Honestly folks, I'm more concerned with my new F350 SRW LB developing the dreaded Death Wobble I'm reading about than I am with how long my engine lasts..

 

FYI, Donaldson 502503 (typical 6.7 oil filter) is 99% efficient at 15 microns (um) and 50% efficient at 7 microns.

 

Exactly my point! but Donaldson is not alone. I'll point out that the Wix filter for the 6.7L (#57151) is beta rated thusly: 2/20/75 = 3/12/17. THAT IS OUTSTANDING FILTRATION FOR A FULL FLOW FILTER! Think about that for a moment; it's 50% efficient at 3um, 95% at 12um, and absolute at 17um! I will point out that this is where many folks are going off the rails here. A few folks claim that today's filters are 30um or so. That's absurd for two reasons:
1) to speak intelligently about a filter one needs to address BOTH the pore size (particle size) AND the efficiency at that size
2) today's filters are FAR MORE efficient than a "30um" filter ...
Most good quality FF filters today are very efficient at the top end (often rated at 20um), and they are pretty darn decent at the smaller stuff (7-10um). Most of these good quality filters are 50% somewhere around 5-10um, depending upon unique application. So the vast majority of large particulate, that which is very likely to cause wear, is stopped by the FF filter because the FF filter sees 100% of the volume headed into the engine once in that circuit path. BP filters only see about 10% of the flow; they only have 1 chance in 10 to ever even see a particle.

Think about this in terms of easy math:
- Full Flow Wix filter ... it's 50% efficient at catching 3um particles. Because it's full flow, it has 50% chance to catch any particle 3um or larger for 100% of the oil flow going to the engine. If a 3um particle is not caught on it's first trip past the pump, it's highly likely it'll be caught the second trip around. Any particle that is 3um or bigger will have a very short lifespan in the sump. On average, two trips around and it's caught, statistically.
- BP filter ... it's essentially "absolute" (98.67%) at 3um; very little will get past it, ever. But, it only sees 10% of the total volume flow. A 3um particle will never even go into the path headed to the BP filter 9 times out of 10! A 3um particle will make 9 trips to the engine before being caught on the 10th trip at the bypass filter media. The incredibly small volume flow to the BP media helps make it really super efficient, but it's sample rate is also very, very small.
So, a 3um particle is more likely to be stopped by a Wix FF filter (average of only two trips in circulation) than it is with a BP element (10 trips around in circulation; presuming it were not stopped by the FF filter media). Bypass media is super efficient at catching stuff, but it only gets to see a small portion of the total flow. Whereas a FF filter such as Wix is seeing 100% of the engine oil destined for the engine, and it's 50% capable of stopping that same 3um particle. If we were able to "gate" (manipulate) particle occurrences, then we'd be able to stop far more 3um particles with a Wix FF than we would a BP element. Not because the FF is more efficient; it's not. It's because it has SO MANY MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO STOP THE PARTICLE THAN DOES THE BYPASS ELEMENT. Bypass media is really good at stopping stuff, but it cannot swallow much oil all at once. The FF element isn't as efficient, but it's overall effect is far greater because it can process TEN TIMES more oil than the bypass element. It will catch more 3um particles in two sump cycles than the bypass ever will in ten cycles!

But filtration is an input to the equation of wear. And it's just one of many inputs. Others include the add-pack and the tribochemical barrier. In fact, SAE study 2007-01-4133 (done by Ford and Conoco) shows that wear most accurately tracks with the formation of TCB thickness and NOT viscosity or particulate loading. In the study, they ran oil loads out to 15k miles. In that distance duration, the vis began to thicken, and particle loading went up. And yet wear rates went DOWN and then became nearly steady-state!!!! Why? Because the TCB continued to mature. Despite particle loading increasing, wear trended down and then held steady on a per-mile basis. Despite the increase in viscosity, wear trended down and then held steady on a per-mile basis. Yet the TCB boundary layer increased with oxidation maturity, and then stabilized.

This is easily understood if you can accept one simple premise; there can be no causation without correlation. The increase in vis had no correlation with wear trends. The increase in particulate load had no correlation to wear trends. But the TCB did show correlation to wear trends. Hence, particle load and viscosity had no effect on wear, but TCB is the most likely controller of wear out to 15k miles. The additive package in oil, and the effect of oxidation maturity, combine to make a boundary layer on parts that retards wear more so than other inputs.

Now, this is ONLY TRUE for the conditions of the study; that being OCIs out to 15k miles. And don't forget I have mreo than 15,000 UOAs that also combine to make this same statement. Filtration is NOT a controlling factor in wear, as long as a minimum reasonable threshold of filtration is sustained. One does NOT need a super-duper bypass filter to control wear in short-to-moderate OCI durations. This is because the particulate loading is not excessive enough to overwhelm the FF filter and the add-pack (specifically the anti-agglomerates, dispersants and detergents) out to 15k miles.

As oil use is pushed past 15k miles, then the add-pack becomes overwhelmed at some point (I cannot tell you where, because my data does not go past 15k miles for "normal" use). At that point, then bypass filtration becomes VERY IMPORTANT to help hold particulate loading to a level that can still attain a good wear rate trend.

This entire topic about filtration is not understood well enough by most. Efficiency of filtration is important, but it's only half the equation. You must understand that the magnitude of occurrence is the other half of the equation. That a filter is highly efficient is good, but it's not effective if there's not a lot of stuff to catch. And again, filtration is just one of several inputs; one that is proven in both SAE study and UOA data analysis to be a minor player out to 15k miles.


I concern myself with outputs; what actually happened to the engine. Wear data trends clearly show that bypass filtration has minimal (essentially none, really) effect on wear trends when OEM OCI guidelines are followed. This is because of three main contributors:
1) FF filtration is "good enough" to catch all the major stuff, and it gets to see a chance 100% of the time
2) the OCI duration is set to a level that flushes out contamination before it overwhelms the lube add-pack
3) the TCB acts to retard wear and shows clear correlation between TCB thickness and wear trend data


I highly encourage people to purchase and read some of the SAE studies on engine wear. 2007-01-4133 is a great place to start. But be careful; many "studies" are actually HALTs that do NOT reflect reality (in particular, the infamous GM filter study that most every bypass filter maker uses as a marketing basis to convince the gullible to purchase their products). If anyone wants to discuss that GM filter study, well, that's another topic for another day; I can assure you it is worth more as paper to wipe your butt after defecation than it is for understanding filter performance in our vehicles.

 

Very nice to hear a fellow engineer (newton) speak about this topic as well as the engineering process for problem solving. I'm an SAE member too, but don't dive at all into the filtration papers and unfortunately they are not sexy enough to make it into the SAE On Highway or Off Highway magazines that I read monthly. Hell, I'm an aircraft survivability and thermodynamics guy who spends all of his time trying to talk to people about identifying the causes of a problem before specifying a solution.

I highly reccomend folks go to SAE and grab that paper as a place to start. I chose to buy the Donaldson filters for the same reasons stated above with the additional benefit that I don't have to run any external oil lines that didn't come from the factory. From what you said above, it would be interesting to see what over the counter oils have the best additive packages that enable TCB to do its job.

 

So for you engineering guys, from the research that I've done it seems that under certain circumstances the spin oil filters do nothing at all. There is a bypass valve in them which "blows by" the filtering? Based on the image Dave posted of what his filtermag snagged I'm thinking having that circulating through the engine until the filter does it's job is not something that I want running around in my lubricating system.

For those looking for proof, I posted my Blackstone results from my last 2 oil changes. Same brand of oil, within in a mile or 2 of the mileage and same brand oil filter. You can clearly see that the numbers for "stuff" in my oil is down after I installed the bypass oil filter.

As for "extending the life of my engine". IMHO it's the "quality of life" of my high mileage engine. And I'm also in the camp of "not needing one of these to get 300,000 miles out of your truck" but as previously stated, based on the Blackstone numbers, over the life of my engine the reduction of "stuff" in my oil has got to result in a better quality of life for my engine. Or at a minimum, I'm happy about it when I put my head on the pillow at night.

 

I feel like this thread reflects the current political state of this country. Each "Side" is trying to convince the other that "their way" is more correct. Do what makes you happy. I add Stanadyne to all my fuel-up's. does it help? I have no effing clue. Make me feel better though. Nothing wrong with being overkill on maint, nothing wrong with running the truck as the mfr suggests.

 

**1 Why, yes. Yes, I am... I took that nickname after my buddy had to "USE" my 1996 F250 (with Dana 60 SAS) 5.8L and had a chrome sticker placed on the upper front windshield in BIG CHROME letters: O V E R K I L L you get the picture... I made a stock E4OD last 94k+ miles while plowing commercially due to my overkill maintenance schedule. It was still working when we pulled it to install a Monster Box built E4OD. But that's a different story all together.

**2 I called the owner of Filtration Solutions, Randy, who makes the FS2500 and asked about a restriction device in the FS2500 for my truck. He said it does not have one for the 6.7 Powerstroke. It uses the approximately 3/16" opening of the fittings and the lines along with the filter element itself to slow down the flow of oil through the bypass filter. He did say that the FS2500 that they make for use with the 6R140 transmission has a restrictive device in it. He also mentioned the 6.0 Powerstroke as having a restrictive device in it's specific model of oil bypass filter as well.

**3 This is above my knowledge level. I"ll let you engineers or more knowledgeable mechanics talk oil pump flow volume rates. But thanks for explaining it.

**4 The Filter Mags I run will grab that 10 micron particle and hold it up against the outside wall of the filter housing. I've been using them about 20 years. I use the Motorcraft FL2051S filter as I understand it's a good filter. I also like Purolator PBL46128 which I haven't used on my truck but have used on other vehicles. I have also used K&N and Mobil 1. But recently have bought Purolators for the other rides.

**5 I can't dispute this as I have no facts to put up. A good test would be two identical vehicles using the same oil and filters at about the same mileage, same year and similar if not the same use. One to run just OEM filtration and the other a bypass system. I wouldn't know enough here to say keep the oil changes the same as with the OEM truck or to run extended OCIs for the bypass truck.

In general, you obviously know more than I about engine wear rates. I realize now the angle you were getting at when you wrote you're first response in this thread. I can't argue wear rates with or without bypass systems because I'm not an engineer, a mechanic ( just a back yard guy; learning all the time ), lube expert, etc. I can't argue my points with what I believe are common sense points and opinions because they are not facts. By now, you should realize how I got the handle overkill.

I started reading that article from the link you posted. I want to try to ingest as much of that as I can. To answer why I WANT to use a bypass, I would have to say that I have an overkill mentality that it may not be needed, but that I want the truck to have the cleanest oil possible and as the joke goes, to warm the cockles of my soul. Also to try to keep the inside of the engine as clean as possible, to try to reduce the Regen cycle, and to save money once the truck is off of warranty and to run extended OCIs. I guess I believe that the oil will possibly be more effective with the contaminants removed and additive package retained. Again, my opinions and not necessarily opinions of other users here. Also, it added to the capacity of the system which can't be a bad thing.

 

Without any doubt, you'll never hear me tell someone not to do something they want to do (presuming it's not illegal and not immoral).
If you WANT to run a bypass, for the fun of it, then go for it! As long as you realize that wants and needs are not the same thing.

It's not really any different than "wanting" a diesel truck. I "wanted" one back in 2006, so I spent the extra money and bought one. Had it 12 years, and then wanted a new truck. But I didn't want the added expense or complexity of a diesel. I don't "need" a diesel for my towing/hauling criteria; gasser 6.2L works just fine.

Many times I quote someone on this site (and others) because I'm trying to illuminate a topic of conversation; here it's BP filters. When I write "you", it can be interpreted to mean the OP or person of a quoted post, or more broadly as "you, the audience" (in the plural).
If I offended you, then I owe you a public apology and offer it now. I don't mean to deride someone for "wanting" to do something. As long as a person can admit when "wants" over-ride "needs", then that's fine by me. But in this topic, many times people try to convince themselves, me and others that without bypass, we're not doing the "best" for our trucks, as if without bypass, the net result is somehow less beneficial. What I am trying to do is get good info out there for folks can make good decisions for their own equipment. If OEM OCIs are the mantra one is going to follow, then they should be aware that BP filters (and typically also syns) do nothing to reduce wear in a significant manner. Much more often than not, what tiny little wear they might alter is obscured by the normal variation of daily operation.

Most all of these BP equipment makers rely on the old GM filter study as their "proof" (and I am using that term very loosely) that more filtration is always better filtration (here, "more" meaning finer). But that GM filter study is a H/ALT that is so far from reality it's truly laughable. However that does not stop those companies from touting the "benefits". More often than not, they can point to PCs that show reduction of loading. OK - fine by me. But what is the result of that change? Where's the data to show that it matters? Once you ask them those questions, you'll get pretty much nothing back. Most of them cannot speak intelligently to the nuances of wear trends and normal variation. H/ALTs are great tools to show the performance disparity between two or more choices in a process or product. But, they are often so absurdly and grotesquely laden with influence that they have no practical application in the real world.

This is about what the word "best" means, and how it applies to life. Examples ...
We all need water to drink to live. But how clean does that water need to be to survive, and for how long?
- You can drink dirty pond water, and you'll be fine for hours. But there's a distinct possibility that you'll end up with giardia, cryptosproidia, or some other parasite. In extreme cases, you could die or be sick for months. Essentially, we need water that is "clean". But how clean does it need to be, and what's the long term effect?
- If your normal life expectancy is 85 years while drinking normal tap water, can I improve your lifespan by having you drink clinically clean, distilled water? Highly doubtful! Your body does not need water that clean! It needs clean water at a level that sustains normal life, but it does NOT need super-duper clean water to live.

Another example ...
Washing your hands. If you're just going to work at your desk, how clean do your hands need to be? Not very, in reality.
What if you're eating with your hands? Just a normal wash with soap and water is fine.
What if you're touching your mucus (eyes, nose, mouth) with your hands? Again - soap and water.
What if you're a surgeon, and going to operate? Now it's time for a scrubbing; long, sustained abrasion with highly aggressive soaps!
You see, the level of clean need only match the task at hand.
You don't need clinically clean hands unless your cutting someone open!

The point here is that once something is sustained at a "clean enough" level, making it "more-better-cleaner" does not really return any benefit, at least not in a tangible manner that's quantifiable, or worth the extra cost.

You say you want the "cleanest oil possible", but why? There's no proof that oil that's clinically clean makes an engine last any longer than the "normal" oil in a "normal" OCI. The only time bypass filters make sense is not because they make the oil "cleaner" in a normal OCI. They make the oil SUSTAIN a reasonable level of clean for a LONGER PERIOD OF TIME! The benefit of BP filters is that of extending the OCIs out so that you save more money (fewer sump exchanges) than you spend in maintenance of normal protocol. If you can get to that point, BP filters are a great tool. If not, they are a total waste of money.

You want a bypass system? Get ya one! Enjoy it. Play with it. If you intend to greatly increase your OCIs, then you're making a wise decision; that's the best reason to run BP elements.

BTW - I don't know how/why a bypass filter will reduce a regen cycle. Pulling soot out of the oil isn't going to affect the soot created in the combustion cycle. Soot in the oil is a byproduct. Soot in the exhaust is a byproduct. If you pull soot out of the oil, it's not going to reduce the soot in the DPF. Those two byproducts are mutually independent occurrences. You also mention that added capacity "can't be a bad thing" ... Oh - but it can. If the added capacity does not improve a tangible output, it will cost more money and return no benefit. For every ying there is a yang in life. More oil costs more money. More oil not only helps cool stuff, but also takes longer to warm up in winter. Etc ... And the reality is that because engine and oil temps are controlled by the thermostat and coolant system, having "more oil" isn't going to cool the engine one little iota, because the oil and coolant temps are regulated. The only time "more oil" cools an engine is if you greatly increase the sump capacity in an air cooled engine. The tiny amount of oil you're adding will harm your wallet far sooner than it will cool an engine or reduce it's wear.

 

Please excuse the slight hijack:

My buddy's 2017 F350 gasser developed a death wobble. I believe the dealer took care of it. I could find out what they did if you want me to and PM you..

 

That looks like a great filter. Thanks for posting up. I will keep that in mind.

 

Even tho' I don't have the DW issue I'm curious. There's a tread on it but I'm not finding it at the moment. PM would be fine, thanks.

 

Hey Chuck, does the Insane Filter have a sample port or a spare port to put one in?

 

This thread comes NOWHERE close to the division in this country currently. Like I've mentioned before, I don't believe anyone here stated that bypass filters where necessary, needed or required. This was a thread about them and anybody who used them. The reason I say this thread is not like our country is that we are having legitimate conversation void of irrational, emotional responses. I'm for passing on information, learning new information, running it like you want to and respecting other opinions.

I add K-100 to every tank. Does it help? I THINK so. Is it harming my HPFP? NO, I don't THINK so. I currently have 34.7k miles on the truck. But that doesn't mean I have to use it, or anybody else has to use it or that my 6.7 Powerstroke will blow up without it.

I've been running Filter Mags for about 20 years. Does it help? I THINK so. But that doesn't mean I have to use them or that I think anyone else has to.

The problem is, and this applies to the current political state in our country also, is that some people want to have the conversation and others just don't. Plain and simple, regardless of the facts. I know THAT I think of things that the average truck owner doesn't even think about or do. This does not make my opinion or what I do better than anyone else's methods.

There's no hard feelings here towards anyone. This is just a spirited thread with different opinions. Having different views and talking about them in a respectful way is what the world needs more of.

 

I've seen this before and thought I'd post it up for FYI. I thought it was interesting:

It's from this link here. I know it has the GM Study in it which dnewton3 mentions, but I posted it because of how it explains the size of particles in microns inside of a engine. It also has good visual references in the article also.

What Are Clearance-Sized Particles, CSP?What Are Clearance-Sized Particles, CSP?

What Are Clearance-Sized Particles, CSP?

Particles in the oil film moving within the clearances between the moving parts are Clearance-Sized Particles, CSP. The majority of the clearances between the engines' moving parts are between 1 to 10 microns, hence, CSP are primarily in the 1 to 10 micron range. The CSP causes the majority of engine wear and friction. The reason that CSP are harmful is that that are small enough to enter into the clearances between the moving parts and large enough to be forced into contact with the surfaces of the moving parts, causing wear and friction. CSP have been called "liquid sandpaper" to describe the insoluble abrasive slurry of micro-particles, which is continuously re-circulated between the moving parts, causing additional wear and friction within the engine¡¯s moving parts, such as the piston rings and cylinder wall, rod bearings, and the piston pin bushings.

Illustrated below is a typical engine clearance. The size of the oil film between a cylinder wall and the piston ring is approximately 3 micron ¨C the size of bacteria. If the 3-micron oil film is not carrying any abrasive clearance sized particles, there is minimal wear. If the oil film is dirty, carrying CSP between these parts, significant wear and friction will be created.

As illustrated, the size of the particle is critical. A 20-micron particle will not cause damage because it is too large to enter the 3-micron clearance. A 0.01-micron particle is small enough to enter the 3-micron clearance but it is not large enough to wedge between the moving parts to cause wear. For the ring/cylinder 3-micron clearance, the most harmful CSP are the 2-3 micron particles. (Illustration courtesy of Noria Corporation.)
What are the Sources of Particle Contamination?

The three major sources of particle contamination are:

(1) Engine operation. All engines -- whether fueled by diesel, bio-diesel, LNG, CNG, or gasoline -- create CSP through the movement of engine parts, creating wear metals, which build up in the oil film. Abrasive CSP is continuously re-circulated, producing more wear. The more CSP, the fasters the parts wear.

(2) Fresh oil. Even fresh oil contains particle contamination, especially when the oil is stored in a central tank and pumped through long hoses into the crankcase. To the naked eye, the fresh oil¡¯s yellowish-green or golden-brown appearance looks "clean." Since the lower limit of human vision is approximately 40-50 microns, the harmful bacteria-size 1-10 CSP microgrit is invisible.

(3) The air. There are invisible CSP particles in the air, such as the silicon dioxide particles in ash from smoke stacks where coal is burned. Particle contamination is especially dangerous in high dust environments. Silica particles are extremely harmful because they are harder than engine parts. High levels of CSP silica is a major cause of wear and engine damage.

Do Full-flow Filters Remove CSP?

No. Engines have at least one full-flow filter. It operates in-line with a high oil flow rate, typically 12 to 15 gallons per minute at 170-200 degrees with 25 - 65 psi. The full-flow filter is directly between the oil pump and the lubricated parts. All the oil from the oil-pump must pass through the full-flow filter before it enters the engine to lubricate and cool the rapidly moving parts. To avoid starving the engine of lubricating oil, the filter media must be relatively porous and is usually made out of synthetic materials. If the full-flow clogs, the engine¡¯s bypass safety valve opens, which take the full-flow filter "off-line" to allow all the oil to flow to the engine without passing through the full-flow filter. Of course, when the safety valve takes the full-flow filter "off-line," there is no engine oil filtration. Full-flow filters can filter down to approximately 30-45 microns with absolute efficiency (¡Ư 98.7 %) but can not prevent the buildup of 1-10 micron contamination.

Do Microfilters Remove CSP?

Yes. The design of the proprietary ECO MicroFilters device is different that the full-flow filters. The microfilter element contains large quantities of very dense, media and a gradient-flow structure. It operates at approximately 0.2 -.4 GPM. The ECO MicroFilters are not in-line, that is, it is not directly in the path between the oil pump and the lubricated parts. ECO MicroFilters operate in by-pass mode, returning the clean oil to the crankcase.

 

Fuel for the fire:

Power Up Lubricants NNL 690, NNL 690G, Diesel FX, Gen49D, HydraMaxx, Genesis, Thixogrease, RCL 1000, Pen 2000 - Effect of Power Up NNL-690 Oil Fortifier on Lube-Oil Anti-Wear Characteristics

Power Up Lubricants NNL 690, NNL 690G, Diesel FX, Gen49D, HydraMaxx, Genesis, Thixogrease, RCL 1000, Pen 2000 - Videos