BEWARE BY-PASS filters ! !

Pablo · Jun 4, 2005

I don't think I have resources to set up and run those tests. I am as curious as most as to the outcome. I would love a real lab to to such testing!!

Not sure where you came up with seven, though.

http://www.amsoil.com/StoreFront/bf.aspx

I guess there are seven setups but not all are dual remotes. Amsoil also sells true remote filters, the most basic being the BMK-11, and the BMK-12 are dual filters but both are true by-pass filters. The 14 is just a full flow single remote. The others are just variations on the suspect dual remote.

http://www.amsoil.com/bypassfilters/applicationguide.aspx

Dick in Falls Church · Jun 4, 2005

Much ado about nothing.
If the AMSOIL bypass filter has removed enough stuff so it is totally restricted, the full flow filter continues to operate. The 10-20% of the oil passing through a bypass filter isn't going to restrict the flow of the full-flow filter at all.

Ken2 · Jun 5, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by **** in Falls Church:
Much ado about nothing.
If the AMSOIL bypass filter has removed enough stuff so it is totally restricted, the full flow filter continues to operate. The 10-20% of the oil passing through a bypass filter isn't going to restrict the flow of the full-flow filter at all.

But...the dual filter assembly has a restriction in it to force oil to the high-restriction bypass filter. This restriction causes the oil pump pressure control valve to open farther and dump more oil back to the crankcase than it would otherwise. Evidently on the Subaru, this reduction of oil into the bearings is fatal.

A bypass filter that takes oil the oil pressure sender or other full-pressure point will have very little effect on the pressure or flow through the bearings. If the pressure isn't enough to open the pump's pressure control valve, there also probably isn't enough pressure to force much oil through the bypass filter.

Ken

Gary Allan · Jun 5, 2005

quote:

Much ado about nothing.

I agree. Unfortunately my dual mount is for the dual bypass filter setup and I don't have the biasing valve ..otherwise I'd hook it up and test it for apparent PSID. I'm sure that it doesn't alter flow normally. I believe (this is admittedly a "belief") that unless you've got a mechanical issue (worn pump in a 200k vehicle ..or any vehicle for that matter) that there is no such thing as a restrictive filter in terms of altering flow. Unless you're using a way out of whack viscosity in an extreme climate ..I just don't think it's an issue.

Gary Allan · Jun 5, 2005

quote:

This restriction causes the oil pump pressure control valve to open farther and dump more oil back to the crankcase than it would otherwise. Evidently on the Subaru, this reduction of oil into the bearings is fatal.

How do you know this??

Got any figures?

goodvibes · Jun 5, 2005

This is the sort of mod I would never consider while under warrantee and I think that Amsoil does try to advertise the risk out of doing something like this with their warranty info and 25k oci advertising. We shouldn't need to hire a lawyer before we purchase a product to feel comfy that it will not void our warranty claims. Granted that much of this is from dealers that aren't as informed/responsable as those that regular this board. That said, this Amsoil dealer got it all wrong. Some training could be beneficial. If he got an initial severe 15k(Turbo) uoa, the bearing problem would have shown up before the initial failure regardless of whose fault it was. If he removed the dual filter system and it didn't get better, he would have had some ammunition for a free motor except for the fact that he still would have no one to collect it from as his oci was also outside of Subarus warranty requirements and Amsoil knows the oil wasn't a problem. I don't get why somebody goes out of their way to get between a rock and a hard place. He apparently followed neither companies recommendations for use here and actually isn't entitled to reimbursement though one or both parties should have shown some consideration. The lack of common sense by reinstalling the bypass a second time whether responsible or not and leaving it on for the dealer to see boggles the mind. My conclusions on this are that it's never worth the risk to vary from a warranty requirement during the free period and this Amsoil dealer got it wrong, is a poor one, beyond naive and is probably embellishing somewhat. Seems as though he's trying to extract his pound of flesh from Amsoil and unwilling to accept any blame for a situation that is at least in part his creation. I'm sure his sister didn't ask for the bypass filter. How often has he recommended a bypass to his customers during the warrantee period and has he contacted them all since this happened?

[ June 06, 2005, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: goodvibes ]

Tommy · Jun 5, 2005

From the " Bypass spin on filters (AMsoil?)" thread:

**** in Falls Church

Member
Member # 41

posted October 07, 2003 09:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at an AMSOIL Dual Remote Bypass filter system, you will note the "restricter" ball and spring.
In some cases, depending on the location of the filter head, vibrations have been found, and these will sometimes set up unusual noises in the vehicle. Removing the restrictor will reduce the flow through the bypass element from about 20% to about 15% (according to AMSOIL bypass designer).

**** in Falls Church

Member
Member # 41

posted October 08, 2003 05:16 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
greencrew-- the restrictor in the AMSOIL dual remote bypass filter is there to restrict the flow to the full flow filter a bit, thus driving more oil through the bypass filter element.

That's what I am talking about! Tommy

gudmund · Jun 6, 2005

this "bypass" talk looks like the "Encore" bypass talk from another posting under oil filters. I don't like the looks of the bypass in Champ "Encore" oil filters or the looks of Amsoil's bypass design. There I said it, just my opinion for I won't be using one anytime soon.

Gary Allan · Jun 6, 2005

Then by all means ..don't use them. You don't have a problem with others using them, do you? I mean ..you don't mind??

Good! Thanks! ..and have a nice day!

gudmund · Jun 6, 2005

not at all---GO FOR IT!!! Take care

bulwnkl · Jun 6, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by 1977c10phxdriver:

quote:

Originally posted by mjo:
Cutting a coil off the spring will increase the spring rate and INCREASE it's "opposition" to flow.

Click to expand...

I think you have that backwards.

I know it seems backwards, but it isn't. For any given coil spring, cutting a coil off will increase the spring rate in lbs./in.

Gary Allan · Jun 6, 2005

quote:

That's what I am talking about!

Yes, Tommy, but you're perhaps looking at it like it's some substantial choke. In reality it's probably no more than the equivalent of a normal ff at "half life". You don't worry about your filter half way into your OCI restricting your flow ...why would you worry about manipulating the "view" that the oil has when hooked in tandem with a bypass??

It would only work in an unfavorable manner in the most marginal or unique instances where the car/engine/oil pump are already on the edge of a very small envelope. Some wisdom is required for those situations ..and usually, given the presence of the aforementioned marginal conditions ,..there would be none to draw from.

Tommy · Jun 6, 2005

quote:

In reality it's probably no more than the equivalent of a normal ff at "half life".

Well Gary, when the FF filter is beyond half life, you then have almost double the restriction.

quote:

It would only work in an unfavorable manner in the most marginal or unique instances where the car/engine/oil pump are already on the edge of a very small envelope.

The only way to know for whether your car/engine/oil pump are on that edge is when you have a failure....that makes sense.

If there is only a 5% reduction in bypass flow without the restrictor, then I say remove it and be safe.

Gary Allan · Jun 7, 2005

quote:

Well Gary, when the FF filter is beyond half life, you then have almost double the restriction.

I think you have the valve doing way more than it's setup to do. I'm not, right now anyway, going to setup (in my head) the likely scenario....

quote:

The only way to know for whether your car/engine/oil pump are on that edge is when you have a failure....that makes sense.

For the numb and inept, pehaps. This is not something to install on a Honda with 200k on it ...and to stand there scratching your head wondering why you have some valve train noise. Some people are totally blind to "hmm..something is "un-right"" and shouldn't be engaging in any activity that is outside of their scope of competence.

Any loss in lubrication with ANY system (including NONE) that has any impact upon an engine should easily be evidenced by HLA noise ...to excess. If you had none ..and then acquire some ..something is probably "un-right". If you had none ..and you still have none ...there is no reason to believe that you are having any "issues" in terms of flow.

This is mostly a tempest in a teacup.

Vesta · Jun 26, 2005

From reading these posts, all the blame seems to be around Amsoil and their bypass filter. I'm not to sure if that is correct? What the dealer has done is seen a modification which they didn't do, he has then used that as an excuse to void the warranty. From my understanding of a bypass filter, it only removes about 10% to go through the bypass filter, so not sure how you could starve an engine etc by using one? At no point has it been clearly defined that the filter caused the failure, the dealer just found a clause out. So in trying not to muddy the waters, my view is the filter worked as intended and was not the "cause" of the failure
Your thoughts

ARB1977 · Jul 1, 2005

quote:

Originally posted by 2Grand4s:
This is a true story about a By-Pass filter that cost me $12,000 !

I thought I did my sister a favor installing a new Amsoil dual By-Pass filter on her Subaru. At about 30,000 miles the engine failed due to a bearing failure. Subaru of America (SOA) siad the By-Pass filter was an engine modification that voided the warranty. While I paid to restore my sister's car with new short block, Amsoil had a 3rd party analysis done to the engine, and it determined the AMSOIL By-Pass unit was not a factor in the engine failure. A few thousand miles later the engine again failed from a different bearing, and again SOA said 'Not Our Problem' , and again Amsoils 3rd party said the filter was NOT a contributor., and again I got stuck with the bill. Today years later Amsoil has done nothing to help, and I have no money to hire lawyers to sue two large corporations even though one of them makes a defective product, without question.

Incidentally, that Subaru now has 100K miles on engine # 3 and since it has had No By-Pass filter it has not failed. So it would seem SOA was correct, the Amsoil By-Pass filter was present in both engine failures, and when removed the engine worked just fine !

So BEWARE ! Don't make my mistake ! The Amsoil Guarantee is worthless !

Sorry to here your story. You think your doing something good and **** happens. What you should of done was take off the filter kit and install a stock filter then take it back to the dealer. At least if you did that then they cant prove you made any modification to the lubercation system. On my 2002 Tacoma i have a remote tranny filter kit made by permacool and if something happens ill take it off and send it to the dealer but so far it runs like a champ.

RalphPWood · Jul 8, 2005

I brought home a new Subaru in 1984. As soon as I got it home I installed a Frantz oil cleaner and drove the car 240,000 miles. At 240,000 it was running perfect but was leaking oil. My wife's Subaru has 165,000 on it now. I had to replace the front seal awhile back. Changed the timing belt while I was at it. You can be sure that if I had an engine problem under warranty I wouldn't have taken the 84 Subaru back with only a Frantz oil cleaner with a Frantz converter plate that eliminated the full flow filter.
The 93 Legacy I bought used has a Motor Guard with a Perma-Cool sandwich adapter. I installed a Motor Guard on the bosses new Chevy pickup with the 6.0 engine. The tranny stopped shifting because of some electronic part. As the tow truck was towing it backwards the bed cover came loose and damaged the top of the cab and broke the windshield. The cover was destroyed. The engine started locking up. He took it to the dealer and was told all he needed was to trade the truck in on a new one. It had a Motor Guard with a Flex-A-Lite sandwich adapter. It could have been a real problem if they had blamed the filter. He had 250,000 miles on the GMC with the 350 engine with no problems. He should have kept the GMC. I put a filter on the GMC and his GM marine engines 10 years ago. You have to always figure there is a chance of getting a bad engine and there is always a chance the filter will get blamed. Pull off that filter before taking it back to the dealer. The dual remote system makes no sense on engine oil unless the full flow filter is in a placed where you can't get to it to change it. The oil lines are too restrictive. The best place for the full flow filter is on its origional mount.
It's amazing when you think about it. Bypass filters were around since the 30s. About 1953 they went to the less effective full flow filters because they were less expensive to install. Now people think that bypass filters are some new thing that someone dreamed up that might cause a problem. I remember when they came out with the new improved spin on filter to replace the cannister filters. Now they are coming out with the new improved cannister filters that I thought we had gottten rid of.

Ralph

BEWARE BY-PASS filters ! !

Similar threads