Spin-on bypass filters- options?

[deeter16317]

The fittings on my GCF are 1/4" female NPT.

I took a 1/4" hose barb x 1/4" NPT male fitting and, using a 1/8" pipe tap, tapped the inside of the male NPT end with 1/8" NPT threads.

I drilled a 0.0405" (I believe, it was either a #56 or #57 wire drill) orifice in a 1/8" NPT pipe plug. I had researched this, and found that this was very close to the ORIGINAL size orifice used by the Amsoil BE-series filters (it was later enlarged for the EaBP-series). The GCF uses a 5/64" orifice, and I felt it would be too much.

I threaded the pipe plug into the above described fitting, and then threaded the assembly into the GCF.

When installed in the GCF, you cannot see the pipe plug as it is inside the fitting. It provided me an almost perfect 1 quart per minute (hot) at idle. But as you can see, a 1/4" NPT won't fit this Wix filter head.

If the restriction in the 51051 is adequate, I may just forgo my restriction (someone with more engineering skills than I designed this filter, so they should know what they are doing!)

 

[deeter16317]

Part Number: 51704
UPC Number: 765809517042
Principal Application: Transicold Refrigeration Units w/Perkins Engines
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: By-Pass
Media: Paper
Height: 6.952
Outer Diameter Top: 3.663
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 5/8-18
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: None
Burst Pressure-PSI: 200
Max Flow Rate: 1-3 GPM
Nominal Micron Rating: 32

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
15614 2.834 2.462 0.255





This was a cross reference for the B164, which is a long version of the B50...notice anything strange?

 

[Gary Allan]

No, not really. If you mean the 1-3gpm thing, sure.

I see what you did with the hose barb.

 

[deeter16317]

A bypass filter with a nominal 32 micron rating, while the rest (similar to, and referenced as "smaller" alternatives) are 10 micron...seems odd to me.

 

[Gary Allan]

Depends on the testing. It may have been tested at the single pass rate that the regular oil filters are done under. The efficiency comes from the flow rate. A good bit of it, anyway.

I'd also check to see if the applications that spec that filter are "stand alone" bypass setups. That is, bypass filtration is the only filtering on the engine. There may be a service interval thing that's more akin to a full flow.

I think that may be the case. Here's a bypass filter for a 1960 134 Jeep engine.

Part Number: 51010
UPC Number: 765809510104
Principal Application: Various Equip. w/ Continental, Hercules, Kolher, Wisconsin Engines - also Ford, Mercedes (73-75), Porsche (58-69)
All Applications
Style: Cartridge Lube Metal Canister Filter
Service: Lube
Type: By-Pass
Media: Paper
Height: 4.375
Outer Diameter: 3.718
Inner Diameter: 0.553
Nominal Micron Rating: 32

Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
15016 4.191 3.793 0.075
15480 8 4.448 4.134 0.157

 

[deeter16317]

Well, its installed and the GCF is removed.

Interesting note is that one of the GCF fittings snapped off as I was cutting the hose with a cutoff tool...not sure I was pushing too hard or if it just failed. Nonetheless, it was not reassuring.

The Wix mount fit well, installed on a running board brace. Out of harms way and easy to replace.

 

[deeter16317]

I just ordered a dozen B50 filters...after much research here, they seem to be the "best" option for this mount.

 

[Gary Allan]

You should be set for a while there. Did you check fleetfilter first?

 

[deeter16317]

I thought they only handled Wix/Napa? I was after the Baldwins...got them for right about $5 each. Cheaper than the $9 from the local place.

Took it for a quick spin, got everything hot...my hydraulic lines are very stiff in this cold, and that limbered them up so they should "set" at the new position. No leaks, so that's a good sign.

I know this probably isn't as efficient as my GCF, but its less oil and I'm going back to regular 10k or 15k OCIs/FCIs (which is the manufacturer recommended intervals). The bypass is just peace of mind.

Oh, and its definitely flowing more oil; but it did not affect my oil pressure. I have a real oil pressure guage, mounted in the supply line to the bypass filter...so if it would affect the pressure, I would have seen it.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yeah, it would be the Wix equivalent.


There are different approaches with the GFC. You're keeping the sump in sorta a perpetual free fall. It takes a long time to mature the sump. Up to 2 years for a tp filter with a 5+1 quart sump.

 

[deeter16317]

Even with a 12 quart sump, changing 50% of it every GCF FCI.

As I said, the bypass is peace of mind.

 

[deeter16317]

Actually that would be an 18 quart sump, changing a 1/3 of it every FCI.

 

[Gary Allan]

Then it's a PT filter ..not a single TP filter. With 30% each evolution it only takes 3 evolutions to make the original oil less than the new added oil
N/LAST/OLDEST
100%
33%66%
33%22%44%
33%22%14%30%-Here's where the new oil is in greater quantity than the oldest oil - that is, it should be at (or close to) it's worst condition.

With a 5+1 (motor guard or Frantz) it takes 24k to mature the sump with 1 quart added at each 3k evolution.

That's sorta how I qualified it for reference

Quote:
Up to 2 years for a tp filter with a 5+1 quart sump.

 

[deeter16317]

Well I drove my daily 100 mile commute today...and I'm not to sure the oil isn't less "sludgey" on the dipstick. It definitely feels better between the fingers...not that its "scientific" by any means, but it is an observation.

I will be curious to see whether my GCF is channeled when I take it apart for cleaning.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: deeter16317
A bypass filter with a nominal 32 micron rating, while the rest (similar to, and referenced as "smaller" alternatives) are 10 micron...seems odd to me.

Those filters were used on car engines and industrial engines before the Mfgs went to full flow filters.

 

[deeter16317]

Wix's response: "The Beta Ratio of the 51050 filter is 2/20/75 = 13/25/27 Absolute or 10 Micron Nominal."

What's this mean, when compared to the B50 absolute at 15 micron? Which is "better"?

 

[deeter16317]

OK, figured it out...2/20/75 = 50%/95%/98.6% respectively...so the Wix is absolute at 27u, 95% at 25u, and 50% (or "nominal" by everything I've read) at 13u.

So the Baldwin B50 is a slightly better filter with a 15u absolute rating, and an internet reported 1 to 2u nominal.

 

[Gary Allan]

The "nominal" rating is what one should see in a single pass test. The other numbers are at its end of life.

The WIX 51050 is rated at 10um nominal (single pass)

It's rated 2/20/75 @ 13/25/27 (multipass)

I can't see the Baldwin being that fine in the nominal test unless they use some really low flow rate and Wix does not.

But based on your available numbers, the Baldwin would appear to have an edge here.

 

[deeter16317]

That nominal number for the Baldwin is what people have "reported" being told by Baldwin from sources other than mine...the page Baldwin provided me recently only had a single 15u @ "75" (98.6%) specification...and considering the Wix is absolute at 27u?

I believe I found that "nominal" number for the B50 from discussions on this forum.

The Baldwin page I was provided indicated roughly 580 square inches of surface area, and a 16 gram capacity. This roughly translates into an element 5 inches wide by 116 inches long in the canister.

And I guess I don't understand how you can have a filter trap 10u particles on a single pass when its "absolute" at 27u and 95% at 25...which indicates to me that the media is quite coarse to begin with...and as a filter loads, it typically becomes more effective at trapping particles (the openings plug off and get smaller). Am I missing something?

 

[Gary Allan]

No, you're not missing something. It is, more or less, a recent revelation of mine as I reviewed the protocol for the multipass test ..the one that we seem to place so much importance on. It also validates the comparative poorer performance of an EaO vs. M1 in particle testing by xxanchors. The M1 bested the EaO up to about 10k. At that, the EaO started to catch up in terms of filtration. The M1 is (probably) setup as a 15k filter. The EaO as a 25k filter.

So, based on my current frame(s) of reference, the nominal rating is more indicative of "typical" filter performance ..while the multipass ratings have to be viewed as some terminal state of efficiency that is only attained at the end of particle uptake.

George of CLS asserted this a few years back. He never quite was able to express it in a manner that anyone else could understand. He just stated that a (as an example) 15um absolute filter was really a 35um filter and that you needed to go to Beta200 or Beta 1000 to really get to "absolute" and that Beta75 was not a valid rating to depend on.

He just couldn't articulate it well.

What it means to me, currently anyway, is that we're always filtering on a plotted curve within the holding capacity of the given filter. Higher holding capacities ...longer curves. When we use a high holding capacity filter over a short OCI, we're only using it at the bottom end of that curve. That is, we're getting the least utility out of it ..wasting more of our money. You're not getting the best out of a top tier filter, you're getting the least that it has to give. Now that may be better or worse than your typical $3.xx filter, but that depends on how long you use it and how deep you get into its curve.


Your Baldwin appears to be better filtering than its WIX counterpart. Now if you can get WIX to give you the holding capacity of the 51050, then you can reason which one will last longer in service.

Let's say that the WIX also has 16gms of holding capacity. Since it has a lower absolute rating, it must have a longer curve to saturation. Longer life.

Do you see what I'm saying?


This is why I'm reevaluating my view on the nominal rating that we tend to overlook since it doesn't give us the warm and fuzzy feelings that the multipass testing does.