Full Flow/Bypass Filter Test

[Bio-T]

This Link was posted in another forum on here, so I am not the one who found it. But I was really surprised to see the results of this test. For once a good read by someone not connected with any filter company. Three pages of interesting reading:

http://jeepsunlimited.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2967909

 

[Fatal0E]

Hmm, kinda sucks I have a pile of PureOne filters for my wifes neon.

 

[Bio-T]

What is so ironic, is that the bypass filter was installed with apprx. 5K on the oil and it was only run 505 miles and the sample was taken. So it cleaned the dirty oil. Worth the read whether you love/hate bypass filters.

 

[Gary Allan]

I didn't read all the fine print there ...but those wear # are horrible

I did like the guys line of reasoning, especially his example of "the line at the ladies room" thingie.

 

[RavenTai]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
What is so ironic, is that the bypass filter was installed with apprx. 5K on the oil and it was only run 505 miles and the sample was taken. So it cleaned the dirty oil. Worth the read whether you love/hate bypass filters.

---

that is interesting, the consensus here had been that lower #s were from reduced wear not filtering the wear metals out of the oil

I will add a second opinion to that soon, I installed my bypass in the middel of an oci and will have before and after samples of the same oil

 

[Bio-T]

RT,
I am really interested in your UOA when you get it. I want to see how the numbers compare. I did the same thing on my 01 truck, I had 1500 miles on the oil and added a bypass filter for a test. It will take me awhile to get enough miles to make it worth while though. I have 2 prior UOA's from this vehicle, so a fair baseline. When this test is over I am going to install a Gulf Coast 01 bypass and 15W40 Royal Purple Synthetic oil, and then run that for 10K and then do an analysis again and don't change until the analysis dictates.

 

[greencrew]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RavenTai:
I will add a second opinion to that soon, I installed my bypass in the middel of an oci and will have before and after samples of the same oil

---

Now that's interesting. I'm all ears. Opps sorry, all eyes. Ditto for your test 59. My test will be to simply repeat msparks test, only I changed both filters at 7k and will test at 12 months instead of 18. We drive the same truck with same by-pass filter and oil.

 

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RavenTai:
That is interesting, the consensus here had been that lower #s were from reduced wear not filtering the wear metals out of the oil

I will add a second opinion to that soon, I installed my bypass in the middle of an oci and will have before and after samples of the same oil

---

When I saw the data my first thought was that the bypass filter was filtering out the contaminants resulting in the lower readings.

Might the tested bypass filter be doing a good enough job of filtering to invalidate oil analysis as an engine wear indicator?

I have never been very interested in bypass filters because wih decent oil and full flow filters, my engines last well beyond when I want to get rid of the car for other reasons.

Secondly, most bypass filters I have seen or heard of in the past were associated with wild eyed, drooling, lunatics trying to sell them.

The filter Frank was using appears to is manufactured by a real company. They claim an association with Racor which is a good company.

And they don't use toilet paper

 

[RavenTai]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 59 Vetteman:
RT,
I am really interested in your UOA when you get it. I want to see how the numbers compare. I did the same thing on my 01 truck, I had 1500 miles on the oil and added a bypass filter for a test. It will take me awhile to get enough miles to make it worth while though. I have 2 prior UOA's from this vehicle, so a fair baseline. When this test is over I am going to install a Gulf Coast 01 bypass and 15W40 Royal Purple Synthetic oil, and then run that for 10K and then do an analysis again and don't change until the analysis dictates.

---

I put 2k on the oil without nad 2k with the filter, only problem is between the 1+ qt's it burned and the bypass install I had to add 3 qts, aslo my sump capacity went from 7to (I think) 9qts,going to be soem interestign math to try to compare the two, hopefully it will be self evident

I already have the sample here (took the 9th) just need to mail it in, I'll try to get to the post office when they open Monday

quote:

---

Originally posted by XS650:

Might the tested bypass filter be doing a good enough job of filtering to invalidate oil analysis as an engine wear indicator?

---

that is what it looks like

quote:

---

I have never been very interested in bypass filters because wih decent oil and full flow filters, my engines last well beyond when I want to get rid of the car for other reasons.

---

cant argue with that, add to that most motor deaths are not from wear, more likely poor maintenance, overheating, broken spark plug, wreck, run out of oil (your significant other asks what that big red light on the dash means as it has been on for days) etc etc wear is probably low potential danger

but I still like the warm fuzzy effect of doing something nice for my motor

quote:

---

Secondly, most bypass filters I have seen or heard of in the past were associated with wild eyed, drooling, lunatics trying to sell them.

The filter Frank was using appears to is manufactured by a real company. They claim an association with Racor which is a good company.

And they don't use toilet paper

---

I have the same filter, I don't think you can tell much about a filter from who sells it but it is nice to know that they are not going anywhere. I am hoping the racor elements fit this filter head as they are half the price of the oil-guard elements (probably the same element I hope)

when I first heard of TP filters it did not sit right, but I am warming to the idea, there are a lot of people getting nice results with them

 

[Mike_dup1]

As I see it, a by-pass oil filter is really designed for those that need to extend the interval between oil changes. To a great many drivers, time is money and if they can stretch the intervals with by-pass filtration, its time and money saved. I has long been a proven fact the the cleaner the oil the longer the engine lives and the longer you can go between oil changes. Thats the name of the game, oil never wears out, it becomes contaminated with combustion by-products and wear metals and if you keep it clean longer, it better for you wallet and the engine.

If you are still going to change you oil every 3000 miles, whats the point of installing a by-pass? None whatsoever. If for instance you are planning to drive the vehicle 100,000, 200,000 miles and want to spend the least amount on oil changes, this is the way to go. I get a kick out of some who say, why I can use this cheaper oil, change it every 3000 miles and still get 200,000 miles from this engine. True BUT you could have used a high quality synthetic oil, a by-pass fitter and changed your oil every 25,000 or more miles and still got the 200,000 + miles and spent a great deal less doing so. Most only look to the present day cost and not what it comes to over the life of the vehicle. I know many that are fanatical about changing their oil every 3000 miles and then they go and trade in the car in 3-5 yrs. Spent all that money preserving it for the next buyer and the dealer could have cared less if they ever changed the oil, gave them the same trade-in value.

Back in 1984 I was traveling about 25,000+ miles a year working for the DOT on route surveys all over the state. I purchased a loaded 1984 Olds Delta 88. I had been using synthetic oil since the 70's and decided to install a single by-pass filter on this car so I would not have change the regular oil filter as often. That car rarely sat a day without being used and over the 6 yrs I kept the car, I logged nearly 40,000 miles at one time without changing the oil or filters. About once a year around the 4th July Holiday (always took my vacation then), I would change my oil, regular filter but only the by-pass if it needed which I would determine by weather it was hot to the touch meaning oil still flowing thru it. I can't recall for certain but I think I went 2 yrs without changing the b-pass. In 1990 I sold that car to someone I know when I no longer had a need for a car to travel (had to use company vehicle). I removed the by-pass filter and to this day that car is still on the road with its 3rd owner (whom I have known since the 70's). He says it has around 250,000 miles of which 150,000+ was mine. So how I maintained it had not effect on the engine but I saved a great deal of money and time.

btw-Never once did an oil analysis....

[ December 28, 2003, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]

 

[greencrew]

Mike, good points. For me it's about saving time more than money. I support all four of my families vehicles. Even before oil changes I'm already spending some serious money. I know some people look forward to opening a beer and changing the oil, but I'm not that eager about it.

Changing the by-pass filter is a lot more enjoyable. I't in a convenient location, it's quick, and I can do it anywhere.

I could change the Frantz filter without spilling a drop of oil, which was a plus given that I changed it every 2k.

I do agree that a by-pass is overkill for an auto engine because there is barely enough oil there to support the system from a cost perspective, but once you have it installed it's a big time saver. Changing two filters on my truck every 6 months is overkill protection for my engine, and I'm still glad to do it.

Where the cost savings comes in is it allows me to run any oil regardless of price.

[ December 28, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: greencrew ]

 

[mangusta1969]

Daless2, the author of the full flow/bypass filter study noted above, has just provided some updated, longer term test results here:

http://jeepsunlimited.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=352127&perpage=20&pagenumber=4

The bypass filter continues to do an excellent job, even when paired with a much less efficient full flow filter than the Mobil 1 unit used with it in the original study.

The author also responds to the high iron ppm question and provides some other interesting details/comments about his test approach. Well worth reading the entire 4 pages of this long thread!

Steve

 

[RavenTai]

got the results in, the #'s dont follow the jeep test #'s

http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001155

what do you think?

 

[mangusta1969]

Raventai,

I think you are actually looking pretty good on your oil analysis numbers, although you do have a significant percentage of makeup oil added to the analysis soup. That amount (3 qts) of clean oil alone would tend to make the numbers look better.

Take a look at the Jeep's starting point figures for aluminum, tin, copper, iron, chromium, lead, and silicon. All the numbers were much higher than yours, indicating that the Jeep had pretty dirty oil when the bypass unit was installed, as compared to any of your measurement points. The bypass filter cannot clean up much when there is not much there to begin with. Once the jeep figures went down with the addition of the bypass filter, most of the numbers stayed pretty stable, even with the replacement of the Mobil 1 filter with a unit that is likely not to be as efficient in filtration.

Did Blackstone give you a discount on the last two analyses, since they did not give any numbers for TBN? That's a pretty important number to go missing.

If you have any serious questions about what the bypass filter is doing/not doing, you can simply block off the oil feed to it for the next 2-3,000 miles and see if your numbers go up; then re-enable the flow and see if the numbers go down. You should be pretty safe in doing all this, as you would still only have 8-10K miles on the oil and you never had a bypass filter installed before this one. But make sure they do not short you on the TBN numbers in the future, as you need to be certain that the oil is not going acidic on you.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

So it cleaned the dirty oil.

quote:

---

---

that is interesting, the consensus here had been that lower #s were from reduced wear not filtering the wear metals out of the oil

---

I think that I have an explanation for a few things that are "weird" about his numbers and the apparent reduced metals with a bypass install. I believe, as Msparks asserts ..that they metals are present in the "particle" or atomic level and not in "chuncks" ..the bypass should not effect these numbers.

We use atomic absorbtion for our testing procedures for our discharge to the river. We don't "digest" these samples. We test for copper. Now if we test for "free" or suspended copper ...we simply draw a sample ...and run it through the AA machine. If however, we want TOTAL copper ..the tech saturates the sample with nitric acid and desolves any coppers that may also be present. That is, if I have a sample with 1ppm copper ....but a penny is sitting in the jar ....digest it ...MASS copper.

So ...10 and 15 micron particles that may contain copper (bonded with it) ...aren't filtered out by the regular filter ...are now part of the sample ...but when the bypass is employed ...this source of metals is reduced....yet there may have been little reduction in "free" metals ...but a radical reduction in "digested" metals.