PDA

View Full Version : How big is a particle of worn Sprinter engine?


jdcaples
05-20-2007, 07:14 PM
I've been thinking a lot about by-pass oil filters since Suba posted about his project.

I might install one in my current vehicle and - when it arrives - install one on my Sprinter.

I am curious about something and I can't find an answer.

One of the premises of bypass oil filter cheerleading is that engine oil analysis quantifies the metal in tested samples of engine oil and then a conclusion is drawn.

What conclusion?
If the quantities of metal in the oil are less than "average," the conclusion is: the engine is wearing out less than average.

My question:

OK, so the lab is looking for metal in the oil.

Is it always true that 100% of sloughed off engine metal will pass through Suba's toilet paper?

Or might some (much? most?) of shed metal be trapped in the filter and uncounted by the lab technician; because the toilet paper was happily discarded with additional evidence of engine wear?


-Jon

PS: the oil pressure sending unit on the v6 is on the exterior of the vehicle, unlike the inline 5 cylinder. I'm thinking I'll use a T-adapter and an oriffice restrictor to bleed off a small amount of oil into the bypass filter, and dump it back through a pierced oil fill tube cap.

gerrym51
05-20-2007, 10:09 PM
Jon,

i read your post but i'm afraid i don't understand. what is the actual
end goal of this filters usage? what does it accomplish?



gerry

codermotor
05-20-2007, 10:24 PM
I am not familiar with the point of the toilet paper oil filter in this case either, but I tend to think using such a filter in any engine is a recipe for disaster.

There was such a filter commercially available years ago: Frantz, I think was the name. It was basically a standard oil filter, sans filter element. It had an "Additive" disc within the filter can. You put a roll of toilet paper into the can and attach the can as you would any standard oil filter. When the additive disc was used up (dissolved), you replaced it and the toilet paper. The company made their money selling the initial filter can, along with replacement additive discs.

In theory it was a good idea. In practice, it had the opposite affect: Eventually small oil passages got clogged by disintegrated toilet paper. The heat, pressures, and flow rates through the filter destroyed the filter element (the toilet paper) in no time. Instead of protecting the engine, it starved it of oil in the most critical places, thus leading to bearing failure.

Lots of complaints, lawsuits, and after a short time the product was pulled off the market. It was just a really dumb idea. No way I'd risk the health of my engine with such quackery.

jdcaples
05-20-2007, 10:53 PM
Jon,

i read your post but i'm afraid i don't understand. what is the actual
end goal of this filters usage? what does it accomplish?



gerry

In general, by pass filters are low-flow, high-density filteres that yank out particles that
1) can't be caught by a full-flow filter and
2) abrade the moving parts of an engine's innards

The overall goal is to increase the time between oil drains by decontaminating the oil. That notion is based on the theory is that contamination reduces oil's ability to lubricate more than anything else.

I'm not trying to argue these points, or address the quarkery position.

I want to know if the filter is holding on to material, metal evidence pertinent to decision criteria of determining engine wear.

How big is a chunk of worn metal? If it's larger than .5 or .2 microns, how do we know important metal evidence is not present in the tested oil sample because the cellulose media caught most of those particles?

-Jon

Suba
05-21-2007, 12:40 AM
s In theory it was a good idea. In practice, it had the opposite affect: Eventually small oil passages got clogged by disintegrated toilet paper. The heat, pressures, and flow rates through the filter destroyed the filter element (the toilet paper) in no time. Instead of protecting the engine, it starved it of oil in the most critical places, thus leading to bearing failure. Lots of complaints, lawsuits, and after a short time the product was pulled off the market. It was just a really dumb idea. No way I'd risk the health of my engine with such quackery. I think you need to back up your statements with facts. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are also giving out misinformation. Where are your facts ? Please enlighten me.

Altered Sprinter
05-21-2007, 12:53 AM
Trust you guys to bring up something I like whoring at , but today is a busy day:smilewink:
Fact if manufactures used a double oil pumps same as racing engines you would have better circulation of oils going through the engine.
2007 and an oil filter is still standardized at between 28 to 40 microns, the particles can be seen up to 2.5 in a micron Laval however after that the naked eye can not see them they are very sharp and abrasive, hard as zircon equal to the hardness of a diamond.
equally fuel has the same damaging results that wears down and destroys the dry cell sections of an engine such as valves injectors etc
Richard
Aromatic Amino Hydrocarbons
1900

Suba
05-21-2007, 01:00 AM
nnI want to know if the filter is holding on to material, metal evidence pertinent to decision criteria of determining engine wear.nn I understand your question. I feel it's a valid yet misguided question. From what I understand an oil filter may typically filter our particles down to 20 microns. Toilet paper will filter to 1 micron or less. nnnThe particle size which I believe are most damaging to an engine are between 4 and 8 microns. These are the particles which are small enough to get into the bearings and critical locations, yet they are large enough to do damage from abrasive action.Particles smaller than 4 microns will typically pass harmlessly throught the bearing journals.nnnThe question of how does one know what wear metals are being removed if they are caught in toilet paper is interesting. I don't have that answer. It makes perfect sense to me that if you keep the oil free of most particles larger than 1 or 2 microns you will have much less metal being removed from your engine through abrasive action.nnbtw, toilet paper DOES NOT disintegrate in oil. On the contrary, it become stronger. You can determine this for yourself. Place a roll of Scott's 1000 Toilet paper in a container of oil. As they say~the proof is in the pudding.

gerrym51
05-21-2007, 01:00 AM
Sigh!

more esoteric subjects i have no clue about.

gerry

jdcaples
05-21-2007, 01:03 AM
...
the particles can be seen up to 2.5 in a micron Laval however after that the naked eye can not see them they are very sharp and abrasive, hard as zircon equal to the hardness of a diamond.
equally fuel has the same damaging results that wears down and destroys the dry cell sections of an engine such as valves injectors etc
Richard
Aromatic Amino Hydrocarbons
1900

2.5 microns.... ok, so Suba's toilet paper might be catching would-be evidence of wear, obviating the idea that the oil sample knows and tells all about engine wear.

I think the oil analysis' value to me just diminished.

I am content with the notion that more filtration is better. Actually, I believe I'm in love with it and will propose marriage with cubic zirconium in hand this evening.

Seriously, I think I'll skip the oil analysis exercise unless the lab wants to take my used toilet paper and include its contents in the analysis.

Not seriously, come to think of it, who would want to look at used toilet paper outside of the CDC or USAMRID?

Thanks, Richard!

-Jon

Suba
05-21-2007, 01:46 AM
Jon The value of a UOA ~ used oil analysis with a t.p. by pass IMO is to determine what level of the add package is still healthy ~ or conversely how much of the add pack has been depleted. This will tell you how long you can extend your drain interval, or when you should replenish additives. TBN is a good indicator of the relative health of the oil. Typically most guys change their single Frantz t.p. between three and four thousand miles. They just replenish the oil which remained in the t.p and their good to go. Some call it a perpetual sump. They actually never change the oil, only changing t paper and topping up. In my Frantz 3 stacker, I intend to change t paper every 12 to 15 thousand and add new oil till full.

jdcaples
05-21-2007, 01:57 AM
Jon

The value of a UOA ~ used oil analysis with a t.p. by pass IMO is to determine what level of the add package is still healthy ~ or conversely how much of the add pack has been depleted. This will tell you how long you can extend your drain interval. TBN is a good indicator of the relative health of the oil.


Thanks Suba. I understood that part and I appreciate the confirmation.

My focus isn't on extending my oil drains.

My priorities are filtration, filtration, filtration and minimizing engine wear. If the metric for engine wear remains in the cellulose, that metric is lost to me. I'm ok with that.

The environmentally unfriendly truth is that I'll probably still change my oil more often than academically, or analytically necessary.

The bypass filter is a means employing a superior method to collect and sequester soot and other contaminants. That makes me feel good and that alone is worth it me.

Thanks again, man.

-Jon

PS: any soot that I can capture in a bypass oil filter can't be in the DPF. If that's the case, it's another feel-good win.

tegimr
05-21-2007, 02:22 AM
I've been thinking a lot about by-pass oil filters since Suba posted about his project.

One of the premises of bypass oil filter cheerleading is that engine oil analysis quantifies the metal in tested samples of engine oil and then a conclusion is drawn.

What conclusion?
If the quantities of metal in the oil are less than "average," the conclusion is: the engine is wearing out less than average.

My question:

OK, so the lab is looking for metal in the oil.

Or might some (much? most?) of shed metal be trapped in the filter and uncounted by the lab technician; because the toilet paper was happily discarded with additional evidence of engine wear?


-Jon


Jon - I believe the point is that the amount of metal particles is that they are not transversing the engine, thus causing less wear. My Dad has been a Frantz fan for longer than I've been alive and he's pleased with the results he's experienced. In any case, you'd need at least 2 engines tested and built by the same person/team and driven the same places . . . to have objective scientific testing.

I am not familiar with the point of the toilet paper oil filter in this case either, but I tend to think using such a filter in any engine is a recipe for disaster.

There was such a filter commercially available years ago: Frantz, I think was the name. It was basically a standard oil filter, sans filter element. It had an "Additive" disc within the filter can. You put a roll of toilet paper into the can and attach the can as you would any standard oil filter. When the additive disc was used up (dissolved), you replaced it and the toilet paper. The company made their money selling the initial filter can, along with replacement additive discs.

In theory it was a good idea. In practice, it had the opposite affect: Eventually small oil passages got clogged by disintegrated toilet paper. The heat, pressures, and flow rates through the filter destroyed the filter element (the toilet paper) in no time. Instead of protecting the engine, it starved it of oil in the most critical places, thus leading to bearing failure.

Lots of complaints, lawsuits, and after a short time the product was pulled off the market. It was just a really dumb idea. No way I'd risk the health of my engine with such quackery.

I'm not familiar with the Frantz filter that is described here. Dad's Frantz on the '64 Valiant is nearly identical to the ones sold today.

To answer a few questions:
"Eventually small oil passages got clogged by disintegrated toilet paper. " Dad's '64 engine was still clean at nearly 300,000 miles, but the Michigan road salts claimed the body . . . . However, the Frantz owners manual specifies WHAT KIND of toilet paper was to be used . . . I remember warnings from FRANZ NOT to use the perfumed, 'extra soft', etc. toilet papers as perfumed (powdered, etc.) would introduce unsuitable chemicals to the engine, and that the 'extra soft' type were not wrapped tight enough and would disintegrate.

"it starved it of oil in the most critical places, thus leading to bearing failure." Installed correctly, this is a bypass filter. Some oil is taken from the oil pressure (like from the pressure sender) and after filtering is put into the oil pan, or like listed here, in the oil cap. Pressure side oil flow is not impacted when installed that way.

NOW, to be certain, there were a few accessories offered by Frantz that are, well, less than desirable IMHO. They offered an attachment that replaced the oil-filter and has a bypass valve, forcing the majority of flow back into the engine, albeit unfiltered. My opinion not excepted, Dad had this on his '64 and still had pretty good results. I'd never install this way, and don't actually know how they install today.

If I weren't so busy with other things I'd have one installed on my 2003 Sprinter by now, but I don't view it as a necessary thing, just an additional safegaurd. Regular preventative maintenance still is more important than 1000 miracle fixes.

Anyway, judge for yourself - http://www.wefilterit.com/ << the company that sells Frantz filters. And it would be interesting to read the facts as to whether Frantz ever was forced from business due to lawsuits.

Regards -

Tim

Suba
05-21-2007, 02:32 AM
Yes, I'm glad you brought up soot. Soot is the main cause of engine wear in a diesel. Soot is highly abrasive. It's all about minimizing soot. I just changed my 3 rolls of t paper in my by pass. The t paper was black, yet my oil is very light in color. No question in my mind that a t paper by pass, or any decent by pass ( amsoil spin ons ) are far better at filtering soot than the stock engine filter.

gerrym51
05-21-2007, 03:10 AM
Soot and the DPF. at least that i understand


gerry

jdcaples
05-21-2007, 03:37 AM
Soot and the DPF. at least that i understand
gerry

Gerry,

Are you familiar with the field of nephrology?

I just thought of an analogy. Think of a factory oil filter as an impaired kidney. It performs some filtration, but not enough to keep the body healthy. Hemodialysis is a bypass filter. It doesn't filter all the blood in line with the renal organs, it filters venus blood outside the body and dumps somewhat purified blood it back in to the system. This prolongs life. So it is with oil and engines.

I thought I remember you being a pharmacist - and as such perhaps, professionally familiar with nephrology or dialysis - but I could be off. If I'm off, perhaps this will help:

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/by-pass_oil_filtration.html

-Jon

Altered Sprinter
05-21-2007, 07:05 AM
Make My Day
Ok I'm having an off day, but can't keep quite until I add my little bit of useless information.
Christi" crossing between micro thoughts to each other thoughts of opinion and differences, to others indifferences of option , thats double Dutch.:laughing:
The filter is part of keeping an engine to keep it clean, irrespective of what ever the micron rating is.'A major weak point in a modern engine today'.
Fact is they have not changed much in forty years, unless you have an effective oil bath! and they went out even, before I was born.
Why are filters still the same today. as yesterday's! with the advancement of new alloy engines:idunno:
Fact is there are no mandatory requirements in place to up the anti, same as oil's
How many times have I seen in this forum alone I can get my 5/40 for 5 bucks ,at the local Wally store.
Human nature dictates via advertising as to a product you buy , Price versus quality.
sales on common oils well branded such as Mobil one for example, out sell 9 to one a better quality synthetic oil ... say Mobil one synthetics low ash magic formula oils!!!!!! for example
Oils ain't Oils and nether are the filters.
Thinking of a 64 Valiant slant six! Gas low temp, built of Cast iron block with the same head, and chromium metal plated bore, with the best of white metal on the bearings, that did burn out frequently at high operating speeds, still one hell of an engine.:rad:
Color Me Gone 64 Dodge! Race em' on a Sunday sell em' on a Monday

A modern diesel engine has many moving parts, and reaches hellish temperatures well above a gas engine, you have to think and look at the logic of both Fuel and oils as both end up getting mixed up in the oil that continuously change the chemical composition of the oil.
Low ash synthetics oils are designed to keep particles suspended within the oil, older formulation do not as they settle in the sump as oil sludge.
we are not looking at one singular element such as soot carbons, but heavy metals already in the oil, sold at price! or maybe a lesser refined product as opposed to specifications, water , carbon fatty amino acids, salts and Crystallization change the formula of oil during cold start to high temp lubricity of a the oil only becomes effective once the engine hits it's peak operating temperatures. so wear and tear is evident at short runs and cold starts.
Carbon particles are similar to a kidney , when inside of an operating engine, it has an alien life of its own, constantly changing expanding and contracting molding with other particles to form a hardened sharp surface, that is hell bent on scouring and eating the engine!'until it has a metallic breakdown'.
Sulfuric acids are part of the engine oil they have a marriage of solidarity.
with their prime objective,to seek and destroy.
Look at the outside of your van!:eek: and you will notice on the front wheels a combination brake dust, and heavy black spots. not many but they are there, look at the doors and under the front door skins, including the side door! There is a presence of soot, it's not brake dust, this soot escapes from the crankcase oil breather , the heavy black ink spots are the larger particles of carbon particularization, evidence of active mischief makers playing havoc inside of the engine.
solution high quality oils and upper cylinder lubricants to help contain and preserve your Diesel engine, I don't give a rats tail. what the manufacture says. fact is the oil is not premium quality. and neither is the Fuel.
a Filter in any format will eventually degrade. so I'm not against higher or more effective filtration methods, in fact I'm not surprised! but very curious as why manufactures have not improved on inefficient oil pumps or filters, but that's just another story for another day.
Richard
1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

gerrym51
05-21-2007, 02:00 PM
Jon and Richard,

thanks for the info


gerry

gerrym51
05-21-2007, 02:03 PM
Suba,

how often do you have to replace the three rolls of toilet paper.( i
can't believe i just asked that! TP-who knew).


gerry

Suba
05-21-2007, 05:37 PM
I will change my t paper every 12, 000 to 15,000 miles although I have heard the 3 stacker can go for much longer intervals. T paper becomes very strong when in oil. The problem with leaving t paper in too long are twofold. 1) The paper may not filter as well due to over use 2) T paper will start to decompose if left in the filter for insanely long periods of time. You would not want to put a roll of t paper in your filter and forget it's there. Everything has a finite life.

codermotor
05-21-2007, 10:32 PM
I think you need to back up your statements with facts. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. You are also giving out misinformation.

Where are your facts ? Please enlighten me.

Well, I am just going on my own memory from over forty years ago when I first heard of it. I was going to use one on my own cars then, when there were news reports/magazine articles/rumors that it was a hoax and people were unhappy. Then the product disappeared from auto parts store shelves - at least in this area.

I thought the whole idea had gone away, but obviously, it hasn't.

tegimr
03-23-2009, 11:16 PM
I've been thinking a lot about by-pass oil filters since Suba posted about his project.

. . .
My question:

OK, so the lab is looking for metal in the oil.

Is it always true that 100% of sloughed off engine metal will pass through Suba's toilet paper?

Or might some (much? most?) of shed metal be trapped in the filter and uncounted by the lab technician; because the toilet paper was happily discarded with additional evidence of engine wear?


-Jon

PS: the oil pressure sending unit on the v6 is on the exterior of the vehicle, unlike the inline 5 cylinder. I'm thinking I'll use a T-adapter and an oriffice restrictor to bleed off a small amount of oil into the bypass filter, and dump it back through a pierced oil fill tube cap.

What an excellent question that never was simply answered in the thread!

I believe it to be correct that the report is skewed, but would like to know if someone can ID what size the sloughed bearing materials would be.

My bypass is to keep the oil cleaner, and to extend oil change intervals. Let me get over 500K on it and we'll have some more definitive answers as to it's benefit. :)

But, back to the subject, does anyone know an answer to Jon's question?

Regards, Tim

rlent
03-24-2009, 01:08 AM
Yes - I actually answered it (well ...... sorta :idunno:) in another thread here, in as much as it is possible to do so:

http://sprinter-source.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44805&postcount=27

Info on Blackstone Laboratory's website indicates that a bypass filter will capture at least some of the wear metal particles, as well as other contaminates (soot, dirt, etc.) As far as ID'ing their size, I would suspect that like other contaminates, the sizes would vary - that fact is fairly evident, in that some wear metals are always present in a used oil analysis (UOA)

To know for certain what size the wear metal particles are, one would have to do a particle count by size (which can be done by most labs) - but then one must be able to differentiate amongst the various sized particles, as to what they were made of (soot, iron, lead, copper, etc.) - as far as I know (which might not be all that far) doing the latter is probably not available on a commercial basis, at least not at any price most normal individuals would consider economical.

The value of oil analysis, in my humble opinion, is not to provide an absolute measurement of wear metals in the oil any given time - indeed, I have been told by someone who ran their own fleet of Class 8 vehicles and consulted with the major oil companies (Exxon-Mobil, Shell, etc.) and professional organizations (ASTM) in the development of lubricants and related standards, that single UOA's are of very, very limited value. A single UOA can show you whether you have water or coolant in your oil, or fuel dilution ...... situations that would certainly require remedial action - but I'm not sure that I would want to draw any major conclusions about the condition of the engine based on the presence of wear metals in whatever concentrations based only on a single UOA.

Rather, trending wear metal measurements, via multiple UOA's over time, will provide a much more realistic picture of whether the lube oil is getting more contaminated, and less functional as a lubricant, allowing more wear to occur and one develops an understanding of how your particular engine is constructed and wears.

As an example of the above concept, consider this scenario:

One runs a lube oil for 10K and then does a UOA which shows a concentration level of 10 ppm of Fe (iron) One then runs another 10K miles on the same oil, resamples and has the oil analyzed again ..... the analysis now shows the Fe concentration at 40 ppm ....

It would seem in the above example that more wear was occurring in the second 10K miles than the first 10K.

I dunno if any of this really answers the question you, or Jon, posed .... but hopefully it is of some value.

BTW, what type of bypass filter rig are you running ?

tegimr
03-24-2009, 06:12 AM
Yes - I actually answered it (well ...... sorta :idunno:) in another thread here, in as much as it is possible to do so:

http://sprinter-source.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44805&postcount=27

. . .
As an example of the above concept, consider this scenario:

One runs a lube oil for 10K and then does a UOA which shows a concentration level of 10 ppm of Fe (iron) One then runs another 10K miles on the same oil, resamples and has the oil analyzed again ..... the analysis now shows the Fe concentration at 40 ppm ....

It would seem in the above example that more wear was occurring in the second 10K miles than the first 10K.

I dunno if any of this really answers the question you, or Jon, posed .... but hopefully it is of some value.

BTW, what type of bypass filter rig are you running ?

I saw the posts after posting in this thread; however, as illustrated in your example, I'm hoping that the bypass will continue to filter out the 30 ppm. I do understand that trending is the long-term, and am completely sold on the idea of bypass filters with extremely fine filtering . . . if for nothing else, those just keeping the engine clean longer. BUT - if it's working correctly, then will I expect to see an increase in particles? My hope is both ways. I hope to see a warning sign, but I'd prefer to know that the filter keeps them out. :thinking:

Regarding the 'skewed' reports, the major skewing to be cautious about is comparing one's vehicle to another without the same granular filteration. What is NOT skewed about reports is the acutal condition of the oil, and in that, the oil analysis is still an important bit of knowledge.

I'm not a maintenance freak, but am becoming one. Regular oil changes and moderate driving seem to work well for extending the life of any vehicle. While my goals for mileage are not as long as yours (rlent), I'd like to sell it running when we don't need a vehicle that size for the family. On the other hand, we can turn it into a traveling vehicle and visit the kids, eat their food, leave their lights on, . . . but I digress.

Cheers to all.

Tim
(PS, the question asked is a 'theoritical' question, and food for thought. I will not take my Frantz off just because the readings are might be skewed.)

Altered Sprinter
03-24-2009, 07:21 AM
Volvo java break avatar:eek:
Have a sprinter one:D:
richard

rlent
03-25-2009, 01:57 AM
I saw the posts after posting in this thread; however, as illustrated in your example, I'm hoping that the bypass will continue to filter out the 30 ppm.
Tim,

The bypass will continue to filter particles that it is capable of filtering - it will be more efficient at filtering certain sizes of particles than others. While a TP bypass filter is capable of filtering down to as little as a 1/10 of a micron, it will be be much more effective with larger particle sizes. Most wear is caused by particles of a much larger size anyways (in the 5 to 20 micron range) - TP is probably pretty effective at getting most of the particles down to 2 to 3 microns.

As any filter loads it should in theory become more effective at filtering - barring any other factors. In the case of depth filtration (ie. TP filters such as the Frantz, or the Motor Guard which I use) one of those factors might be "channeling", where the element develops channels within the media allowing stuff to flow through without being caught (maybe a good case for changing the filter element reasonably often)

I do understand that trending is the long-term, and am completely sold on the idea of bypass filters with extremely fine filtering . . . if for nothing else, those just keeping the engine clean longer.
Yup - that was initially my only motivation for doing so ..... until I started learning a little more about extended oil drain intervals and then I got bitten by that bug. :wtf:

As far as trending goes, I can see a couple of scenarios:

One would be what I am doing currently, in order to estabilish a maximum oil change interval - I ran until 15K miles on my current OC and pulled a sample and sent it in to see what the oil looked like - it looked good and they told me to run it for another 10K, which I did. Sample was then pulled at 25K miles showed the oil to be a good condition, and I was given the go ahead to run for another 10K, which I then did.

Next sample was pulled at 36K miles and still showed the oil to be in good condition, and that I could run another 10K - that's where I'm at now - roughly 6K miles into that 10K (coming up to 45K miles on the oil) At each of these analyses, the oil condition showed good - but over time the accumulated wear metals have trended up - which is reasonably to be expected. My most recent UOA can be seen at the link below, and the analysis dated 12/10/08 was the first one done on my current oil change - the two subsequent analyses provide a good illustration on how wear metals trend up as mileage on the oil increases:

Current Oil Analysis (http://sprinter-source.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45278&postcount=161)

The other scenario I could see, if one were not interested in extending as far as I am doing, would be to pick an arbitrary mileage at which to change the oil on an ongoing basis - say every 15K, 20K, or 25K miles - and do that every time, and then pull a sample for analysis when you go to change the oil. I would however try to stick with the same oil and not go switching brands and weights as some are prone to do. This would provide wear metal trending over the life of the motor - and it wouldn't even really be necessary to do it at every OC.

BUT - if it's working correctly, then will I expect to see an increase in particles?
On an extended oil drain interval, with increasing miles on the oil, and comparing one UOA done at 10K miles with one done at 20K miles ? ..... probably likely .... since the wear metal particles which the filter is incapable of capturing will accumulate - but that is completely normal - as the oil is run longer, the smaller particles that the bypass can't catch will accumulate - but no need for concern really - within reason, it's normal.

Of course, to some extent, the degree of wear metal accumulation maybe influenced by how often you change the element in your Frantz and much makeup oil you are adding with filter changes .....

My hope is both ways. I hope to see a warning sign, but I'd prefer to know that the filter keeps them out.
The filter will not remove all wear metals - ain't gonna happen. It will remove most of the larger particles which cause wear. As far as warning signs, yes - a UOA will provide that but you have to know how to read one - and you must have other data points with which to compare a single data point. A single datum, in isolation has almost little to no value - because one has nothing to judge it against. For instance, a single UOA might show that your oil has a level of 100 ppm of Fe ...... but what would that mean ?

Hard to say without additional data - it could mean a number of things - but without additional data one is shooting in the dark.

Regarding the 'skewed' reports, the major skewing to be cautious about is comparing one's vehicle to another without the same granular filteration.
That would be one concern, yes. Another would be comparing two analyses from two different labs - all labs have a degree of inaccuracy within their testing results - which will vary from lab to lab - according to the particular testing methods, equipment, and practices that they use.

IOW, the results are not absolute (in terms of accuracy) Generally speaking, what is consistent is the degree of inaccuracy for any given lab - so that their results, while not absolutely accurate, are consistently, and predictably, inaccurate - within a very close tolerance. The focus is on repeatability of results, as opposed to absolute accuracy.

As an example of how this would be in the real world, let's say you give three different labs identical oil samples to test - Lab A says the Fe is 15 ppm, Lab B says it is 11 ppm, and Lab C says it is 19 ppm. The variation between the labs is largely irrelevant at this point - each one may well be incorrect in the amount that they are reporting, in terms of the actual amount of Fe that is present in the oil.

Now let's say that you give more of the same sample to all three labs to retest - Lab A now says the Fe is 14 ppm, Lab B says it is 13 ppm, and Lab C says it is 17 ppm. Each lab would be relatively consistent - within it's own range of error.

If any one of them reported a wide variation from the first results that they reported - say something like 30 ppm more (just making up a number here) .... well, that would call into question their equipment or practices, and you might want to look for a different lab :D:

What is NOT skewed about reports is the acutal condition of the oil, and in that, the oil analysis is still an important bit of knowledge.
Absolutely !

I'm not a maintenance freak, but am becoming one.
Excellent ..... :thumbup:

Regular oil changes and moderate driving seem to work well for extending the life of any vehicle.
Indeed, it is so.

While my goals for mileage are not as long as yours (rlent), I'd like to sell it running when we don't need a vehicle that size for the family.
Certainly a worthwhile goal to be sure. :thumbup:

On the other hand, we can turn it into a traveling vehicle and visit the kids, eat their food, leave their lights on, . . . but I digress.
There ya go !!!

PS, the question asked is a 'theoritical' question, and food for thought.
Well, hopefully some of my ramblings above will provide further food for thought ...... :smilewink:

I will not take my Frantz off just because the readings are might be skewed.
That's good - because you would be doing yourself and your vehicle a disservice if you did.

tegimr
03-30-2009, 06:58 PM
Volvo java break avatar:eek:
Have a sprinter one:D:
richard

Richard - sorry, I thought that it was really cool (I think I copied it from your post :bash:), and my 2003 requires a manual java rejuvination reminder. My DW functions well in this role, but her pic as a avitar would seem a bit out of place.

Perhaps in your shop, you could design a cool one!

BTW - I searched MB site first, and wished they had a similar pic. I'd use it.


Regards,

Tim

tegimr
03-30-2009, 11:18 PM
Tim,

The bypass will continue to filter particles that it is capable of filtering - it will be more efficient at filtering certain sizes of particles than others. While a TP bypass filter is capable of filtering down to as little as a 1/10 of a micron, it will be be much more effective with larger particle sizes. Most wear is caused by particles of a much larger size anyways (in the 5 to 20 micron range) - TP is probably pretty effective at getting most of the particles down to 2 to 3 microns.
. . . .

[I'd not take my FRANTZ off . . . ]
That's good - because you would be doing yourself and your vehicle a disservice if you did.

Yup - I can see the cleaner oil, without an analysis, so any fright about HOW accurate the analysis is irrelevant.

Wondering why, on your last two intervals, you added so much oil? are you burning, leaking, or changing your filter more often?

Tim

rlent
03-31-2009, 03:08 AM
Wondering why, on your last two intervals, you added so much oil? are you burning, leaking, or changing your filter more often?
The amount of oil added is cumulative .... since the last change - IOW, the 6.75 quarts includes the previous 5.25 quarts, which itself includes the 3 quarts reported prior to that.

So, over the period of 36,572 miles that the current oil has been run, only a total of 6.75 quarts has been added - and if I changed the filter religiously every 3K miles (something that doesn't always happen, although I do try to be consistent), roughly 4 to 6 quarts of that oil could potentially be attributed to "make up" necessary to replenish what is lost when the element is changed.

Actually, my oil use has decreased over life of this OC .... 3 quarts over the first 15,707 miles, an additional 2.25 quarts over the next 9,269 miles, and finally 1.5 quarts over the last 11,596 miles.