up and bypass filter changes. They held the soot to .3%; in other words, they can hold that level for a long, long time, but in no way can they make it go any lower than the .3-.5% we see WITHOUT bypass filtration.

Now unless I'm missing something here, Gary, it seems to me that insolubles can be held to a reasonable level (let's say .7% or less) REGARDLESS OF THE USE OF BYPASS FILTRATION. The TDI went up to 1.0%, but he had 20k miles on the oil. In fact, a bypass filter DOES NO BETTER AT REDUCING INSOLUBLES THAN CONVENTIONAL OIL CHANGES WHEN THE OIL CHANGES ARE HELD TO A REASONABLE OCI, SAY LESS THAN 10K MILES.

Hey guys - that's data. Period. Now, I understand that I'm comparing different vehicles with different drivers and different milages, but I'll bet the deeper I look, the more I'll confirm my suspicion. In fact, I'm going to start a spreadsheet and glean as much UOA data I can and normalize it for the variables. I'll pull data from repeat posters so that driving and engines will be normalized. I'll statistically actuate the milage for proper distribution. I'm a quality engineer; this is what I do for a living. I am, by choice, a thorough person.

Bottom line gents, your side of the argument doesn't look strong at this point. IT GOEST RIGHT BACK TO WHAT I ASKED AND PROPOSED. BYPASS FILTERING CAN MAKE YOUR ENGINE OIL LAST TO A LONGER CHANGE INTERVAL, BUT IN NO WAY DOES IT PROVE THAT IT MAKES AN ENGINE ACTUALLY LAST LONGER. If soot and insolubles are the measuring stick, then changing your oil more often nets the same result as super filtering it. Bypass filtration is a cost savings tool, NOT a engine longevity tool. Keep your engine oil changed reqularly, and the engine can last just as long.

You find data to dispute this and I'd be glad to review it.

 

[jjinco]

Take a look at my uoa here. Blackstone's universal average in the right side column is based on a 5200 mile run. The mileage on my sample was just below 5k. This is an apples to apples comparison and I think my numbers with bypass faired extremely well against the universal average. Note my low insolubles at .1%. Do you think my report would have been just as good without a bypass?

 

[dnewton3]

BTW - I'll out of town for a week. I'll check your responses when I return.

I have already set up my database; it tracks engine type, milage on oil, bypass filter (no or yes and type if used), insoluble and soot levels, and main wear indicators such as iron and lead and copper.

I have 30 UOA's already entered from UOA forums. 7 of the 30 have bypass filtration. NONE of them have any statistical advantage over another in any of the measured criteria. Insolubles, with or without bypass, are all around .3%-.6%; the wear metals ALL show normalized readings within 10% of each other, regardless of wether they were bypass filtered or not.

I'll put together 50 UOA's for diesel and 50 for gas.

 

[dnewton3]

Probably so, but then I just reviewed a 7.3L P/S that posted a 4k mile interval that didn't have bypass, and it also posted .1% insoluble for a UOA.

I guess your Frantz units do a great job, but then if the engine isn't generating much to begin with, anyone can claim success.

If you have some free time, pick out 25 diesel UOA's and just check the insolubles and if they use bypass. You're not doing any better statistically then those without bypass. You may not want to admit that, but the data doesn't lie.

 

[jjinco]

No the data does not lie. Remember the Blackstone right hand column data is the AVERAGE for my type of motor with similar mileage. I suspect they have a few more reports on which to base their average than the handful here on BITOG. I do look forward to seeing what you come up with though.

 

[RalphPWood]

Motor Oil is like a pair of pants. You can let them get dirty and toss them or you can clean them and keep using them. I would rather clean the oil than toss it. If the oil looks like it is getting oxidized I will install an oil cooler. If the oil is getting dirty I will install a submicronic bypass filter as soon as I get the truck/car home. If I don't like the feel of the oil I will drain it. It won't take me long to determine how often I need to change the filter and add a quart of new oil. Even the submicronic bypass filter can't get all the soot. Some soot will find it's way through. Some non submicronic bypass filters can remove almost no soot. This is a challenge because the new oil added has to keep the soot diluted to a safe level. Oil can be very clean and low soot but still be very black. For people like me that don't have engines that are expensive enough to justify the cost of oil analysis I can do the old palm test. If I can rub a little in the palm of my hand and it leaves a clean oily film, it is low soot. If the viscosity feels right I'm good to go. The problem with modern gasoline engines is they don't put a lot of soot in the oil. The oil can be very dirty and still look good. Similar to automatic transmissions where the fluid looks good on the dipstick but is loaded with friction material and metal.
It is very easy to get side tracked by a lot of ---- sales pitches that have nothing to do with the real world. Oil has no expiration date. Fuel contamination evaporates easily from clean oil. Additives last a lot longer in clean oil. New oil added at filter changes adds enough new additives. Most additives are there to compensate for allowing the oil to get dirty and contaminate the engine parts. If you can get it all working right you have eliminated routine oil drains. If all you need is to extend oil drains you can try doubling the recommended drain interval then changing the oil and all the filters.
I have used the Frantz since 1963 and the Motor Guard since 1966. Yes, I admit it I like TP filters. High quality TP is a little harder to find now but I will go to a janitorial supply if I have to. Scott 1000 sheet in the grocery store is good. I split an old core and put it inside the new TP core. The new all metal Motor Guards won't take the so called 1 1/2" core Scott. The aluminum alloy tube is exactly 1 1/2". TP filter users make do. That is part of the fun. One filter maker and probably others have a problem with TP used as an element. I would imagine they would: TP filters about 10 times better than some of the other filters; TP filters filter about 100 times better than a full flow filter.

 

[SWHeat]

Quote:

---

What would convince me I'm wrong is someone here who ran 50K miles without bypass filtration and collected UOA's every 5k miles, then ran with bypass filtration and 50k more miles of UOA's that showed a significant and statistical drop in wear metals and insolubles. THAT would be convincing. Until I see that data, until I see those numbers that can be posted on this website as a true comparison from the same person from the same vehicle, I won't be convinced.

---

Oh, is that all it will take to convince you of the benefits of bypass filtration. Gee, I'll get right on that..

Better yet, you supply the "NEW" cars, and I'd be glad to do the driving, pay for the bypass filters, pay for the oil, and pay for the UOA's. DEAL? HAHAHA

Quote:

---

I whole heartedly agree that bypass filtration does a better job of cleaning the engine oil, and thereby keeping the engine cleaner internally. But my original post still has not been answered. Do you NEED bypass filtration to extend the expected life of your vehicle engine, or can you just change oil more often?????????

SHOW ME THE DATA! I am a statistical quality engineer. PROVE IT, don't CLAIM IT!

---

It sounds like you are collecting the data, keep it up, maybe you can find a trend. I guess we will have to just have to cope with the fact that bypass filtration keeps the oil clean and if done right can greatly reduce consumption of oil and reduce cost of operation. Extending engine life I believe is a benefit as well.... but that will just have to stay anecdotal among the trucking fleets.