I have (2) installed on my truck, (1) for the engine and (1) for the tranny. I have noticed a significant difference the cleanliness of my engine and tranny since I have done this. The oil in the engine is golden and the tranny is bright red, change the filters at every interval and have wondered if a person should try extending the oil changes?? What is everyone else seeing?

Rich

I have the FS2500 on the engine and it works fantastic. I'm only on the first "extended" oil change, have about 8k so far and no sign of soot or anything bad in the oil after first analysis. Oil is still honey colored on the stick. Came out a little darker in the bottle though. I used Blackstone labs. They send you the bottle for free and it's $22.50 for the basic analysis. Fast results via email with PDF file.

When I can afford another one I'm really considering the tranny option.

I don't want to seem disrespectful of your decision to add both bypass filters, but i don't understand your logic.

Oil will definitely benefit from bypass filtration, but color is not an accurate indication of the overall realitive health of the oil. The color will show that some contaminates are being removed, but color will NOT show what percent of the additive package is still remaining, nor will the color alert you to wear metal patterns. Oil analysis is an absolute must with extended OCI's. If you're not using extended OCI's, then what is the point of having the expense of a bypass oil filter in the first place???? You spent big money on an EXCELLENT bypass filter system, but you need to be sampling and extending OCI's for your engine oil to get the benefit, or it's a waste of time and money.

I don't see the need for a bypass filter on a trans that already has two filters on it, but to each his own. The only real issue with a trans is not so much the very small (1-10 micron) particulate matter, but the fact that the additive package will break down with heat over time. Extreme heat will destroy trans fluid quickly! If you don't overheat your tranny, you'll get your fluid to last a long time. For less than what you might spend on a bypass system on your trans, you can upgrade to a TES-295 fluid. I would be really curious to see what an UOA showed for an Allison with a bypass filter; I can't imagine that it would be much better than one without the 3rd filter. From my wife's Villager minivan, I had a trans sample done by Blackstone after 25,000 miles. The only things that were an issue (slightly low viscosity and flashpoint) have NOTHING to do with filtration. The insolubles came back very good, and that particular trans has nothing but a metal mesh screen for a filter!

I am curious, though, where and how did you plumb in the bypass system to your trans? Could you post some pix?

Regardless of my opinions, it's obvisous you want the very best for your truck. I just think your wallet is taking an un-necessary beating; but then isn't that what love is all about?

I don't want to seem disrespectful of your decision to add both bypass filters, but i don't understand your logic.

Oil will definitely benefit from bypass filtration, but color is not an accurate indication of the overall realitive health of the oil. The color will show that some contaminates are being removed, but color will NOT show what percent of the additive package is still remaining, nor will the color alert you to wear metal patterns. Oil analysis is an absolute must with extended OCI's. If you're not using extended OCI's, then what is the point of having the expense of a bypass oil filter in the first place???? You spent big money on an EXCELLENT bypass filter system, but you need to be sampling and extending OCI's for your engine oil to get the benefit, or it's a waste of time and money.

I don't see the need for a bypass filter on a trans that already has two filters on it, but to each his own. The only real issue with a trans is not so much the very small (1-10 micron) particulate matter, but the fact that the additive package will break down with heat over time. Extreme heat will destroy trans fluid quickly! If you don't overheat your tranny, you'll get your fluid to last a long time. For less than what you might spend on a bypass system on your trans, you can upgrade to a TES-295 fluid. I would be really curious to see what an UOA showed for an Allison with a bypass filter; I can't imagine that it would be much better than one without the 3rd filter. From my wife's Villager minivan, I had a trans sample done by Blackstone after 25,000 miles. The only things that were an issue (slightly low viscosity and flashpoint) have NOTHING to do with filtration. The insolubles came back very good, and that particular trans has nothing but a metal mesh screen for a filter!

I am curious, though, where and how did you plumb in the bypass system to your trans? Could you post some pix?

Regardless of my opinions, it's obvisous you want the very best for your truck. I just think your wallet is taking an un-necessary beating; but then isn't that what love is all about?

I do agree with you about an analysis being required, but I didn't do the bypass filters for extending my oil intervals, I do it to extend my life on my engine and tranny. The color is a very good indicator however as to show how the filter is working. When I didn't utilize the bypass filter on my engine (first installed) the oil would be coal black within the first 1000 miles. After installation it took about 3-4 filter changes to finally see the advantage of clean oil. (My truck had lots of excess build up within the engine from the previous drivers neglect). If you watch the video from FSW and look at the sample analysis's that they provide, you definately see a reduction in harmful contaminants. I change my bypass filter at the same time I change my oil and engine filter. Is this expensive? not really the cost of oil and filter is less than $50 with bypass about $80 (Considering a stealer charges $150 or more). So why not get the best for what you pay and enjoy the truck for longer periods.

As for why I did the tranny, again the color indicator has it for me. I used to drive 20-30K miles and the tranny ATF fluid was always turning black. I was changing the ATF & filters more than what Allison recommended which was 45-60K Miles. I installed the bypass filter and the the oil now reaches the intervals it was meant to. The oil was the cleaniest it had ever been, even to date when I did the TransGo Jr upgrade and Mag-Tech Deep Pan, the oil looked brand new and there was no particulate or filings in the bottom of the pan or on the magnetic (as there was always before). This in itself has convinced me this was a good addition. Again I wasn't trying to extend oil life but extend tranny life. Both the engine and tranny are the life of my truck, I didn't spend over $45K on my truck to see it parked in the drive way. I travel between 60-80K Miles a year, I need a reliable truck and the filters offer this to me. Rich

P.S. I will post my pictures of my tranny filter soon.

You are definetly a candidate for extended OCI's if you're running 60-80k miles a year!

The reason engine oil is black in appearance is because it's SUPPOSED to turn black. One of the many jobs engine oil has is to encapsulate and hold onto contaminants in their original form, rather than letting them settle out, or collect and bind together to form larger particles.

If I run 5000 mile oil changes with no bypass filter, and you do the same with a bypass filter, there is no evidence that would substantiate your engine will last longer than mine with the extra filter. The difference is that I will be pulling out the contaminants when I change oil, and you'll be pulling them out when you change the bypass filter; either way both engines are being purged of the contaminants. However, you are incurring a larger cost because you're changing an additional filter. The only way you can see a significant benefit is to extend your oil change interval with the bypass and UOA's.

Oil basestock really never wears out at all. Oil does experience some detrimental things though; it gets contaminated, it evaporates, it gets the additive package depleted, and so on.

In your original post, you asked if you should try extended oil changes. To be frank, that is the ONLY benefit to bypass filtration. You can make your oil service life longer by filtering out the contaminants, but you still need UOA's to keep an eye on the additive package (anti-wear, anti-corrosion, anti-foam, etc).

You will see many testimonials on the websites of bypass manufacturers touting how their customers can run 250,000 miles or more with bypass filtration. I can do the same WITHOUT the extra filtration, I'll just have to change oil more often. In fact, my sister is still driving the 1992 3.0L Taurus I gave to her, now with 267k miles on it. I changed oil (synthetic) every 7.5k miles religiously. Never once did it have the "benefit" of bypass filtration. I pulled the heads at 150K miles because a friend of my daughter overheated it and burnt a head gasket. The lack of contamination, and the still-faint cross hatch honing marks in the cylinders made me a big believer of synthetic oils and regular change intervals. All I did was put new head gaskets on, and it's still running today.

It comes down to wants versus needs. If you're changing engine oil every 5K miles or so, you might want bypass filtration, but you don't need it.

And what in the world are you doing to get your tranny fluid "black"? I have NEVER seen black tranny fluid. I have seen dark brown fluid after extreme abuse and overheating, but "black" is usually associated with engine oil and the byproducts of combustion. Do you have combustion byproducts in your tranny? If so, you've got bigger problems than bypass filtration can ever hope to handle. I have seen trans fluid be the usual red after 50,000 miles in service. Seriously, I'm just curious, how in the world are you getting fluid any darker than a deep rose color? If you are, you're getting your tranny fluid WAY too hot.

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, but I belive we'll have to agree to disagree on your current use of bypass filtration. If you want to love your truck and filter it to eternity, I support your right to do so. Just don't try to convince me that my truck won't last as long as yours just because you use bypass filtration and I don't. Bypass filtration is a way to save money IF you use it wisely with cost analysis and oil analysis. It won't make you ENGINE OR TRANNY last longer, it can only make your OIL last longer.

You are definetly a candidate for extended OCI's if you're running 60-80k miles a year!

The reason engine oil is black in appearance is because it's SUPPOSED to turn black. One of the many jobs engine oil has is to encapsulate and hold onto contaminants in their original form, rather than letting them settle out, or collect and bind together to form larger particles.

If I run 5000 mile oil changes with no bypass filter, and you do the same with a bypass filter, there is no evidence that would substantiate your engine will last longer than mine with the extra filter. The difference is that I will be pulling out the contaminants when I change oil, and you'll be pulling them out when you change the bypass filter; either way both engines are being purged of the contaminants. However, you are incurring a larger cost because you're changing an additional filter. The only way you can see a significant benefit is to extend your oil change interval with the bypass and UOA's.

Oil basestock really never wears out at all. Oil does experience some detrimental things though; it gets contaminated, it evaporates, it gets the additive package depleted, and so on.

In your original post, you asked if you should try extended oil changes. To be frank, that is the ONLY benefit to bypass filtration. You can make your oil service life longer by filtering out the contaminants, but you still need UOA's to keep an eye on the additive package (anti-wear, anti-corrosion, anti-foam, etc).

You will see many testimonials on the websites of bypass manufacturers touting how their customers can run 250,000 miles or more with bypass filtration. I can do the same WITHOUT the extra filtration, I'll just have to change oil more often. In fact, my sister is still driving the 1992 3.0L Taurus I gave to her, now with 267k miles on it. I changed oil (synthetic) every 7.5k miles religiously. Never once did it have the "benefit" of bypass filtration. I pulled the heads at 150K miles because a friend of my daughter overheated it and burnt a head gasket. The lack of contamination, and the still-faint cross hatch honing marks in the cylinders made me a big believer of synthetic oils and regular change intervals. All I did was put new head gaskets on, and it's still running today.

It comes down to wants versus needs. If you're changing engine oil every 5K miles or so, you might want bypass filtration, but you don't need it.

And what in the world are you doing to get your tranny fluid "black"? I have NEVER seen black tranny fluid. I have seen dark brown fluid after extreme abuse and overheating, but "black" is usually associated with engine oil and the byproducts of combustion. Do you have combustion byproducts in your tranny? If so, you've got bigger problems than bypass filtration can ever hope to handle. I have seen trans fluid be the usual red after 50,000 miles in service. Seriously, I'm just curious, how in the world are you getting fluid any darker than a deep rose color? If you are, you're getting your tranny fluid WAY too hot.

I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, but I belive we'll have to agree to disagree on your current use of bypass filtration. If you want to love your truck and filter it to eternity, I support your right to do so. Just don't try to convince me that my truck won't last as long as yours just because you use bypass filtration and I don't. Bypass filtration is a way to save money IF you use it wisely with cost analysis and oil analysis. It won't make you ENGINE OR TRANNY last longer, it can only make your OIL last longer.
Your entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I still stand behind what I say, I have seen a difference in the operation of my engine and tranny since I started the use of the bypass filters on a regular basis.

Sorry when I stated the tranny oil was black I meant to say a light brown but definately not red. Since the filter everything is within reason. I don't over heat my tranny or am I abusive to the tranny in what I pull. I firmly believe that who ever had the truck before me may have been, and because of this there was extra-ordinary dis-coloration in the oil. I changed this oil religiously to try and eliminate this coloration and what finally did it for me was the bypass filter.

I believe I'm getting my monies worth by changing my engine bypass filter @ 10-12K miles and my Tranny bypass filter @ 60-80K miles. The cost to me is worth it. The factory filters I believe don't have a fine enough micron to remove the typical contaminants in the engine or tranny, hence the reason why we use a bypass filters. If you had a direct fine micron filter in your engine or tranny, I firmly believe that if you did you would plug these filters off and therefore damage your engine or tranny.

If you watch the FSW movie on the bypass filter and the operation of it, you remove a significant amount of the very fine micron particles. You can't tell me that by changing your oil more often eliminates these particles, they still exist, granted just not on a larger scale but they still exist. Therefore causing potential problems within the engine or tranny. By removing them you prevent potential long term problems. And yes I believe that my engine and tranny under normal conditions will last longer than yours. Not trying to be a smart A$$ but its hard to ignore the benefits to the bypass filters, not just in extending oil intervals. Rich

Some information from FSW, granted the info is from a hydraulic system, but you get the idea of the size of micron that the filters filter to. pm me if you want the documents.

Just curious, but where does the external transmission filter plumb into? I hope not the cooler lines.

Rebel7777 - nicley stated. Even though we disagree, it's nice to converse with someone without making it personal. Truly a gentleman on your part. Thank you.

I love mine, cleanes the oil so well its hard to see on the stick! I was chasing fuel in my oil a while ago and i put 3 bottles of pitch blood red oil dye in it and the FS-2500 sucked it all up!

Dnewton3 and Rebel7777:

I enjoy reading both of your posts! You are obviously both intelligent (much more than I) and both of you make very valid arguments! My question is what about the soot and tiny particles scratching and scoring the internal parts of the motor? I would think that with bypass filtration, filtering out the smaller particles, you would have less internal wear, thus your engine lasting longer and running better. Am I off base here? For me, the piece of mind of knowing the smaller particles are getting filtered out, is worth the money for the bypass filter, regardless of the extended intervals. What are your thoughts on this?

My question is what about the soot and tiny particles scratching and scoring the internal parts of the motor? I would think that with bypass filtration, filtering out the smaller particles, you would have less internal wear, thus your engine lasting longer and running better. Am I off base here? For me, the piece of mind of knowing the smaller particles are getting filtered out, is worth the money for the bypass filter, regardless of the extended intervals.

My thoughts exactly and the basis for me putting the bypass filter on the engine. The transmission bypass filter will wait until I start towing regularly again.

The one big advantage of bypass filtering is being able to filter down to 2 microns. A full flow filter would probably clog in very short order and be restrictive enough for the bypass valve to open resulting in no filtering if it had the capability of filtering that fine. Most full-flow filters are in the 15-20 micron range some even 30-45 microns. The Wix full flow OEM replacement cartridge is 8 microns but still will not remove the soft carbon soot that quickly turns the oil black. While I acknowledge the soft carbon black most probably will not contribute to premature wear, I understand Rebel's position. I too love my truck, that's why I wash and wax the exterior so why not keep the inside as clean as possible?

In fact, my sister is still driving the 1992 3.0L Taurus I gave to her, now with 267k miles on it. I changed oil (synthetic) every 7.5k miles religiously. Never once did it have the "benefit" of bypass filtration. I pulled the heads at 150K miles because a friend of my daughter overheated it and burnt a head gasket. The lack of contamination, and the still-faint cross hatch honing marks in the cylinders made me a big believer of synthetic oils and regular change intervals. All I did was put new head gaskets on, and it's still running today.


Sorry to seem like I'm attacking you on this, but I had to much time on the weekend to ponder your results on your Taurus that you had sold your sister. Gas engines don't have the typical problems associated with contaminants in the oil, the biggest problem is typical oil breakdown which eliminates the anitwear component of any oil, hence why synthetics and longer interval oils are gaining strength; Soot, diesel are 2 components that are completely dangerous to the diesel engine not typical oil breakdown. I believe you are comparing apples and tangerines, these are 2 completely different engines, not only in the way they run(obviously) but in the way they handle oil contamination, ie particulates. A gas engine typical oil change is also around 3000 miles, where a diesel engine is around 8-10K miles. The fuels burnt create different contaminants in each engine as well as each oil sample. Gas engines burn way cleaner therefore less contamination, diesel's have always burned dirty fuel (hence teh reasons for a 2nd filter on the fuel system) and created far greater contamination, hence why the new sulphur emissions have been testing the typical diesel engine to new levels. Just my thoughts, I still agree that if I wanted longer intervals I would not hesitate to do oil samples. But you have to consider watching the FSW movie, I know there is propaganda in the presentation, but the elimination of fine micron carbon in any oil sample is by far the best bang for my money.

I look forward to further discussing this point with you, I believe we enlightened and bring 2 differing opinions on bypass filtration. Rich

Dnewton3 and Rebel7777:

I enjoy reading both of your posts! You are obviously both intelligent (much more than I) and both of you make very valid arguments! My question is what about the soot and tiny particles scratching and scoring the internal parts of the motor? I would think that with bypass filtration, filtering out the smaller particles, you would have less internal wear, thus your engine lasting longer and running better. Am I off base here? For me, the piece of mind of knowing the smaller particles are getting filtered out, is worth the money for the bypass filter, regardless of the extended intervals. What are your thoughts on this?

I have to agree, but I am only one voice. From every indication that I have been seeing with my bypass filters I truly believe I am getting my monies worth and therefore extending the life of my tranny and engine. Again I am only one person with an opinion, if you talk to my wife she thinks I like to come up with ideas and just spend money for the sake of spending it. I should have taken sample's of my engine oil before I installed my first bypass filter, about 70K miles ago( 1 year of travel). And seen where I am an todate with the oil. Sorry guys, again I didn't do it for the extended intervals but for the tranny and engine life.

The less wear is evident in the tranny from the first time I installed the bypass filter, when I used to remove the external filter the magnet was covered in particulates and the oil was not a definate red. But since the install, just after recently installing a Transgo Jr and Magtech pan I also noticed that there was no particulates on this magnetic (it was actually clean) and the old allison tranny pan had no black particulate in the bottom of the pan after removal and installation of the Magtech pan. You would typically see this in any oil pan and also the old tranny filter look brand new. Again I should have taken pictures, but I was anxious to get my truck running after having it ripped a part for 4 days.

Pictures of install, let me know if you need some more.

Rebel7777 - I just got back from a week's vacation, so I didn't get a chance to reply until today.

I would be willing to have a friendly competition, but you and I would be old men by the time my data came in. You drive your truck way more than I. My truck was new last fall, and only has around 9k miles on it now. I plan to run it to 15K, then pull my 4th oil change (1k, 5k, 10k, 15k) and have it sampled. From the research I've done, an analysis before 15k would likely be skewed by the normal break-in period of higher wear metals and silicon leaching. I'd like to compare oil analysis with you, based upon milage, but you're so far ahead of me that I won't have reasonable data for comarison for several years. Still - if you're up for it, I'd like to have a comparison. How many miles do you have on your truck right now? If we could agree on samples at every 10K intervals, at even increments, I'd be willing to spend the money. And this would be a direct comparison.

You're correct in that gas/diesel engines don't operate exactly the same, but all engines that run on hydrocarbon fuels do produce soot from poor combustion, and sludge can form, especially in poorly designed engines. Toyota has an admittedly poor design in their past I-4 and V-6 engines from a few years ago. Sludge and soot need to be removed from the engine to help longevity. In our case, the Duramax has a decently designed oil system, and a better than average full-flow filter rating. Today's CJ-4 oils have a very good additive package to control soot accumulation.

As far as your comment on the use of 2 fuel filters for diesels, that has nothing to do with soot, and is because the injectors need to be protected from abrasive fuel particles. Soot is a byproduct of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels (diesel, gasoline, propane, CNG, wood, paper, cotten, plastic, coal, etc). ANYTHING that is made of hydrocarbons, and burns incompletely, produces particulates (what you're calling soot). So I would have to say that in this scenario I disagree with you; you can't filter soot out of the fuel because the soot is not created until incomplete combustion occurs. I would also disagree that diesel versus gas engines "handle oil contamination, ie particulates" differently. Both burn fuel, some of it is incompletely burned (soot) and ends up in the oil by what is called "blow-by" (escapement past the rings). Now I agree the diesel produces more particulate, but it doesn't handle it "differently". To say that gas vs. diesel engines produce different contaminants is simply not true; they both burn hydrocarbon fuels. Period. And by the way, the US EPA pulled lead AND sulphur out of gasoline in the mid-seventies, for the same reason as they pulled sulphur out of diesel fuel. It has nothing to do with the effect on the oil, it was to protect the engine exhaust equipment and reduce emmisions. The two engines (gas and diesel) do produce different levels of contamination realitive to each other. Soot, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc. all are byproducts of burning hydrocarbon fuels. Diesel engines USED to produce a lot more soot, because of the way they burned the fuel, but that is not nearly as true today. So the apples to tangerines scenario you pose is not really accurate, but maybe it's fair to say it's a Green apple to Red apple comaprison; they are not the same, but more similar than you think.

The reason that older diesel engines (with in-direct, pre-chamber, mechanical low pressure injection) put out so much soot is because of the poor design of the combustion chamber, and fuel injection process. Today's diesels (with high pressure, multiple event, direct injection) run MUCH cleaner, and I'm not even talking about the newest USLD regen-exhaust diesels. The reason sulphur was taken out of the fuel has nothing to do with soot; the sulphur damages the catalytic converter and DPF. In fact, the only reason the new LMM (and other brand) diesels run so clean (soot wise) out the back is because of the DPF, not the fuel, or fuel filter.

There are many brands of bypass filters out there. Most would agree that approximately 5% of the oil gets "super-filtered" by the bypass for each full cycle of oil circulation; ie for every 5 quarts of oil that go through the bypass filter, 95 quarts still go right past it. So for every 1 particle your FS2500 catches, 19 more go right past it by heading straight for the full-flow (passing through it) and going right back to the engine. So you're still seeing the soot get to the bearings many times BEFORE it actually gets picked up by the bypass filter.

With all this said, I would like to agree with you that bypass filters for engine oil (and probably tranny oil) do a great job of removing contaminants from the engine. This happens because the bypass filter traps the contaminants, and then you change the filter. It is my contention that I can do just as good a job removing them by changing the oil, which holds the main damaging particulates in suspension and prevents them from growing bigger. I just have to change oil more often than you. You are not keeping your engine any cleaner or safer than me, you're just cleaning it in a different manner. Would you super-filter your laundry water? No, because it's not cost effective. It would make your clothes and your washer last longer, but it's not cost effective.

I said this in a previous post and I'll state it again. BYPASS FILTRATION DOES NOT MAKE ANY ENGINE LAST LONGER. IT MAKES THE ENGINE OIL'S USEFUL LIFE LAST LONGER.

We have to say fundamentally that we are on the same track, I still believe that my engine and tranny will last longer but we can argue that point until one of our trucks is completely dead and one of us is standing their saying "Told You So!!". I am interested in doing the sample analysis and running a comparison, but who do we use I'm in Canada and your in the US, I'm supposing the lab's should be comparable. Let's do the testing, every 10K Miles, which for me is every 2-3 months. I will have to say I think I'm getting the larger BILL. LOL!!

Thanks for correcting me on some of my statements, it was a long night and a few beers maybe have been had. I'm currently at about 118K miles and have just recently changed the oil's. I think to start we should just consider the engine. If we test everything the costs could go through the roof. I still wish I had did my testing before the bypass filters, I would like to have known at what "STATE" my engine was in to begin with, oh well, hind sight is 20-20.

I use Blackstone Labs here in the states; you can check their web page at www.blackstonelabs.com (http://www.blackstonelabs.com). Fundamentally, I'll never catch up to you in milage, but we might be able to do a relative comparison with each vehicle. I would imagine that you will get to a point where I'll just never be. I only average about 10k a year on my truck as it's only used part time. I ride a motorcycle all summer, and drive a Taurus when it's not bike friendly outside.

I'll be changing oil at 10k miles (soon) but I really believe that's too soon for a sample as most of my research has show that the Dmax isn't fully broken in wear metal and silicon wise until around 15k or more. For convenience, I'll start posting my results from analysis at 20k, then 30k, then 40k, and so on. At that rate you'll only see mine once a year.

I would gladly offer to offset your analysis costs by sharing the cost of beer! :-) LOL. Just curious, what do you do for a living that you can accumulate such milage? I work in industrial manufacturing; I used to work for Ford, but now work for Carrier, so my butt is parked in a building all day long. You must be driving a great deal. I can tell you that the amount you're driving is actually better for your vehicle. The best thing you can do for a vehicle is to drive it. My truck sits almost too much. I don't drive my truck much at 15mpg, when I can ride my Goldwing at 40 mpg, with easier parking. Today's vehicles are more likely to deteriorate from age rather than milage. Time ravages the materials moreso than milage.

I still have enjoyed out chats as you make excellent points and you put me in a position to have to think, which I appreciate as it's nice to be challenged in a positive manner. You are a polite and worthy adversary!

I travel through out Western Canada visiting cliental selling oil & gas related products. I tell you this, my truck is my life and I look after it, no cost is to large. I don't envy the sitting on your butt thing, been there done that. I enjoy getting out and meeting people.

I too also find the chats enjoyable, I will try and post as many analysis's that I can before the cost of them become to uneconomical. I'm more curious than anything else to see if my words actually mean anything.

I should confess that I WANT a bypass system. I've looked hard at the MotorGaurd, FS2500, Amsoil, OilGuard, etc. I just can't find a reason to really justify the purchase of one for the relative low miles I put on my truck each year. What I want and what I need are two different things though.

I think that I can easily get 250k miles out of a Dmax without a bypass system; for me, that would be 25 years. Hell, the body will rot and fall off before the engine/trans quit. For you, however, you'll see a high milage in a short amount of time. Drivers like you are the exception, not the norm.

You could run probably 15K OCI's with a quality oil (any good brand would work - even more with synthetic). That would save you money and downtime. For the rest of us, bypass filtration is a luxury, not a necessity.

I believe your analysis will come back very favorably. Partly because the Dmax has an inherently good oil system design, and partly because it's clear that you treat your items with respect and maintain them accordingly. I don't see why you can't glean at least 350k or more with your Dmax. Sure, there will be brakes, hoses, alternators, injectors, sensors, etc that go bad and have to be replaced, but your engine internals should easily make 350k, with high potential for longer service.

I'd love to have a job where I just get to drive. Unfortunately the area I'm in only supports that if you're an OTR trucker or in sales; I can't/won't give up my family to be on the road all the time, but I envy your being out and about.

DNewton - after all this you admit you've got bypass-envy, LOL

This has been very informative, and being this is one of the first posts i've read since buying my own 2006 2500 HD and coming to this forum, I can't tell you how excited I am to have intelligent people like both of you to converse with. Message boards are littered with personal attacks, and I'm thinking I might link this thread in the future as an example of how we can use the community to move things forward for the good of all. So far these forums rock!

THANK YOU!

ps - I'm keenly awaiting the results of "Round 1"

I just pulled 30 OUA's from the BITOG website. Here is a synopis of what I found.

First, let me tell you what I do for a living, so you can have some faith in what I'm about to share. I work as a quality engineer and deal with statistical analysis every day. I use analitical computer programs, and sort data, and then apply those findings to the real world application that best fits. So belive me when I tell you, the following data is real, and useful.

I pulled 30 diesel UOA's and compared various engine types, miles on oil samples, use of bypass filtration (no or yes, and if so, what type), insolubles (soot and sludge), wear metals such as iron, lead and copper. I put them into a spreadsheet, and then ran them through a softwear program (Minitab). The data is normalized for milage and variables. My untimate goal is to run analysis on 50 diesel units and 50 gas units, some with bypass and some without.

Keep in mind that bypass filtration's main effect is to reduce soot/insolubles. The soot/insolubles are part of what cause the wear metals to go up. The less soot you have, the less wear you have.

Here are just a few examples; catagorized.
Without bypass filtration:
6.0P/S, 5k on oil, insolubles at .2%
7.3P/S, 4k on oil, insolubles at .1%
5.9 Cummins, 7.5k on oil, insolubles at .3%
Duramax, 5k on oil, insols at .2%
Volkswagon TDI, 20k miles on oil, insols at 1.0% (a little high, but 20K!)


With bypass filtration (differing brands)
Duramax, 9.5k miles on oil, insolubles at .3% (Amsoil)
6.0P/S, 5K miles on oil, insols at .2% (FS2500)
5.9Cummins, 7K on oil, .4% (Frantz)

Also, all the wear metals for these engines were within 15% of what Blackstone tracks as "universal averages". That's a good statistic. I like Blackstone because they not only tell you where your engine is, but where everyone else's engine sits for these averages, so you can compare. Each and every engine is a little different. In fact, it's obvious to me now that if your engine run a soot level of "x"%, that's from the combustion process that has normalized to that particular engine, given it's pump, injectors, etc. The 6.0 P/S Ford listed above actually was the same unit; they guy ran an analysis before and after he installed a FS2500. Look at the guy that ran 20K miles on his TDI, yeah that's high for soot, and I wouldn't have run it that long, but he did. Blackstone considers insolubles below .7% to be ok and normal. So ALL these engines, with or without bypass, ran normal soot levels.

Don't let the color of oil fool you. It is NOT and indication of the ability of an oil to lubricate. If you're running a bypass system and your oil stays clear, that means the filter is doing it's job of pulling out the contaminants and trapping them. But if you don't run a bypass system, and your oil is black, all that means is that the OIL is doing it's JOB, which is to hold soot in suspension until you drain it. Oil analysis will tell you how well your engine is doing, not looking at it.

Check out the FS2500 website, and look at the FAQ page. They will tell you what some already know. Base stock of oil doesn't go bad. Oil's 3 main functions to clean (detergents), lubricate (anti-wear) and sustain (anti-corrsives). Oil gets contaminated, and the additive package wears down. They also speak of a Detroit Diesel engine that has their product on it. The brag of .3% soot after 80k miles. Thats a big acomplishment to run that long, but notice that the LEVEL of soot (.3%) is no lower than what we all can achieve at 10K miles. Most of the trucks on their webpage examples are all big rigs. They are older and don't run as clean. Our new trucks run much cleaner from the get go. So this is a very telling point to my side of the argument. Bypass filters don't pull down soot any lower than what you already have, they just keep it down versus accumulating. If you change your oil often enough, the accumulation never gets high enough to effect your engine. The wear metals are tell-tale sign of soot accumulation.

Bypass filtration is a tool to save money by extending OCI's; it does nothing for extending the life of an engine. You can achieve the same result by changing oil more often. If you run a bypass system, you should be almost never changing oil, and only changing the bypass filter and adding make-up oil.

End of story - data doesn't lie.

dnewton3, I have to disagree with the statement that the only benefit of bypass filters is to extend oil changes and also the statement that your equipment won't last any longer with a bypass.
I have a Gulf Coast Filters Bypass system on my truck the facts are it super filters 2 quarts of oil per minute. The system added 6 quarts capacity to my truck. So every 8 minutes all of my oil is super filtered. See my thread about my latest analysis with 40K on the oil change. Soot our main concern never really gets a chance to cause any wear inside my engine as analysis confirms. Soot levels are constantly held to .2 ppm or less where anyone who doesn't run a bypass the soot numbers climb higher and higher throughout the oil change no matter what the drain interval is. Most labs say soot isn't dangerous until it reaches 3.0 ppm but kept consistently lower than that you acheive less wear. Another benefit is less maintenance, lower maintenance costs and the peace of mind your engine is clean.
Also the UOA reports keep me notified of fuel contamination, antifreeze, water, or anything else harmful to my engine. Lets face it fuel dilution(leaking injector), or antifreeze will tear up a engine very quickly I see you do analysis but most that don't run bypass don't do analysis. Even so bypass filters are designed to absorb a certain amount of water or fuel so a bypass could still save from ruining a engine even if it has problems between samples. With that said I Firmly beleive any engine running a bypass filtration system and it is maintained properly will indeed outlast a engine that doesn't.
In your case of only 9K per year yes it's probably not worth the investment because you won't see the savings or time it saves those of us who run a lot of miles per year.

Any new answers????

I posted my results. Soon I should have a UOA @ 15K on the same oil and filters.

I posted my results. Soon I should have a UOA @ 15K on the same oil and filters.

Fantastic, I look forward to your results.

06LBZOneStopAuto - I have to disagree with a couple of your statements. In fact, you're making a claim that even the Gulf Coast website would disagree with.

First, while I agree with your claim you make that "fuel dilution(leaking injector), or antifreeze will tear up a engine very quickly" is true, the Gulf Coast (or any other filter for that matter) won't help here at all. I quote the web page FAQ of the very product you use: "excessive fuel contamination" ... "cannot be prevented by the GCF filter or any filter therefore an oil change must be performed ...". And they are incorrect about the "evaporation" of fuel from contamination. Liquids will evaporate when two conditions exist; first there must be a elemental differential between the two environments concerning the liquid in question (in this case the oil and the air). Second, there must be a energy (heat) differential. Both exist in an engine. Think about it - if you get your clothes wet in the washing machine (water moisture in a solid), don't they dry out in the dryer? My point is that for evaporation to occur, it doens't matter if moisture is surrounded by itself, or is contained in a solid. If the two differentials exist, evaporation will occur. If the liquid can get into a solid, it can ususally get back out. And by the way, evaporation occurs (with water vapor) any time the temp is above 32degF. Your steaming cup of coffee isn't above 212 degF for very long (if ever at all), but it still "steams" for quite a long time, right? The opposite is true if you remove the heat from the medium. A condensing furnace will pull so much heat from the combustion air that water vapor will form. Fuel dilution can't be significantly effected by a bypass filter in normal operation, because you can't use an oil filter to screen a liquid from another liquid. Realative heat will evaporate a moisture from a solid. Moisture contamination cannot be removed any better by a GC filter than any other filter. Now, you can remove any liquid from another liquid by physical property dispersion, but that's not what GCF is talking about. Think of your fuel filter; it has a water trap, but that's physical seperation due to specific density, NOT evaporation. It is true that a cellulise filter will absorb a certain amount of water from a liquid, due to it's properties of chemical composition, but that advantage is present in any cellulose filter, bypass OR fullflow. I could just as easily add another FULL FLOW filter and suck up a little extra moisture, but that has nothing to do with the micronic filtration level. And don't confuse fuel dilution with moisture contamination. The oil filter can't tell the difference between oil and fuel; they are both a carbon based fossil fuel derived liquid. They CAN deal with a small amount of water moisture, but neither has an advantage over the other. The only real benefit to a TP type bypass filter is that it can hold more water before saturating, compared to your type bypass. A TP bypass filter makes a better FUEL filter in my oppinion, than it does an oil filter.

Also, I belive you might be confusing "ppm" with "percent". In most oil analysis reports, fuel, water, coolant, and insolubles are stated in a percentage, where the wear metals and chemicals are in ppm. You could have 10 partiles in 100, or 100,000 in a million, but the percent would be the same. If you think your bypass filter is getting insolubles to .0000002% (which is your claim of ".2 ppm"), you're mistaken. I am not done yet with my bypass filter UOA study, but I can assure you that most oil analysis insoluble levels are around .2% to .5% REGARDLESS of whether they have a bypass filter or not. You are correct in stating that a bypass filter will keep soot insolubles from growing much over a certain limit, but you're WAY off in you calculations. Still, your point goes right back to an advantage to my argument; bypass filters do not eliminate insolubles, they only hold it to a certain level. You can achieve that same level by changing your oil more often without using bypass filtration. It is the cumulative effect we are all trying to avoid. It's two means to the same end. You filter the oil to a finer level, I just change it more often. Either way, the insolubles are removed.

06LBZOneStopAuto - I have to disagree with a couple of your statements. In fact, you're making a claim that even the Gulf Coast website would disagree with.

First, while I agree with your claim you make that "fuel dilution(leaking injector), or antifreeze will tear up a engine very quickly" is true, the Gulf Coast (or any other filter for that matter) won't help here at all. I quote the web page FAQ of the very product you use: "excessive fuel contamination" ... "cannot be prevented by the GCF filter or any filter therefore an oil change must be performed ...". And they are incorrect about the "evaporation" of fuel from contamination. Liquids will evaporate when two conditions exist; first there must be a elemental differential between the two environments concerning the liquid in question (in this case the oil and the air). Second, there must be a energy (heat) differential. Both exist in an engine. Think about it - if you get your clothes wet in the washing machine (water moisture in a solid), don't they dry out in the dryer? My point is that for evaporation to occur, it doens't matter if moisture is surrounded by itself, or is contained in a solid. If the two differentials exist, evaporation will occur. If the liquid can get into a solid, it can ususally get back out. And by the way, evaporation occurs (with water vapor) any time the temp is above 32degF. Your steaming cup of coffee isn't above 212 degF for very long (if ever at all), but it still "steams" for quite a long time, right? The opposite is true if you remove the heat from the medium. A condensing furnace will pull so much heat from the combustion air that water vapor will form. Fuel dilution can't be significantly effected by a bypass filter in normal operation, because you can't use an oil filter to screen a liquid from another liquid. Realative heat will evaporate a moisture from a solid. Moisture contamination cannot be removed any better by a GC filter than any other filter. Now, you can remove any liquid from another liquid by physical property dispersion, but that's not what GCF is talking about. Think of your fuel filter; it has a water trap, but that's physical seperation due to specific density, NOT evaporation. It is true that a cellulise filter will absorb a certain amount of water from a liquid, due to it's properties of chemical composition, but that advantage is present in any cellulose filter, bypass OR fullflow. I could just as easily add another FULL FLOW filter and suck up a little extra moisture, but that has nothing to do with the micronic filtration level. And don't confuse fuel dilution with moisture contamination. The oil filter can't tell the difference between oil and fuel; they are both a carbon based fossil fuel derived liquid. They CAN deal with a small amount of water moisture, but neither has an advantage over the other. The only real benefit to a TP type bypass filter is that it can hold more water before saturating, compared to your type bypass. A TP bypass filter makes a better FUEL filter in my oppinion, than it does an oil filter.

Also, I belive you might be confusing "ppm" with "percent". In most oil analysis reports, fuel, water, coolant, and insolubles are stated in a percentage, where the wear metals and chemicals are in ppm. You could have 10 partiles in 100, or 100,000 in a million, but the percent would be the same. If you think your bypass filter is getting insolubles to .0000002% (which is your claim of ".2 ppm"), you're mistaken. I am not done yet with my bypass filter UOA study, but I can assure you that most oil analysis insoluble levels are around .2% to .5% REGARDLESS of whether they have a bypass filter or not. You are correct in stating that a bypass filter will keep soot insolubles from growing much over a certain limit, but you're WAY off in you calculations. Still, your point goes right back to an advantage to my argument; bypass filters do not eliminate insolubles, they only hold it to a certain level. You can achieve that same level by changing your oil more often without using bypass filtration. It is the cumulative effect we are all trying to avoid. It's two means to the same end. You filter the oil to a finer level, I just change it more often. Either way, the insolubles are removed.

Again I must disagree, agree, being from the analytical world, this can be said about your arguement. You are correct in your words when you say the bypass filter will not remove fuel, based on the H2C+ molecule mixture and how it blends readibly with oil products, hence the word Hydrocarbon fuels/oil/gases. Water however does not have the same chemical characteristics nor the size of molecule as the hydrocarbons, which when mixed with similar components they mix easily. Hence why oil/water always forms an emulsion, not a true mixture. This emulsion is easily seperated with the appropriate filter micron sizing, and why Hydrocarbons aren't. Think of it as this way take diesel and add it to oil, what happens, the oil is thinned and the density drops, making it less viscous and lubric. This is very noticable in the mixture, as well the products can't be seperated without some form of fractation involved (heat at various temps, which is done typically at refinaries). Now take water and oil and mix it together, they create an emulsion, density increases, becomes more viscous and lubric(under the right conditions). The mixture if left will seperate into the 2 forms water and oil, but some water does remain in the oil and can be trapped by the appropriate filter based on micron sizing, hence why fuel/water filters work.

Now in regards to your comments on ppm, 10000 ppm represents 1% in volume or weight, each of which is an entirely diifferent discussion. Typically when we talk ppm in oil it is based on weight, ppm in gas is based on volume. Hence ppmv and ppmw, this ppm when your sample is taken at .2 ppm represents only about 0.00002 % per weight of oil sampled. If you want we can discuss this further but I think most would be sleeping before they read everything that I have to say.

So the point made is yes most bypass filters remove soot, and "water", but do not remove fuel.

Any further comments are enjoyed!!!

dnewton3, I have to disagree with the statement that the only benefit of bypass filters is to extend oil changes and also the statement that your equipment won't last any longer with a bypass.
I have a Gulf Coast Filters Bypass system on my truck the facts are it super filters 2 quarts of oil per minute. The system added 6 quarts capacity to my truck. So every 8 minutes all of my oil is super filtered. See my thread about my latest analysis with 40K on the oil change. Soot our main concern never really gets a chance to cause any wear inside my engine as analysis confirms. Soot levels are constantly held to .2 ppm or less where anyone who doesn't run a bypass the soot numbers climb higher and higher throughout the oil change no matter what the drain interval is. Most labs say soot isn't dangerous until it reaches 3.0 ppm but kept consistently lower than that you acheive less wear. Another benefit is less maintenance, lower maintenance costs and the peace of mind your engine is clean.
Also the UOA reports keep me notified of fuel contamination, antifreeze, water, or anything else harmful to my engine. Lets face it fuel dilution(leaking injector), or antifreeze will tear up a engine very quickly I see you do analysis but most that don't run bypass don't do analysis. Even so bypass filters are designed to absorb a certain amount of water or fuel so a bypass could still save from ruining a engine even if it has problems between samples. With that said I Firmly beleive any engine running a bypass filtration system and it is maintained properly will indeed outlast a engine that doesn't.
In your case of only 9K per year yes it's probably not worth the investment because you won't see the savings or time it saves those of us who run a lot of miles per year.

I agree with your point but would disagree about the lower miles make it not worth having. When you drive your vehicle less and shorter distances you will have more water in your oil. The FS filters are designed to absorb the water, the full flow filters are not....
I've had mine for a year now and only 8500 miles on my truck. I would do it again in an instant. I thought about the tranny but thought it was a bit overkill and the dealer said they wouldn't warranty the tranny if something happened.
I dropped my oil at 500 installed the fs, dropped the full flow and oil again at 5000 and will do the full flow, fs filter, oil sample and then dump back in synthetic at 10,000.

Also, spent lots of time talking to the engineers at FS. From what I found out they have a proprietary filter element that no one else has that gives it the ability to not only filter more consistently the damage causing contaminants but also absorb the water. It seemed that all the other bypass systems out there basically use the same type of filter where as the Fs filter is patented by them and manufactured by them... At the time from what I read Amsoil, Oilguard and the other big names don't produce their own filter thus the filtering capacity and inability to remove water are about the same... I could be wrong but that's what swayed me towards the FS. Not to mention as I said months ago FS were the only one's to produce 3rd party unbiased research results.... Maybe some of the other companies have this now...?

Rebel7777 - I am not an expert on the process of emulsification, but I do understand your comments, as I at one time supervised a waste treatment facility at Ford and had to deal with the process. I learned a lot, but in no way am I an expert. The emulsification of water into oil cannot be quickly eliminated by the process of engine oil filtration. To seperate the oil/water emulsified semi-liquids, the process must first have several things happen. Heat, at you suggest is a main component. Also, there are additional chemicals (some of them very nasty and dangerous) needed to enhance and propogate into the emulsified oil. Then, for the products to seperate into reasonable layers, they must be heated again, and allowed to stratify into layers so they can be seperated physically. Your comment about physical density is correct, but it's only helpful if you can allow the oil to "settle" into the different layers a draw off the wanted/unwanted products from the top, bottom, or middle. This process takes quite some time (usually days) to get good seperation. There is NO way this can happen in the engine as it's running from day to day. Plus (I truly can't remember all the chemical acids involved) you won't be adding in the reactive acids to your oil because they break down the very components you're trying to save as far as anti-corrosives are concerned. So, in my oppinion, you'll continue to have emulsified oil flowing around and around through both of your filters. BTW, I agree that fuel/water filters work on the property of density disparity (water heavier than petrochemical based fuels and oil), but any time I've drained one that actually had water in it, it was truly WATER coming out of the bottom of the filter. The fuel flow in a fuel/water seperator is slow enough that the density disparity can work and allow for fuel to still get to the engine. An engine oil system pumps oil at a much higher rate, so the ability for water in it's regular form to fall out is not likely at all.

For some insight into the whole bypass issue and the traceability of oil analysis, I talked with my oil analysis lab a few days ago. They agreed that fuel cannot be seperated from oil by any bypass filter. They also agreed that water will only be absorbed to the extent that any cellulose filter (FF or BP) will attract and hold some moisture. But that gives no advantage to the BP filter over the FF filter; if you want to catch more moisture, you could add another FF cellulose filter and as long as the quantity of media (square area) was similar between compared filters, they results of moisture reduction would be similar. That is why a TP type bypass filter does such as good job at reducing the water in oil. But that only happens to a limit, and then any cellulose is saturated, and passes any further moisture.

The lab agreed with me that the main indicators in engine wear are iron, copper, aluminum and lead. Insolubles are key to understanding the potential of destructive matter. I'm nearly done with my UOA study, but I haven't compiled the statistical data yet. I've pulled down 80 UOAs from the BITOG website, with a significant cross section of diesel engines and oil use criteria. I'll probably have to type it up in a report, and then post it as an attachment, because it'll take a large amount of space and I'll probably "time out" on this site's logon limit.

Anyway - good to talk with you again. Have a great weekend.

You are correct in your comments on how to remove water from oil. I do however know from experience, because this is my business (Gas and Liquid Analyzers) that there are filters that do trap the water and remove it from the oil. That being said I have also talked with FSW and they assured me due to the structure of their filters that water is physically removed from the oil. It has something to do with their patented non-fiberous filters and the way the molecules are trapped within the media.

It makes sense in the design of some of these filters, the micron rating or "pores" of the filter are small enough to cause the water molecules to combine/collide(simplified) and therefore become trapped within the filter media.

Heat is an effective way to remove water from oil, but it is not the only form of seperation available. Yes, the engine generates enough heat to drive the water out of the oil in the engine, hence why we have PRV's that circulate moist/oily residue back into out intakes of the engine. But this process does not remove all the water from the oil, a good bypass filter will remove the remaining emulsification. (Now I know that when we talk water we are talking very small amounts, ppm or even ppb, I have to admit that I have never done an engine oil analysis, do they test for water?)

Now that we have beaten that to death, I am very anxious to see your results from the data you have accumulated. I'm about 1/3 into my latest oil change and hope to have results soon.

Good to talk to you as well, Have a great weekend as well.

ive got to buy one of these

I finally finished my study of oil filtering systems. I'm going to type it in a quickly as I can before the timer boots me off ...

I took data from the BITOG website. 50 diesel vehicles without bypass filtration, 50 with bypass filtration. There was a good cross-section of engines, from light duty trucks, to OTR, to ag tractors, etc. The majority was light duty truck such as ours, only because that's what is typically posted on BITOG. I eliminated any suspect vehicles that had obvious mechanical issues. I crunched it all with Mini-Tab after inporting in from excel. It took quite a bit of time to collect and tabulate the data. Now, remember I do quality engineering and analysis for a living, and I'm NOT an oil/fluids engineer, but my mechanical engineering degree does give me some basic insight. So here goes ...

On the left, engines without bypass systems. ON the right, those WITH bp.
avg veh milage: 85,874 .......... 68,380
avg oil milage: 7,636 ............... 12,620
Fe: 28ppm ........... 25ppm
Cu: 7 ............ 12
Al: 6 ........... 5
Pb: 6 ........... 8
Insolubles: .30 ............ .27

It's very important to note that these are averages based on real life usage. It is very clear that bypass filtration can hold near these levels for many, many miles; you could concieveably run 100,000 miles or more with analysis. The oil wouldn't get much cleaner or dirtier, with all operating systems performing as designed. But what is implied, and not directly shown, is that with routine maintenance, there are many engines (such as the Dmax) that can easily go to 10K miles on one oil change WITH good quality oil and FF filter, and proper operating systems. Again, analysis should dictate you when to change oil.

Now as you can see, the average usage of oil WITH bypass is nearly double than that of non-bypass. Other than that, the numbers were all statistically well within one standard deviation of the comparitive groups. So, it's fair to say that you can either use bypass filtration, or change oil more often. The numbers show that the same cleanliness level can be achieved by dumping and filling. For any given milage past a certain point, the bypass would HOLD the level of cleanliness nearly flat, while non-bypass systems would continue to escalate. However, with these numbers, it's same to say that you can run ROUGHLY 12K miles, and probably way more, with bypass and stay safe WITH CONTINUED ANALYSIS. Without bypass filtration, your limit seems to be up to 10,000 miles.

By the way, there were Amsoil, MotorGuard, Frantz, OilGuard, GulfCoast, and FiltrationSolutions all in the bypass catagory. NONE of them did any better or worse than the other. Of interest, some claim that TP filters finer, but there is NO data to prove that. It may catch finer particles than any others, but in no way did any of them produce better wear indicators than the other.

Some would argue that there are issues such as particulate counts, fuel dilution, water intrusion, etc that bypass filtration also combat. Well, the figures are there as well, and overall it's the same story. Some components can be filtered out; fuel - I doubt it, moisture - possibly DEPENDING upon the quality and type of filter used, particle counts - depends on how tightly you believe that particle counts equate to insolubles. I even had someone claim that bypass systems help cool the oil better than without - NO KIDDING! That person has confused (extra capacity) with bypass filtration. ANY time you add capacity outside the main system, you'll get better cooling. I could add a 30 foot hose in looped into a bucket of water going back to the FF filter and get better cooling. The reason a bypass system cools the oil is because it's phsically there. Put that much more hose and filter on a FF system and the same results would be expected. It's an added benefit of a bypass system, but it's not exclusive to a bypass system.

It is very, very important to note the conceptual differences between things that CAUSE damage, and the RESULTS that signify damage has occured. For example, particles and insolubles can cause damage, but you know it has occured when the wear metals go up. As an analogy, cholesterol is present in most of us. Some have more than others. Some are more suseptible than others to the ill effects of cholesterol. But just because you have a high level of bad cholesterol doesn't automatically mean you'll have a blockage or a heart attack. In comparison, you can have a lot of particulate matter in your oil, but not necessarily have extreme engine wear. This is where the numbers show my point best. I believe whole-heartedly that bypass filtration filters down to a finer level than a FF filter. But when you look at the numbers for wear indicators, they show NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE in accumulation. Sure the bypass went nearly twice as far, and could easily keep going, but then if your competitor changes oil, he's right back to zero balances, and he is actually CLEANER than you for a time. So the AVERAGE detrimental damages is nearly equal.

Another thing to know, and some don't realize this, is that oil NEEDS some small surface imperfections to hold on to. When I worked at Ford, we producted steering gears. In the aluminum rack-and-pinion housings, we tried to hold the surface micro between 4-12 with a profilometer. If the surface got any smoother, the oil would not cling to the walls of the cylinder, and seal damage would occur. That's right, a surface can actually be TOO SMOOTH. The same applies to bearings. You want a very smooth finish, but without some amount of surface iregularities, the oil cannot hold onto the metal, and the film actually gets wiped away, and then the parts you didn't want touching are now in contact. You need some amount of tensive properties on the metal itself to hold the oil in place. To this point, after you filter down to a given micron level, it's a moot point. The particles are too small to be doing significant damage.

It all goes back to what I said many posts ago. You can extend the useful life of your OIL by filtering it with bypass filtration, but you'll not likely get any longer engine life than a person who regularly practicesses routine changes with analysis. Bypass filtration is about saving money by extending OCI's. There is no PROOF that it makes you engine last any longer.

Rebel7777 7 DNewton3..................you guys gotta quit geekin' out on us man!!! Too much tech stuff for me.....I'm completely sold on it!:D

Here's some more info to support my claim of accuracy for my data study.

It's a quote from oillab.com, which is an oil analysis service. I prefer Blackstone, but I know that many other good companies such as Oilanalyzers and others exist, so to be fair I'm including info from other sources.

(quote) "SPECTROANALYSIS

Spectroanalysis is the analysis of the metal content and additive package. This test checks 19 elements and reports them in parts per million. These numbers represent the elements less than 5 microns in size. The spectrometers design limits its detection level to 5 microns and below. To evaluate the particulate larger than 5 microns, other test methods must be implemented.
The spectroanalysis is used to look for bearing or bushing wear in the form of copper, lead, or tin. The spectroanalysis also looks at dirt levels in the form of silicon. Wear in pumps, housings, and other points of contact can be evaluated using this information. It is important to remember that these are small particulate. If there are large particles of metals in the oil, larger than 5 microns, the spectroanalysis will not detect them. The larger particulate will be detected in the particle count and or the filter analysis, if the particulate are large enough.

The additive package of the oil can be identified and evaluated using the spectroanalysis.


PARTICLE ANALYSIS

The particle count is the single most important part of the report to measure the efficiency of the system filtration. The particle count measures all particulate in the oil larger than 5 microns.
Particulate include: dirt, carbon, metals, fiber, bug parts, etc.

The particle count can be done using either laser or optical methods. The laser method reports the quantity, size and distribution of particulate, but not what they are. The optical method gives a quantity, size, distribution and identification.

A combination of these two methods are used in OAL's PARTICLE ANALYSIS. Through the use of the two methods, we can provide the most representative analysis available." (endquote)


This shows that sprectoanalysis is entirely appropriate for the purpose of my little study. Let's all remember that the main claim to fame for ANY bypass filter is how well they filter to a finer level than FF filters. That being accepted, then the proper test for the effectiveness of the claim of bypass filtration would be spectroanalysis, and not particle counts.

Keep in mind that just because FF filters do not filter down to the sub-5-micron level, doesn't mean they are excluded from the benefits of sub-micro action. I'll expand. In bypass filtration, the filter is specifically designed to get all the <=5um small stuff. FF filters are not. But BOTH use the same oil, and the OIL is used to assist in the control of insolubles. Detergents and dispersants help clean and control the agglomeration (joining) of particulate to other like elements. So, even though a FF filter does not filter down as far, as long as the oil is helping do the job, a FF filter can post similar results as bypass filtered systems.

Spectroanalysis shows that in the specific range of 1-5um (the best use of sprectroanalysis and the main claim of benefit for bypass filtration), my data indicates that bypass filtration does no better job at reducing engine wear. This contradicts everything I've read and understood, but really, how else would you interpret the results? The only forseeable advantage to bypass filtration is the length of service which can be achieved for the oil, not the reduction of wear.

Oil is what keeps an engine clean, lubricated, from corroding, and cooled. The filter(s) elements don't touch the rings, cylinder walls, cam lobes or anthing else. The oil is what carries the contaminants from one place to another. Since the oil is the medium of travel, then you have two choices for proper engine operation. Clean the oil, or drain and replace the oil. As long as the oil is at a safe levels, your engine would be fine.

How do you changes the oil with FS2500 filter since you replace the oil drain plug?

dnewton,

Thanks for taking the time to do the analysis and post the results. That was obviously a lot of work, but it really shed much needed empirical light on the issue.

If I could sum it up, I'd say the following:

(Keep in mind that this conclusion only applies with my study parameters, those being using UOA data in the 1-5um range, and only for the pratical limits of the milage involved, up to 12K miles for a bypass and over 8k miles for a conventional FF system. The reason I say 8k miles is that is the very beginning where the divergence of the results start, and by 9k miles the difference is greater than one standard deviation for typical results. What this study did bring to light is what I had originally claimed: bypass filtration cleans the oil, but it won't necessarily make your engine last longer. If you change oil often enough, your likely to achieve the same results. Bypass filtation's MAIN benefit is making the OCI longer; i.e. it's a money saving tool.)

In the 1-5um range, the OIL is the main controlling element, although bypass filtration clearly assists. However, the study shows that because the variable (with or without bypass filtration) had no significant statistical effect on the results (UOA wear metals and insolubles), then the common element was the controlling factor; that common element is the OIL, NOT the Bypass filter. Because the variable changed (with or without bypass filter) but the results didn't change, it is statisically viable to conclude that in this range, the bypass simply had no effect on the outcome.

In the 5-15um range, a particle count is MUCH more likely to assist in determining the relative health of your engine, but that kind of data is not nearly as prolific in availability. However, there is significant reason to believe that this is where a bypass filter really shines, because it bridges the gap between the low end (1-5um) and the high end (>15um). So it's fair to say that those with BP filtration may be getting a better result, but until we have a large amount of data to analyze, there is only supposition to rely on.

In the >15 um range, the FF filter is king. It sees the total oil flow and therefore, it the particles get this large, there is a high propensity for them to be caught the first time around.

How do you changes the oil with FS2500 filter since you replace the oil drain plug?

Since the return line goes where the drain plug was the supply an adaptor with the kit, unthread the line(at the pan) and let it drain. I pull the adaptor plug out too cause it takes a century to drain out of the fitting.

Sorry, I have been quite busy with work. Business has been out weighing fun lately. I am about 1K off from my first sample to post. dnewton3, you and I are going to have some further in depth discussions yet to come. I like to be proven wrong.

This has surely been an interesting thread! but as rebel replaces his oil at same milage intervals as the rest of us I would automatically think that the particle size may be smaller at the end of his oil change. I may be wrong but I guess we'll see when he gets his report. If it is so, then couldnt this hint that he'll have less engine wear over the long haul? ie last longer?
I'm not a believer that black oil is ok. I've been considering a bypass filter for my own rig as well - I have almost 20,000 oilpatch kms on it since July and plan on keeping it for a long time as it cost close to $70k:o:

Rebel7777 - welcome back! I was beginning to wonder if you had fallen off the face of the earth! Sorry to hear that work has outweighed fun, but unfortunately, that's true for all of us at one time or another.

Here's a good link I found while you were away. It's an awesome read, but somewhat lengthy. It's from Cummins a couple years ago, but it's still very relavent and packed with info, even for us Dmax owners. There is one paragraph that specifically eludes to the controlling factors of oil in low micro (1-5um) ranges.
"Excessive soot contamination of engine oil is identified as weight percent soot, and is measured by thermogravimetric or infrared analysis. Soot is captured in the oil and harmlessly suspended until active additive components become depleted. It then agglomerates into larger particles." This conincides with the study data I put together.

And here's a quote from the Shell Rotella web site:
"The benefit of extending oil drains is reducing the cost of oil, labor, shop time, maintenance time and used oil disposal. With fewer stops in the shop, rigs are more productive. Depending on the types of vehicles in service and the conditions they operate in, savings can range from $500 to $700 over the average life of a truck. The savings can be particularly significant for fleets." Notice that they did NOT state that increased engine life is a benefit from extended oil drain. They are confirming that the driving factor is saving money.

And continued info from Shell:
"The best engine oils control soot by keeping the tiny particles finely dispersed instead of letting them clump together. Although this process is not fully understood, we do know that it depends on additive chemistry and that some additives do a better job of this than others. Shell ROTELLA T Multigrade does a superb job of keeping soot well dispersed in the oil, in a form that doesn't threaten your engine. Field testing ROTELLA T, we've found that it holds a high portion of the soot and thus leaves a clean engine: less sludge and fewer deposits on pistons and rings."

Now I'll grant you that the Rotella info is biased towards Shell, but you can find similar info at the Delvac and Premium Blue (and other brand) sites. What this info confirms is that oil, when not used past it's design limit, is the controlling factor in controlling soot and insolubles when viewed in the 1-5um range. The oil is doing it's job of keeping soot and insolubles suspended in such a small size that it's basically harmless.

I know that this thread is about the FS2500, but here a quote from OilGuard (competitor) that I think actually makes an accurate claim:
"The basic job of a standard full flow filter is to trap large contamination particles ranging in size from 15-40 microns, while at the same time allowing 7-10 gallons of oil to pass through the filter per minute. The most damaging contamination particles however are not in the 15-40 micron range, but in the smaller 5-15 micron range. Just for reference a human hair is 100 microns. Particles in this smaller range get wedged between moving engine parts, causing friction, resulting in engine wear. " It is comparing the effects of FF filtration to BP filtration. Clearly the BP filters better, but it's main benefit is in the 5-15um range. Sure it filters down in the small 1-5um range, but that range is not nearly as damaging as the 5-15um range. (note: I added the underline feature in the quote to call out the statement that supports my claim - Oilguard chose the words, I just underlined them for reading reference).

Here is a link to OilGuard that specifically addresses engine life compared to particle size. I will grant you that it shows you can extend oil life by driving the micron range down to 5um, but anything under that is so small in size that it's nearly infinite in it's challenge to measure the exact effect on engine life. In other words, once oil particle contamination gets below 10um, the effects of damage are slowing so significantly that it takes a huge gain in control to get a minimal gain in results. To go from 40um down to approximately 9um, you can shift you engine life from 1x to 6x, but to go from 9um to 6um, you only gain 2x on engine life. This shows that the oil's ability to control soot and insolubles is much more important, under 5um, than any filters ability to remove it.
http://www.oilguard.com/Other/ExtendEngine.php
This also coincides with my study data; this graph shows that you can filter down to, say maybe, 3-um, but you can't hardly measure the effect of that gain because it's nearly infinite. But what it doesn't show you is that the BP filter really isn't contolling the size of the contamination at that point - the oil is. It's a subtle distinction. Remeber, my study showed staticially similar results for insolubles up to almost 9,000 miles of oil/filter use, regardless of whether or not BP filters were used. So until those particles become large enough to overwhelm the oil (say greater than 5um), the BP is filtering out stuff that is statistically insignificant, and probably not doing much if any damage anyway.

A BP filter is probably doing a GREAT job at filtering in the 5-15um range, but unless you get a particle count done on the actual filters(s), you won't know to what extend you're gaining, and you'd have to use that data in conjunction with those people who don't use BP for comparison. And let's not forget that the Dmax uses probably one of the best FF filters by design criteria (nomimally rated at 8um !!!). That's a FF filter getting right down into the heart of BP filtration range! And don't forget that a FF filter see ALL the oil for each go around, where the BP filter only sees about 5% of it. So by nature, a FF filter gets a 100% chance to catch a particle, where the BP filter only gets a one-in-twenty change to even view the particle coming it's way.

This is why I say, expecially for a Dmax, that you're not extending the life of your engine with bypass filtration, at least in a measureable way. If I change oil often enough (before the contaminants overwhelm the oil additive package), I'll simply flush out what you filter out.

Web page links:
http://www.cummins.dk/fileadmin/dokumenter/Pdf_filer/Cummins_Litteratur/Olie_3810340-04.htm

http://www.oilguard.com/HomepageEngineWear.htm

Again, welcome back Rebel7777; hope this coming month is a little easier on you.

Wow,

Very interesting topic and well said on both sides. I change my DINO oil every 3,000 miles (on GM's dime since I have lifetime oild service for free).

However, if I had some extra coin, I would add the bypass filter as an extra measure. Would the cost benefit of a bypass system make sense for me? Maybe, maybe not, but that feeling that you are doing what you think is best goes a long ways.

Congratulations for keeping this thread civilized and informative.

I have let you guys down, I'm sorry!!! Work has taken over my life and I don't have time to spend on this anymore. As you can see I haven't had anytime since Oct 07 and even now writing this my customers are suffering. There is never enough time in the day, 18-20 hours gives me very little sleep. Again guys I'm sorry for not providing any information, hopefully someone else can pick up the challenge!! Talk to you again in about another 3-4 months.

Hey! Welcome back, if even for a moment. Good to hear from you, rebel7777.

Take care of your home and business first; they are what matters, and pay the bills.

Looking forward to a time where you're able to relax and share again.