There was only one Unicorn @senix 's 2013 F350 dually that was loaded all the time, that went into active regen when it wanted to, over 1k miles as I recall, but it would still go in... yes, I know I'm talking different MYs here and maybe Derek used FORscan to shut off the auto regen feature (every 498 miles) but I doubt it... I do remember a short regen when I was on a road trip in Kentucky, driving the hilly highways there, and it went over 500 miles to like maybe 510 to 512 miles IIRC, and the regen was short at 6 miles I believe I remember.... my point is that his truck was probably still going hot (active regen) but not for long...

And while I agree with you about less cold starts, I still think that filtering out the wear particles below the average clearance in a 6.7 Powerstroke engine helped him get that kind of miles while running stock.

I know you are not a fan of bypass filters... but realize I said helped.... proper maintenance and driving the truck, oil getting hot and completing regens is also necessary...

I understand you and disagree on this, I just want to say IMO, I believe a bypass is beneficial and many here MMV...

That said, I'd love to see if there's any pre 23 6.7s that have run to 900k plus stock without a bypass... to prove me wrong.

You're a third of the way there Troy... keep driving.

 

yes my 2013 would passive regen alot but would hit that 498 and then regen. It did fine, i just needed an upgrade since I am usually towing around 30K. I have a 2021 F450 with 93K on it right now, I put the DCR in it and with forscan I can control the regen process. It regens on average around 600 miles.

 

Senix,
Good to see back...

 

I'll second that... miss your interaction here myself...

 

Been really busy last couple of years running all over the place lol.

 

We get it... life happens.

 

So here's a report from GM and why some engines make it to a million miles. Doesn't have anything to do with oil brand, filtering, etc...

Enjoy...

 

Are there any bypass filters out there that don't need to be changed as often ?

I like the idea of using a bypass filter, as long as I don't have to change it and change the oil, oil filter and fuel filter all at the same time often.

I don't mind changing the oil and oil filter every 5k miles, fuel filter every 10k miles. But, I was reading how the Amsoil bypass filter can be left on for at least 50k miles or for at least a entire year ? I'm confused on when to sync up the change intervals and if there is a specific science involved in this, if I leave one filter one too long it might cause issues with the engine etc ?

 

I used to run the amsoil filter on my old Dodge back in the day. I would run the filter for 60k miles or so and it was still flowing when I changed it. The bypass is a small amount of oil from a port that is previously plugged so if it clogs it won't harm anything.

Haven't run a bypass since cause I won't own my trucks long enough to make it worth it to me.

 

Great video... this can be applied to diesel engines generally speaking, and specifically the subject of this section which is the 6.7 Powerstroke, but applying his experiment to high compression diesel engines can only be done in a general manner.

I agree with getting the vehicle going after a cold start, especially during the cold winter months, relatively quickly is important to reduce fuel dilution... he also left out some facts about Dave's video, that the truck was diesel, but I can see he wanted to dumb it down for the variety of folks that peruse his videos and to prove his point on cold starts fuel dilution. Plus the same for Derek's 922k mile 6.7 Powerstroke... to prove his point about plugging it in when in the cold winter months. I started it in when at under 40 degrees after seeing that video as I used it only when it got really cold here.

I didn't agree with him saying maintenance doesn't matter. Then he shows the Penzoil Ultra Platinum Full Synthetic oil jug... Maybe he was referencing longer OCIs I would think, but maintaining a vehicle is key to making a million miles, not just by driving it more for each cold start.

I liked the statement in the SAE paper on how conventional oil and synthetic oil showed the same wear rates.

But when I watching this video, I kept thinking about the main bearings in the 6.7, since I have seen Dave talk about that a lot on his channel. Plus, I can't remember if it was a push rod or a rocker arm (s) that went in the 922k mile 6.7 engine. Anyways, here's a user comment from the Repair Geek's video:

"Yes, this video is irrelevant. Cylinder/ring wear isn't a problem when using good oil and not abusing it (proper OCI and no hard driving cold). It's ALWAYS the bearings (and even chains) being eaten up from poor viscosity and long OCI. If the cylinder/rings are worn, it's b/c they're sludged up/defective. I haven't seen worn out cylinders since 80s cars. The oil just sucked, but even with smooth walls they ran fine and compression was good. Real world trumps testing that ignores the real factors and wear items."

But getting to the reason you posted this video: the bypass filter. Yes, these million mile engines that he was referencing ran without one. But these 1M mile cars have a gasoline engine and lower compression than a diesel engine. I will acknowledge that it is possible for a stock emissions 6.7 engine (I'll reference that since this a Ford forum and the 6.7 PSD section), in a hot shot application, to get a one million miles without a bypass filter but since a guy running a 2017 Super Duty 6.7 Powerstroke with stock emissions pulling camper cross country with the required maintenance of his truck AND a bypass oil filter came CLOSE BUT NO CIGAR, I'd have to take an educated guess here and surmise that to get close to a million miles with a stock 6.7 Powerstroke, even in a hot shot application, requires the finer filtration of a bypass filter. But I will ADMIT HERE I could be wrong.

That all said, I realize I will never get close to million miles on my 16 F350. I probably do not NEED a bypass filter for my daily driver... but being of the overkill mentality which started with my 1996 F250 daily driver/plow truck, I like to tinker with my truck and will continue to do so. I remember the bores of the 351W having a ridge up near the top where the piston rings stopped and there was bore wear from that point down -- had a rebuilt done on the engine. Those engine were speed density programmed, no MAF, and so IIRC, all injectors would fire at the same time on the same side. They did run rich, that's for sure... so I see the point of him talking about the bores and rings for the gasser engines.

The fact of installing a bypass filter on my truck >>(ran the FS2500 for probably close to or over 100k miles -- had to recently remove it because something happened to Filtration Solutions when last year, and apparently happened to others, they ripped me off on two spin on filters for their spin on conversion kit I was running) and now going to do a custom install of a Dieselcraft OC25 centrifuge oil bypass filter behind my grill, >> is overkill for my application and will not HARM my engine at all and IMO, reducing the amount of wear created particles, to and possibly under 1 micron, can only serve as a benefit to my 153k mile 6.7.

Yes, most guys run a bypass to extend engine OCIs but in my case, where I do have more cold starts, this bypass will serve, IMO, to get my engine more miles than without it, especially on a stock engine with EGR into the intake. This is an OTR truck driver and his comment from the video:

"When I was doing OTR, I averaged 480 to 500 miles per day and only shut the engine down while fueling. When I was logged out in the sleeper the engine was still idling to keep the AC or Heat on and power for the TV/DVD/Satellite/Internet. I drove the same truck for 8 years, 1,200,000 miles with no remans. Even with extended oil changes using a By-Pass super filter and just changing the filters as make up oil, the shop would change the oil every 30,000 to 35,000 miles per the Oil Analysis tests."

This truck drove a lot during each cold start, but to think that adding a bypass to the big truck engine is possibly harmful and not beneficial, is just silly IMO.

No one needs a bypass, said no one including me. But since we know cold starts do the most damage, I want to get more of the cold start wear metal out of my engine oil to prevent new wear from happening or to help minimize it. If I ever did delete my truck, I would definitely run oil out longer because of not only no fuel being introduced due to no more active regens, but because of the OC25 install.

Just my 2 cents... and YMMV. And I could be wrong, as always...

 

I didn't share this video because of a bypass filter so that's your assumption.

The goal is to share why the guy with the 922k mile 6.7PSD went 922k miles and the repair geek shared a study GM performed and himself that proves why some of these vehicles make it to 1 million miles.

 

No worries... but I'll add further that it seems the train of thought is that it's absolutely necessary to delete a 6.7 to get high miles out of it yet alone 1 million miles. The 922k 6.7 proves that wrong and it was more than just being a hot shot vehicle that did it. It also proves that a bypass is not harmful either...

Even your truck proves that a stock truck can go out further out at 300k plus. And now with the 23 plus with the 9th injector and reduced EGR strategy, in a hot shot vehicle, one million miles on a 6.7 may be possible without a bypass filter because of reduced soot and fuel in the oil.

 

Could and should the U.S. government and oil companies increase lubricity in diesel fuel and by what % that makes a real noticeable difference in engine protection/longevity and would it reduce the odds of CP4 failures ?

Is there diminishing returns in increased lubricity and is too much harmful to the engine ?

What should the maximum wear scar really be set at by ASTM ? Under 500 microns or should it really be under 100 microns ?

 

We have the 520 scar rating fuel here in the US. European fuel has a 460 scar rated fuel meaning the Euro fuel has more lubricity than our US fuel.

The EMA, Engine Manufacturers Association, recommends the 460 rating as a minimum... What's that tell you?

I run additives that add more lubricity as well as cetane, fuel cleaner and more...


Co-Pilot on Bing... (copy and paste)... just remember, the lower the scar rating, the better...

ULSD Fuel Wear Scar Rating (Lubricity) StandardsFor Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD), the wear scar diameter is the key metric used to measure lubricity — the fuel’s ability to protect fuel injection system components from wear. ASTM D975 (current standard) Requires a maximum wear scar diameter of 520 micrometers at 60 °C using the HFRR (High-Frequency Reciprocating Rig) test method (ASTM D6079) solvent-systems.com. This is the baseline specification for all diesel fuels, including ULSD. Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) recommendation Based on testing, ULSD fuels have been found to meet ASTM D975 but injection equipment manufacturers have recommended a stricter limit of 460 micrometers for wear scar diameter solvent-systems.com. EMA supports adopting this 460 µm limit as a minimum for ULSD to improve engine performance and longevity. Why the stricter limit matters Lower sulfur fuels (ULSD) are more prone to reduced natural lubricity because desulfurization processes remove some of the natural lubricating compounds Fuel Oil News+1. A smaller wear scar diameter means less metal-to-metal contact in fuel pumps and injectors, reducing wear, improving starting, and lowering emissions solvent-systems.com+1. Regulatory context In the U.S., ULSD must have ≤ 15 ppm sulfur and meet cetane or aromatic content requirements (§ 1090.305) eCFR. Lubricity is not a direct regulated number in the CFR, but EMA’s recommendation is widely adopted by refiners and distributors to ensure compatibility with modern injection systems. Practical takeaway ASTM D975: 520 µm max wear scar (current legal minimum). EMA recommendation: 460 µm max wear scar (best practice for ULSD). If you are sourcing or testing ULSD, aim for the 460 µm standard to match modern engine requirements, especially in high-performance or long-life applications. Clean fuel delivery (filter ≤ 5 µm at dispensing) is also important to maintain lubricity and prevent contamination solvent-sys Read lesssolvent-systems.comNorth American Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel PropertiesShow All Global web iconsolvent-systems.comhttps://solvent-systems.com › pdf › EMARecommendFuelProperties.pdf[PDF]North American Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Propertiesrformance requirements: Cetane. Using ASTM D 613, ULSD fuel should ha. a minimum cetane number of 43. Although … Global web icontruckandenginemanufacturers.orghttps://www.truckandenginemanufacturers.org › file.asp[PDF]EMADOCS-#6160-v9-ULSD_Fuel_Properties-_2004.…Aug 18, 2005 · Based on testing conducted on ULSD fuels, however, fuel injection equipment manufacturers have required … Missing: fuel scarMust include: fuel scarGlobal web iconPetro Starhttps://petrostar.com › wp-content › uploads[PDF]Product Specification SheetNote: *Lubricity injected at point of sale **Fuel loading does not exceed conditions of D396 Table 5. No conductivity … Missing: fuel scarMust include: fuel scarGlobal web iconU.S. Environmental …https://www.epa.gov › diesel-fuel-standards › diesel-fuel-standardsDiesel Fuel Standards and Rulemakings - US EPA

 

While the numbers of failed CP4s are more than likely low compared to the total number of trucks sold, it can and does happen... I like to be prepared. I have a S&S Gen 2 (Parker SNAPP filter) DPK on my truck...



Link to the EMA ULSD fact sheet below 👎