Recent Topics
Which are you?😂
by Mad_Hatter - 08/22/19 12:21 AM
The Fatal Flaw...
by Mad_Hatter - 08/21/19 10:58 PM
early OCI because of HIGH REVVING
by tahoe_hybrid - 08/21/19 10:38 PM
API diesel / gas ratings
by KiwiBiker - 08/21/19 10:18 PM
For the XOM fans!
by Marco620 - 08/21/19 09:43 PM
I have to set up Wake-On-Lan
by vavavroom - 08/21/19 09:17 PM
A Nut About Motor Oil
by Mr_Luke - 08/21/19 09:12 PM
Is VW507 okay for flat tappets in EA 827?
by vavavroom - 08/21/19 09:06 PM
Brake pads on a Cadillac ATS?
by Oro_O - 08/21/19 08:32 PM
2019 GMC Sierra - Rear view mirror is new tech
by Reddy45 - 08/21/19 08:18 PM
Mobil Super or Mobil 1
by 80Boxcar - 08/21/19 07:34 PM
17 Accord 6AT "service"
by Schmoe - 08/21/19 07:26 PM
Caliper Recommendations for 2002 Tacoma
by madibob - 08/21/19 07:14 PM
KoruWorks code
by GumbyJarvis - 08/21/19 06:34 PM
Differential / Axle VENT
by MasterSolenoid - 08/21/19 06:14 PM
Oil for Volvo S60 T6 R-Design
by Luke352 - 08/21/19 05:52 PM
Motorcraft 5w30 synthetic blend SN+
by mpgo4th - 08/21/19 05:37 PM
6.7 powerstroke cab off repair work
by mattd - 08/21/19 04:23 PM
talk to me about security cameras
by 1978elcamino - 08/21/19 03:30 PM
Newest Members
Robto, Chaparro_trucker, KiwiBiker, Rixter, yote556
69025 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
18 registered members (FordCapriDriver, Bailes1992, ctechbob, FT92, Falcon_LS, DrDave, 3 invisible), 698 guests, and 21 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics293,635
Posts5,043,836
Members69,025
Most Online3,532
Jul 30th, 2019
Donate to BITOG
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 6 of 7 1 5 6 7
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Ihatetochangeoil] #4430098 06/13/17 07:14 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
... I will take the word of Mr. Jim Fitch over the word of anyone on this forum. Sorry I do not share your blind obeisance to Mr. Newton. ....



I know Jim as a mild-acquaintance; don't know him well. I've spoke and emailed with him on a limited basis.

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/30383/engines-oil-analysis

If you value Jim's position, then you might do well to consider the fact that he (Jim Fitch) values MY opinion and position enough to publish my article in the Noria magazine.
Also, he invited me to speak last year at the conference in Louisville about oil analysis, but I was unable to make it fit into my calendar.

I admit I am not an expert on filtration, but I do know how to analyze data and look at the big picture. I also don't jump to conclusions, and understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Just saying ....


The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: dnewton3] #4430475 06/13/17 04:15 PM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,413
53' Stude Offline
Offline
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 13,413
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
I posted nothing untrue, and the article is referenced:

References:
 Leonard Bensch, Pall Corporation ‘How the new ISO particle count standard will affect you.’
 Paul W Michael, Benz Oil, Tom S Wanke, Fluid Power Institute, ‘Surgically clean hydraulic oil – a case study.’
 International Standard ISO 4406-1999, Hydraulic fluid power – Fluids – Method of coding the level of
contamination by solid particles.
 James C. Fitch, Handbook of case studies on contamination control. (1991)

I will take the word of Mr. Jim Fitch over the word of anyone on this forum. Sorry I do not share your blind obeisance to Mr. Newton. Neither do I accept YOUR "opinion." You may now have the thread, attack away, I'm done responding.


I apologize that I don't share your point of view

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Let's look at the first link ihatetochangeoil posted, and take a quote right from the text ....
Clean, dry oil can extend equipment life ...

Go back and read what I stated, and then read that whole linked text. NOWHERE does it say that a filter makes an engine last longer. What it states is that (I'm paraphrasing here) tighter filtration makes a lube cleaner, and that cleaner lube will last longer in service. I am being VERY specific here. Filters do not make a piece of equipment last longer. What makes equipment last longer is a good clean fluid. But a clean fluid is NOT exclusive to filtration. Dumping and filling the sump can also make for a low contamination level.


There are two fundamental questions to ask:
1) how "clean" does a lube have to be to give a long lifespan?
2) how does one achieve that level of cleanliness?

Generally, an engine (tranny, diff, gearbox, whatever) does not need a hyper-clinically-clean environment to survive. Each piece of equipment will have some nuances that it prefers, but generally engines can survive just fine with "normal" levels of "clean". It is not, by any notion, necessary to remove every sub-micronic particle from the sump to have the motor last a long time. I cannot assure you what level of "clean" is right for each engine; that would be data that I don't have. But I CAN state with impunity that most engines survive just fine with "normal" filtration.

Ask yourself this, considering two extreme conditions:
a) if you put on the "best" FF filter, and then added the "best" BP filter element, but had no oil whatsoever in your engine, how long do you think it would last running at 1500 rpm? Probably about 20 minutes or less.
b) if you put in premium syn lube, but had no filter whatsoever, how long would it last? While it may not last forever, it sure as heck will last a LOT longer than option "a".
So in condition "a", just how well did that filter protect the engine directly? The answer is zero; it did nothing to make the engine last longer. But in condition "b", the oil was able to prolong the life of the engine. You see, filters to NOT make equipment last longer. Filters clean fluids. It is that clean fluid (sustained to some reasonable level) that makes a piece of equipment last a long time. Filters prolong the lifespan of a lube, not an engine.


Here's some real world examples:
https://www.knfilters.com/video/MillionMile.htm
1 million miles on one air filter, but had 400 oil changes (average OCI = 2500 miles). Now, while it is possible that the engine might have been in "better" shape if premium oil filter would have been used, it's clear that just normal oil changes made this unit last a LONG TIME, well past what "normal" folks would have ever done with it. Ironically, he could have probably run 5k or 10k miles, still had low wear, and saved money. But the point is that frequent O/FCIs made this last a long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjRgiAOHm-E
This guy put over a million miles on his SuperDuty truck. In fact, I was so curious about this truck that I actually called that service center (easy to do nowadays with the inter-webbie searches). I spoke directly with the service manager that oversaw this vehicle maintenance plan. Actually, this truck is now dead; it was totaled in a wreck. But it actually had FOUR engines in over 3 million miles! You did not read that incorrectly! Here's how it played out ...
engine 1; died in a little over 100k miles. They didn't have time to deal with a rebuild, so they sourced an engine out of parts yard and got the truck back on the road
engine 2; went over a million miles. This second engine is the feature engine in this video. It went over 1 million miles, and then died. They sourced another parts-yard 5.4L for a swap.
engine 3; went close a million miles. The news story of this truck stopped, but the miles kept piling up. Engine 3 died just shy of a million miles as I recall. Yanked it out and put in #4 from yet another donor truck.
engine 4; was closing in on another million miles, and the vehicle was totaled in a wreck.
When I spoke with the service manager, he told me that the only lube/filter these engines got was Havoline 10w-40 conventional lube and a MC or other normal filter. Not one drop of synthetics; not one super-premium filter. Just "normal" routine O/FCIs at around 7-8k miles.

My point is that "normal" products (decent oil/filters, but nothing expensive or extraordinary) made these units go WAY longer than most people will ever use them. Both these guys might have been better off monetarily if they had used syn fluids and bypass, not to make the engines last longer, but to stretch out the fiscal opportunities. Syns and bypass filtration could have really paid off in savings. But it's clear that these two trucks didn't need super filters just to last a long time. IOW - the routine oil and filter changes were obviously keeping the sumps "clean enough" to sustain a LONG lifespan. So hyper cleaning the fluid would not likely have made the engines last longer. And, it's not like these two trucks are isolated; there are actually LOTS of vehicles with very high miles. Some use super-premium products like syns and BP filters, whereas others use "normal" products changed more often. Which emphasizes the point here .... Equipment longevity is NOT mutually exclusive to one form of maintenance committment. There is more than one way to make your equipment last a long time.

Guys - don't think of this in terms of indirect relationships. Think of DIRECT interactions. (recall your old childhood and the song about the leg bone connected to the knee bone; the knee bone connected to the thigh bone ....) The filter media never touches an engine anywhere. What the filter touches is the lube, and the lube touches the engine part surfaces.
Filters do NOTHING to extend the life of an engine. What they do is extend the usable lifespan of a lube by keeping the lube "clean enough" to sustain the equipment lifespan. As long as that lube is "clean enough" to sustain a viable level of engine survive-ability, then all will be fine. Filters don't clean an engine; filters clean the oil.

I would agree that super-fine filtration will make for super-clean oil. And that super-clean oil may (not will, but might) make a piece of equipment last some fractional portion longer. But to what end? What expense do you have to endure to get that level? I cannot tell you. But what I can state with complete certainty is that "normal" levels of clean (provided by decent O/FCIs) will make equipment last a lot longer than most folks will ever use a piece of equipment.

I stand by what I said previously, and challenge any of you to directly controvert it with logic and evidence:
Quote:
Filters don't make equipment last longer. They make lubes last longer in service.
What makes a piece of equipment last a long time is a good commitment to a proper maintenance program.


CLEAN OIL, managed to a reasonably sustainable level, is what makes equipment last a long time. There are two ways you can achieve that level of "clean":
- flush contamination out
- filter contamination out
Two roads to the same destination.
What is critical to equipment longevity is knowing and understanding the type program you're going to commit to, and then managing that program to a level that sustains the lifespan you desire out of the equipment.






DNewton: thank you for the actual informative posts as well smile



Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: 53' Stude] #4431459 06/14/17 04:16 PM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 662
I
Ihatetochangeoil Offline
Offline
I
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 662
Tomato, tomoto...

DNewtons posts are nothing new, neither are most of his ideas anything except common sense. Of course the best filter in the world won't work without oil. Duh. Makes as much sense as the best fishing lure in the world won't work sitting in the tackle box.

Notice that Dnewton STARTED with "clean, dry oil"...How do you get that? ANSWER: FILTRATION.

Now, if you want to get down to specifics, Mr. Newton pointed out that "I would agree that super-fine filtration will make for super-clean oil. And that super-clean oil may (not will, but might) make a piece of equipment last some fractional portion longer. But to what end? What expense do you have to endure to get that level? I cannot tell you."

This paragraph from Mr. Newton is inconclusive, correct? I don't think there is disagreement here...Let's raise the bar and change the paradigm. Does anyone have any conclusive proof that oil and filtration together, maintained to cleanliness levels at least minimum specified by Caterpillar for warranty requirements, how does anyone KNOW that oil kept to, say a 16/13 cleanliness level (This is ONLY attainable with bypass filtration) will not double the useful life of equipment?

For every example of a "million mile motor" using "normal" filters and maintenance that anyone can post, I can post ten examples of million mile motors that are still in service (with bypass filtration), and oil that hasn't been changed for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of miles...I'm not wasting my time providing links because no one will read them anyway.

My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether. This can be done only (for now) with a combination of bypass filtration and a steady supply of "top up oil" added when the level falls below full and when the filter(s) are changed. At this moment, the oil in my car has 27K on it, and I last had UOA done at 25K, the lab said it was "suitable for continued use." There are other BITOG posters that are doing similar things with trucks. I may never change my oil...I'm going to go by test lab results, not any armchair tribologist opinion on BITOG.

Of course, I do NOT know what I'm talking about...You're welcome.

Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: dnewton3] #4431862 06/14/17 10:48 PM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 613
X
xtell Offline
Offline
X
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 613
Quote:
[/quote]CLEAN OIL, managed to a reasonably sustainable level, is what makes equipment last a long time. There are two ways you can achieve that level of "clean":
- flush contamination out
- filter contamination out
Two roads to the same destination.
What is critical to equipment longevity is knowing and understanding the type program you're going to commit to, and then managing that program to a level that sustains the lifespan you desire out of the equipment[quote]


So then we are in agreement. Filter / bypass the oil = fewer contaminants in oil = oil is cleaner=equipment lasts longer because fewer contaminents are in the oil to elevate wear. I just want to retire in a few years without having to drop any more money in my equipment. If I can change out a few rolls of toilet paper !!!(filters) and change out remote mount-spin on oil filters and that gets me there so be it!!! Geez, all any of us on this bypass forum are trying to do is save money (extend oil change intervals) and extend equipment usage life (reduce amount of wear).

Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Ihatetochangeoil] #4432046 06/15/17 07:40 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
Tomato, tomoto...

DNewtons posts are nothing new, neither are most of his ideas anything except common sense. Of course the best filter in the world won't work without oil. Duh. Makes as much sense as the best fishing lure in the world won't work sitting in the tackle box.

Notice that Dnewton STARTED with "clean, dry oil"...How do you get that? ANSWER: FILTRATION.

Now, if you want to get down to specifics, Mr. Newton pointed out that "I would agree that super-fine filtration will make for super-clean oil. And that super-clean oil may (not will, but might) make a piece of equipment last some fractional portion longer. But to what end? What expense do you have to endure to get that level? I cannot tell you."

This paragraph from Mr. Newton is inconclusive, correct? I don't think there is disagreement here...Let's raise the bar and change the paradigm. Does anyone have any conclusive proof that oil and filtration together, maintained to cleanliness levels at least minimum specified by Caterpillar for warranty requirements, how does anyone KNOW that oil kept to, say a 16/13 cleanliness level (This is ONLY attainable with bypass filtration) will not double the useful life of equipment?

For every example of a "million mile motor" using "normal" filters and maintenance that anyone can post, I can post ten examples of million mile motors that are still in service (with bypass filtration), and oil that hasn't been changed for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of miles...I'm not wasting my time providing links because no one will read them anyway.

My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether. This can be done only (for now) with a combination of bypass filtration and a steady supply of "top up oil" added when the level falls below full and when the filter(s) are changed. At this moment, the oil in my car has 27K on it, and I last had UOA done at 25K, the lab said it was "suitable for continued use." There are other BITOG posters that are doing similar things with trucks. I may never change my oil...I'm going to go by test lab results, not any armchair tribologist opinion on BITOG.

Of course, I do NOT know what I'm talking about...You're welcome.



You still don't get it. It's a fundamental difference of view point.

There exists some level of "clean" lube that will sustain the rig for a long time. You can either flush out the contamination, or filter it out. We're talking about the environment of the equipment, not the place of lube production.

What makes equipment last a long time is a reasonably clean sump load. Bypass filtration is not an exclusive means of getting that result, therefore it is NOT the "cause", but merely "correlation". What causes long lifespan of equipment is a sump "clean enough" to sustain the desired wear rates. But that can be achieved by multiple means. What causes long lifespan of lubes is bypass filtration. You are making a leap from one to the other that is technically correlation and not causation.

There is no proof that I know of, no SAE study or any such tool, that proves BP filtration EXCLUSIVELY lengthens equipment life. There is no study I am aware of that did a comparison/contrast of normal OCI duration and filtration level. None whatsoever.


FALSE: Bypass filters make equipment last longer.
TRUE: Bypass filters make lubes last longer in service.

FALSE: More filtration is always better
TRUE: Filtration to a reasonable level will sustain the desired sump contamination level

FALSE: Overly frequent OCIs will make wear rates drop.
TRUE: OCIs can be managed to a level that sustains the lowest wear rates.

FALSE: Equipment cannot last a long time without bypass filters.
TRUE: Equipment can last a long time with a clean sump load that sustains the desired wear rates.

FALSE: Bypass filters are the only way to sustain a sump clean enough to make equipment last a long time.
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.


Consider two examples:
veh A uses normal oils and filters, and OCIs every 10k miles.
veh B uses syn oils and BP filters, and OCIs every 25k miles.
During the first 10k miles of both, the wear rates of both systems are essentially equal; there is no "better" (lower) wear for the use of premium products in veh B, compared to veh A.
Now, if you forced veh A to extend the OCI out to 25k miles, the wear rates would certainly go up. That is because the sump would become contaminated to a point that the engine could no longer tolerate the debris load, and the "normal" oil/filter products become overwhelmed. But what is ALSO true is that there is a portion of time where BOTH systems have an equal wear-rate experience. During that first 10k miles, neither system has an advantage over the other. Both systems have very low wear rates; essentially equal in fact. The benefit to BP filters is NOT that they can lower wear rates; it's that they can sustain low wear rates LONGER!

I've got over 15k UOAs in my database, and I can assure you with total certainty that wear rates using bypass filters (and syn fluids) are NOT WHATSOEVER any "better" (lower) in the sense of "normal" OCI durations. This isn't opinion; it's FACT. I've seen it so many times it's just numbing. Your presumption (based on your misunderstanding of many ALT filter trials I would presume) is that the sump loads are too dirty from the beginning and that wear is immediately affected. THAT IS UNTRUE. Wear rate data for both "normal" systems and "premium" systems shows that wear data is essentially identical for some period of time. As long as the total sump is managed within the ability of the "normal" sump system, the alternative premium system shows no better wear rate control; none whatsoever!

I agree that syns and BP filters are great tools, but ONLY if you understand both their benefits and limitations, and manage your maintenance program in a manner that give the ROI a fighting chance.





There's a sign in my office that states the following:
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
If you cannot understand the differences I state here, it's not my fault.



Last edited by dnewton3; 06/15/17 07:56 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Raidin] #4432157 06/15/17 09:43 AM
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
A
A310 Offline
Offline
A
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 439
I get it now:)


2009 Ford F-350 (Detroit 4-53T)
2000 Ford Excursion (Triton V10)
1993 Dodge D250 (Cummins 6BT)
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: A310] #4432224 06/15/17 11:16 AM
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 613
X
xtell Offline
Offline
X
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 613
Kirkland Filters rule!!!

Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: dnewton3] #4435624 06/19/17 04:56 AM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 555
F
fpracha Offline
Offline
F
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 555
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
TRUE: There is more than one means of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates.

Consider two examples:
veh A uses normal oils and filters, and OCIs every 10k miles.
veh B uses syn oils and BP filters, and OCIs every 25k miles.
During the first 10k miles of both, the wear rates of both systems are essentially equal; there is no "better" (lower) wear for the use of premium products in veh B, compared to veh A.
Now, if you forced veh A to extend the OCI out to 25k miles, the wear rates would certainly go up. That is because the sump would become contaminated to a point that the engine could no longer tolerate the debris load, and the "normal" oil/filter products become overwhelmed.

Hello Dave, one question to you pls... Could the following method be a practically possible means "of attaining a sump clean enough that sustains the desired wear rates" ?

If we only change the oil filter in veh A (keeping the oil unchanged), at 8k miles mark.
Will it effectively help to lessen the dirt load from the used oil, so as to SAFELY gain say 5k to 8k 'extra miles' out of the oil , just by changing the FF filter?

(Note: Above we will assume that the oil additives are still in sufficient strength after 8k miles, so that another 8k miles are still ok as far as the additives levels are concerned.)

Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Raidin] #4435652 06/19/17 06:47 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
We have to start with a few fair assumptions here, most certainly presuming we're talking about a "healthy" engine (no coolant leaks, no air ingestion issues, no poor-running fuel enrichment resulting in soot loading, etc).

Typically, it's been a successful means to just leave the filter in place, rather than to change it. A "healthy" engine has a very low rate of contamination accumulation.

I've run dino ST lube with a "normal" filter (MC) out to 15k miles, in my wife's former Villager (including the quintessential soccer-mom daily abuse), and yet the insolubles count and the wear metals in the UOA were perfectly fine. While not common place, I've seen other folks UOAs show similar results.

There's a huge amount of reserve capacity in "normal" products; lubes and filters can typically run much further than we're lead to believe.

In your question, we have to ask ourselves these questions ...
Is the contamination loading at a rate that would usurp the filter media holding capacity? (are you in danger of blinding off the media to a point where perpetual BP is eminent?)
Is the contamination loading even at a particulate size that the filter would catch in the first place? (is the particulate large enough to be caught with high occurrence rate?)


Large particles are caught with great efficiency, but they are also quite rare. It's not like 15um bits are floating in the sump everywhere ... To the contrary, most of the particulate is actually sub-micronic in size. Soot starts out this small, and it will want to amalgamate (co-join) with other soot unless something prevents it from happening. Enter the add-pack with it's anti-agglomerates and dispersants. Until the add-pack is overwhelmed (until there is way more soot than the additives can handle), the soot is actually being controlled by the lube and not the filter! So, changing out a filter at 8k miles, then running another 7-8k miles on a second filter but same lube, isn't really changing the game because the OIL (more specifically the add-pack) is what controls the contamination. The FF filter is just there to catch "chunks" of large stuff.

Additionally, the TCB is reducing wear as it matures. While some disagree with (or don't understand) this phenomenon, it's proven in SAE study.

So the lube is controlling contamination, and the TCB is controlling wear. Generally the filter is just along for the ride to do an important job, but one that isn't very frequent.


The topic that is underlying is that of BP filtration. BP filters are great tools, but ONLY when used in a condition that would allow them to alter the wear rates.

As long as the TCB is reducing wear, and the anti-agglomerates are not overwhelmed, the the BP filter can do little to change the equation. At some point, (data would suggest it's somewhere downstream of 15k miles for sure), the oil WILL become overwhelmed and soot will start to become large enough that it will do damage. It's reasonably known that anything less than 3um is size is generally harmless to an engine. The damaging size of particulate is 5-15um, depending upon clearances of any particular engine design. So as long as the particulate is below 5um (most certainly if it's below 3um) there's essentially no harm done.

BP filters will often tout that they can filter "down to 3um" or "down to sub-micron". Fine by me, but that range has no consequence to a normal engine.

But once the lube does become overwhelmed, once the add-pack is compromised, THEN most certainly a BP filter element can help control contamination.

Also, don't ignore the rate of capture in terms of occurrence. I'm not talking about the efficiency of the media, but the occurrence of appearance in the lube stream. While a BP element is HIGHLY efficient above 3um (perhaps 99%?), that does not alter the amount of the particulate in the main lube flow. BP systems only "sample" the full volumetric flow; typically it's about 10%. So while 1 gallon will go through your BP filter, there are 10 gallons going through the FF filter! Any particle that is 8um in size has a HIGHLY likely chance to do damage to the engine, because 9 times out of 10, it will go through the MAIN circuit and not the BP loop! Here's a new flash ... Filters cannot catch what is not directly ahead of them! So a BP filter will only be presented a damaging particle about 10% of the time; the rest of the time that same particle is heading right for your engine!

If it were true that large particulate were present all the time, we'd see lot's of damage on bearings, cyl walls, etc. But we don't. And why not? Because the occurrence rate of large particles is very low. Just because a filter is efficient at catching something, it has to see something present PRIOR to the ability to catch it.

When the lube is controlling soot, and the TCB is controlling wear, filters are just along for a very boring ride.
AFTER the lube is compromised, then filters do a great job.

And so this is why I state that BP filters don't make wear rates low; they keep wear rates low AFTER the lube is otherwise compromised.


So changing a filter, as you suggest, at 8k miles into a 15k mile OCI, isn't really going to do much of piddly squat, because data shows that the typical oil add-pack is still very viable, out to 15k miles. IOW - the FF filter (or even a BP filter) cannot catch what is not yet present. If the lube is keeping the particulate below 3um, then there's nothing much for the filters to do. So why change a filter that isn't really even being fully utilized?


And, my theory is actually backed up with facts. The infamous GM filter study, along with the Conoco wear study, and my 15k UOAs all essentially show the same darn thing.


Last edited by dnewton3; 06/19/17 06:54 AM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: dnewton3] #4435961 06/19/17 02:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 555
F
fpracha Offline
Offline
F
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 555
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
So changing a filter, as you suggest, at 8k miles into a 15k mile OCI, isn't really going to do much of piddly squat, because data shows that the typical oil add-pack is still very viable, out to 15k miles. IOW - the FF filter (or even a BP filter) cannot catch what is not yet present. If the lube is keeping the particulate below 3um, then there's nothing much for the filters to do. So why change a filter that isn't really even being fully utilized?

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Dave smile

Yes you are right... Filters really become useful safety devices after the oil gas exceeded its dirt loading limits.

If the modern oils can normally control particle contaminants within 3-5um size, then the only need for FF filter will start after this oil no longer keeps particulates within this size limit. However this usually happens once the oil is due for change anyway, so when will oil filter pressure relief valve ever become useful ? Are the forum discussions on likelihood of engine damage caused by dirtloaded oil freely circulating at startup all totally flawed logic ?
Please help to make some sense of this, thanks again.

Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Raidin] #4436465 06/20/17 07:07 AM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
Oil filters are very important, but it's a question of the frequency of how often they are really helpful.

FF filters, as discussed, really only trap big stuff. And, to be sure, there are going to be occasional large chunks in flight (in the lube stream). But they are not generally soot, as it's too small. They could only be a metal particle (typically from a gouge/streak) or perhaps silica that made it past the air filter. As the oil ages, there will be times when soot gets larger, but unless you do a PC, you'll not know as to how much is present. Funny thing is about PCs, they can tell you size, but not composition (you'll not know if it's soot, Fe, Al, Si, etc). UOAs do the opposite; they can tell you composition, but not size. We don't have a tool that is commonly available that tell us both size and composition.

As much as I believe that FF filters are not bombarded by particulate with impunity, I also would not want to run without one. They are a very important safety net. I do most certainly believe they filter things; I'm just not sure how much they really load up. I don't have good data to know this.

There are lots of filter studies logged in the SAE, but most all are ALT (accelerated life testing) where they grossly manipulate the particulate load to show some form of disparity in filter efficiency. However, I've not seen any decent data from REAL WORLD use, where filter efficiency and capacity were pitted against wear rates. To the best of my knowledge, I cannot find any data that addresses this directly. No study I've seen shows how real world filters used in our typical garage are affected by the OCI duration. We have very little knowledge as to how much capacity is needed for the average engine. All we know is that UOA data shows filters used to long duration (out to 15k miles) work well and do not negatively affect the wear rates. How much (or little) they contribute to the wear rates is unproven, because to the best of my knowledge, it's untested. (at least to a point of being well documented in a SAE study).


The filter BP does come into play. Jim Allen's data logging experiment for filter BP does show that occasionally BP events happen. They are there to protect the filter media, though, not the engine. Essentially:
The oil pump BP relief protects the oil pump from damage (and the filter canister from bursting).
The oil filter BP relief protects the media from rupturing.
The oil protects the engine from wear.


I believe the filter is a necessary safety element, and that BP feature is an important safety element for the media. While they may not be used often, when needed, they are important.


The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Raidin] #4437172 06/20/17 10:12 PM
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,213
B
BrocLuno Offline
Offline
B
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 6,213
304K and the seal started weeping. You'all gotta remember that seals see two environments. The wet side, and the dry side. The wet side has pressure, so when the seal wears, it'll exhibit leakage toward the dry side. But, the seal failure may be caused by the dry side.

If there is a breather port on the torque converter housing or intermediate motor or however this one is configured, it will let in atmospheric dust. It may also allow atmospheric moisture. A crankshaft seal surface can corrode slightly, catch some dust and wear a seal lip from the dry side. And chances are there is ZERO air filtration on that breather ...

All you'alls talk about super clean oil making stuff last works fine for bearings, but may mean absolutely nothing to seal longevity.

Get that seal replaced and find out why it failed ... Take action to make sure that does not happen again. I use small plastic fuel filters and vacuum tubing to remote the air intrusion point into housings with critical seals.

Open one up after a long time and it will be clean. Open the average torque converter housing and they are covered in a thin coat of dirt and oil from the road and all the heat/cool cycles that forced air exchange.

Parked in the hotel lot in a mild dust storm while your car cools off, it'll be sucking dust into unfiltered cavities. Enough of those may have taken the seal? Only way to know is to take it apart and see. If the seal running surface is good on the crank and there is no evidence of "magic engine related debris" behind it on the wet side, it was external particle contamination ... And one you'all have not been filtering ...


Formerly in marine engineering. In an earlier life I owned my own petroleum tank truck, and hauled for the majors and independent's.
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Raidin] #4449772 07/04/17 07:24 PM
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 38
R
Raidin Offline OP
OP Offline
R
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 38
I hope I got this right, but...

If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?

If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)

Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: Raidin] #4451244 07/06/17 12:17 PM
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
dnewton3 Offline
Global Moderator
Offline
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 8,081
Originally Posted By: Raidin
I hope I got this right, but...

If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?


If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)


It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.

The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.

How is it do you propose you can do a "visual" on filter pores and clogging? Can you see down to 10um easily on a mat-black corrugated surface with the naked eye? I know I cannot. For that matter how do you get the media out of the filter canister (typical FF or BP element ....) and then get that Genie back into the bottle?

One way you could monitor the filter is by knowing the PSI BP relieve value, and then using a PSID gage system like Jim Allen did to track the PSID. As long as you can operate a few PSI below the crack-open value, then there's no reason to FCI. Essentially, this is similar to those air-filter gages seen on tractors, diesel engines, etc.

Last edited by dnewton3; 07/06/17 12:34 PM.

The act of preventative maintenance, in and of itself, is FAR MORE important than brand/grade/base choices among lubes and filters.
- under maintaining something is akin to abuse/neglect; that can kill equipment by shortening the lifespan
- over maintaining something has never been proven to be anything but a waste of time and money
Re: Seeking advice/opinions on bypass filter [Re: dnewton3] #4459719 07/14/17 09:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 662
I
Ihatetochangeoil Offline
Offline
I
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 662
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Raidin
I hope I got this right, but...

If the engine is running clean (no unusual issues), and the additives are still present, and the filter is rarely seeing large particles to filter, then is it really necessary to change the filter when the oil is changed? Or is this just the way we've been asked to do it by the manufacturers?


If the oil lasts a long time, and the only reason it gets changed is because the additive pack will run out at some point, then couldn't you just keep the same filter going until it is close to clogging up? (visual inspection?)


It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.

The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.

How is it do you propose you can do a "visual" on filter pores and clogging? Can you see down to 10um easily on a mat-black corrugated surface with the naked eye? I know I cannot. For that matter how do you get the media out of the filter canister (typical FF or BP element ....) and then get that Genie back into the bottle?

One way you could monitor the filter is by knowing the PSI BP relieve value, and then using a PSID gage system like Jim Allen did to track the PSID. As long as you can operate a few PSI below the crack-open value, then there's no reason to FCI. Essentially, this is similar to those air-filter gages seen on tractors, diesel engines, etc.


Soo....If I remain silent for awhile, you agree with me eh? Interesting...

Originally Posted By: Ihatetochangeoil
Tomato, tomoto...

My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether. This can be done only (for now) with a combination of bypass filtration and a steady supply of "top up oil" added when the level falls below full and when the filter(s) are changed. At this moment, the oil in my car has 27K on it, and I last had UOA done at 25K, the lab said it was "suitable for continued use." There are other BITOG posters that are doing similar things with trucks. I may never change my oil...I'm going to go by test lab results, not any armchair tribologist opinion on BITOG


vs:

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
It is not necessary to change oil, presuming the conditions you state exist. The way to help assure these stay in check is to UOA. Low contamination, low wear, and additives present make for a good reason to extend.
Yes - OEMs set ultra conservative OCIs for two reasons: 1) they can reduce their warranty risks with frequent OCIs and 2) they don't pay a penny for the benefit of item #1; you do!
Note that you cannot reduce YOUR warranty risk with frequent OCIs, because it's not you who pays for services/parts should a warranty claim happen. You are paying to reduce the OEMs risk of warranty in claims.

The add-pack is NOT the only reason to change oil. There are contamination issues from internal sources (soot/insolubles) and the potential for massive vis shifts, etc.


You still don't get it, Mr. Newton. It's a fundamental difference of view point. I've been doing UOA, changing oil filter(s), adding top up oil, monitoring conditions, etc....And HAVEN'T changed oil...Look at this thread to see someone else doing similarly: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4445186/1

Additionally,
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
We have to start with a few fair assumptions here...BP systems only "sample" the full volumetric flow; typically it's about 10%. So while 1 gallon will go through your BP filter, there are 10 gallons going through the FF filter! Any particle that is 8um in size has a HIGHLY likely chance to do damage to the engine, because 9 times out of 10, it will go through the MAIN circuit and not the BP loop! Here's a new flash ... Filters cannot catch what is not directly ahead of them! So a BP filter will only be presented a damaging particle about 10% of the time; the rest of the time that same particle is heading right for your engine!


I'm running multiple bypass filters and other devices, and my total (bypass volume) is over 30% of total flow...And my FLOW has been raised significantly from stock (with a calibrated pressure gauge inline)...So where does your "9 times through the engine prior to 1 pass through the bypass media" fit into my paradigm?!?!?

Disprove this HYPOTHESIS (if you can)

My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.
My hypothesis is that the technology exists to eliminate oil changes altogether.


I'm no longer naming by brand name the filters (and other things) in my filtration system, and I'm tired of posting links no one reads, but I'm doing UOA as evidence and if I'm successful, I will be applying for a US Patent. As a technical consultant for various utilities, I have no on-the-job interaction with Statisticians such as yourself, but I do share office space with Mechanical and Lubrication engineers who have seen under the hood on my vehicle and my UOA, and they do NOT disagree with my hypothesis. Keep changing your oil as often as you like...But I really don't need you to put words in my mouth or do my thinking for me, thank you sir.

This is 2017, not 1950.
This is 2017, not 1980.
This is 2017, not 1999.
This is 2017, not 2007.

Neither oils nor filtration are what they "used to be." The oil protects the engine from wear. “Super fine filtration” leading to “super clean oil” has never been PROVEN to extend equipment life; neither has it been DISPROVEN…Why do you think this is?

I WILL say that I can post examples of “million mile engines” using bypass filtration ten to one of your examples of “million mile engines” using “everyday filters and oil.” I’ve never seen heard or read you admit that “million mile engines” are the RULE with bypass filtration and the EXCEPTION with “normal” products. Why do you think this is?

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.


Whatever
Page 6 of 7 1 5 6 7
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

BOB IS THE OIL GUY® Powered by UBB.threads™