FoolhardyIDI
Full Access Member
Yes I am very interested in why. I like to have as much knowledge on my side as possible.
FS-2500 bypass filter system
- Thread starter FoolhardyIDI
- Start date
idiabuse
Full Access Member
Ok then find out on your own and do not share your results here because that would be way too offensive
bbjordan
Snow Monkey
Has anyone tried the Dieselcraft OC-25 centrifuge? It's more expensive than the FS2500, but it's a centrifuge!
http://www.dieselcraft.com/engine-oil-cleaning.php#.VMU-V_GKDFA
http://www.dieselcraft.com/engine-oil-cleaning.php#.VMU-V_GKDFA
PwrSmoke
Full Access Member
If you are going to run a high efficiency premium oil filter on a short interval, it's the same waste of money on a smaller scale. Keeping the oil cleaner results in longer lasting oil. There are too many variables to make a broad statement as to how much longer, you would determine that by oil analysis, but since most people are dumping good oil at 5K anyway, a higher efficiency filter would probably result in them dumping even better oil (or have the ability to run longer). If you went with a synthetic media filter, which is good, you will increase the capacity a LOT. Contaminant capacity (measured in grams) is a spec that's hard to get, but in the cases where I have been able to compare a cellulose media with a synthetic fiber media, each of similar filter size, the syn media has about 40% more capacity, meaning you can run it lots longer (especially considering that most filters are loaded to under 50% when changed). What that means to me is, if you have to change the oil, do so, but leave the filter in place for at least 2 intervals, if not more. Remember filter efficiency improves as it loads up.
The specs I have for the Wix 51734XL are a Beta Ratio of 4/75=10/30, which is 75% efficiency at 10 microns and 98.7% at 30 microns on a multi pass test, which is right off the Wix website. It's a synthetic media filter, which is good, but the efficiency isn't all that great. It has a nominal rating of 10 um, which by standard spec is the smallest particle the filter can catch 50% of on the first pass. The Wix 51734 cellulose filter (both of these are the Powerstroke filter) was rated at 2/20=10/30 (50% @ 10 um/95% @ 30 up) with a nominal rating of 19 um. The six FL784 equiv, 51742, is rated at 2/20-24/44 (50% @ 20 um/95% @ 44 um) nominal at 25 um (let's hope the actual MC FL784 is better!)
The Fram XG3786, which is also a syn media filter, is listed as being 98.7% @ 20 um tested under ISO 4548-12 (the ISO standard multi pass test the industry is standardizing to).
whiteboslo posted a new data sheet that listed the FL1995 at "98% @ 18 um" but doesn't give the test methodology. On the face of it, that's very good but the devils can be in the details if you don't know the test methodology. Never seen info on the MC FL784.
At 3000 miles, I had a particle count done on the oil in my truck, which was 3000 miles after the overhaul. Truck has a 3 um Racor bypass system on it. The ISO test was 20/17/13 (8022 particle >4um, 1250 particles > 6 um and 70.8 particles >14 um. You might be interested to hear that the ****** oil I installed was also tested at the same time and the particle count ISO code was 20/19/16 (6858 >4 um/2935 >6 um/477.5 >14 um). Both tests were run at the same time, of the same oil batch (one used one not) and on the same optical particle counter machine. As you can see, the ****** oil had a much higher concentration of small particles than the used oil... which I will repeat was 3K AFTER a complete teardown and overhaul. The oil actually got CLEANER by running in the truck, despite it breaking in. I plan at least an 8K, 5 year run on this oil.
Last edited:
idiabuse
Full Access Member
You actually found information on WIX XE line? Holy smokes!
When I searched I actually spent some time researching catalogs/on-line I found absolutely nothing!
I simply want to share the performance data and never found the source!
I am amazed you found it!
!I am seriously excited you did a particle sample!
! really! The ****** oil was dirtier than the used oil! 
Like I have been saying all along the quality and cleansing of new lube is not even up to par, even more important to use quality filters.
When your engine has to grind up a dirt particle that happens to be 40 micron in size that will cause friction and create many smaller pieces of dirt.
Like stepping on a bag of Doritos, you have MORE chips now!
I see that you are plenty AWAKE and on the right path! SMOKE ON!
idiabuse
Full Access Member
That is because it SUCKS!
direwulf23
Full Access Member
Where can one get their oil tested?
Also, you're saying if i planned on keeping the truck another 10 + years and do testing, which I do, I would benefit quite a bit from an oil bypass system?
Also, you're saying if i planned on keeping the truck another 10 + years and do testing, which I do, I would benefit quite a bit from an oil bypass system?
idiabuse
Full Access Member
do you have a Kelly Tractor in your town? they all have oil analysis labs. Just dont ask them any advice, just get the report and post it up in a new thread.
direwulf23
Full Access Member
No. As far as I'm aware there's nothing like that. It's a terribly small town.
There's tractor dealers and big truck dealers around. Do they generally do oil analysis?
There's tractor dealers and big truck dealers around. Do they generally do oil analysis?
CDX825
filtration nut
idiabuse
Full Access Member
Blackstone is not an option in my opinion.
Polarislabs is a top notch facility.
Polarislabs is a top notch facility.
PwrSmoke
Full Access Member
I think Blackstone does an acceptable job and they make it very user friendly to do oil analysis. The worst part in my opinion are the comments, which are too "folksy" (just the fact m'am for me). Polaris uses higher grade equipment, reputedly, but their service requires more ability from the end user to interpret. With all the labs, they use statistical analysis to tell you what is "normal" vs "abnormal" and their statistics are based on many thousands of reports and information from OE manufacturers, as well as lubricant blenders. Each company seems to have a slightly different take on it and each company uses different types and grades of equipment and have different calibration methodologies. The most important aspect of the choice for the truck owner is to pick a lab and stick with it. If you do have to compare tests from different labs, place a lower level of confidence in whatever conclusion is reached.. unless it is super-apparent. Coupla years ago, I sent oil samples to three labs from the same source. Took one big sample, shook it up and divided it into three sample bottles. The results were disappointingly dissimilar but not grossly so. Who was most accurate? Who knows.. I certainly have no way to judge that. In the broad strokes, they were "close enough" but it convinced me that if I need precision, I will stick with one lab for comparison purposes.
There are a few things to keep in mind about oil analysis:
1) It's best considered an oil health analysis versus an engine health analysis unless you do trending (read on). Engine failures usually occur quite rapidly, so unless your oil analysis happens to come at the time when the problem starts or is ongoing, you haven't learned too much. The engine could fail, or begin to fail, 2K miles after you do the analysis and you'd never see a sign.
2) Oil analysis is a snapshot of a particular moment in time for both the engine and the oil. In theory, the universal averages the labs use are the arbiter of good or bad, as far as wear metals go, but each engine has a particular trademark sample. First time people often freak if their engine is at the higher end of the normal range. I remember a guy who actually tore an engine down based on a relatively high wear metal number and found NADA. Some engines in some situations throw out a little more metal... it's normal for THEM. Again, you can't really know anything until you have a few samples under your belt to see what "normal" is for your engine. Just don't get too excited (at both ends of the spectrum) until you have seen a minimum of 5 UOAs.
3) The only way to use oil analysis for engine health monitoring is by constant (and ultimately expensive) trending analysis, whereby you test often and at regular intervals to establish a baseline of wear, e.g. so many PPM per 1000 miles. For example, I have done enough testing on my 5.4L to know that 4-6 ppm/1000 miles of iron is normal for that engine being used the way I use it. Oh yes, wear trends change with the type of use. Trending oil analysis will get to be expensive and it isn't much use to the average joe. At $28/test with no extras, it really adds up.
4) IMO, the best way to use oil analysis's for determining the OCI. You run the oil out to your normal interval and sample (with or without changing the oil but without is better because you are not wasting the oil but it generally does require an investment in tools to be able to sample without draining the oil). View the results and adjust your interval to suit. Could be shorter or longer but for most of us "regular shrubs" it's longer. Sample at the new interval. Adjust as necessary. Repeat until you see the oil reach the condemnation state, back off a thousand miles or so and there's your interval. If you make no major changes in the equation, change of operation, major change in oil formulation or a major change in filtration, you don't need to sample more except perhaps every few years for verification. On my F-150, I have a Fumoto valve on the oil drain so I can take a sample at any time. I also have a suction gun where I can get samples thru the dipstick tube.
5) Sampling methodology is VITAL!!! Did I say VITAL? In a nutshell you sample warm oil that has recently been mixed up by the engine running. If you are taking a sample at drain time, fill the container at the middle of the process, not the first slug to come out, not the last. Seal the bottle ASAP. If you are using a suction gun thru a dipstick tube for example, make sure that tube is clean. I made the mistake of getting a gummed up sample thru a dirty tube that really skewed the results. The hose has to be super clean. They want you to use a new hose every time but you can clean them if you are thorough. You want the engine running when sample thru the tube or from a Fumoto valve (Google it).
6) Bypass filtration and even an enhanced primary filter skews the samples a bit, basically throwing off the statistical norms. The analysts can compensate but they do so from a smaller batch of statistics. It's vitally important that you report a bypass system when sending in a sample.
Yeah, I don't think much of the FL784 either, nor any of the clones. I haven't seen any premium filters in that application but it doesn't matter because we have access to the Powerstroke filter. All but a few unlucky souls where they don't fit can use it.
Clean Vs Dirty ****** Oil:
I have a collection of particle analysis of new oil taken by a contact I have in a major filtration company. I promised that I would not release the entire list or the source (the guy is one of my "go-to's" for writing magazine stories). I was gobsmacked at how dirty most lube oils are. I added to the list from my own oils as the opportunity arose. The oil is not "terminally" dirty, nor outside "industry norms," just dirtier than you think it should be. On the list, in the diesel oils, the worst by far were the Mopar oils and the best were the DELO oils. They didn't test any boutique oils. I did some Royal Purple and it was better than average but no better than the DELO. Rotella oils were in the top 10%. The Mopar oil was appalling. I can honestly say that I once drained some used oil that was cleaner than the new Mopar. Obviously, some oils from any mfr could comes out a little dirtier than another batch.. manufacturing tolerances and all that.. but there are multiple samples of each brand from different batches. It's not as huge a deal as it sounds because a few passes thru the filter will clean it up. But still... it upsets my delicate sensibilities.
Finally, everything above is based on my being an oil geek. It cost me a lot of money to learn the stuff I have learned. I was fortunate in that my magazine work sometimes offers me freebees in this area so I can walk further into geekhood and learn from experts. The bottom line is that oil analysis will add a lot to the cost of maintenance. Sure, there are some "perfect world" aspects to it and some inner satisfaction and "warm fussiness" to it for gearheads, but for most people, in most cases, intensive oil analysis is not cost effective. Using it for OCI extension determination can pay off if you play it right and that's how I advise using it.
There are a few things to keep in mind about oil analysis:
1) It's best considered an oil health analysis versus an engine health analysis unless you do trending (read on). Engine failures usually occur quite rapidly, so unless your oil analysis happens to come at the time when the problem starts or is ongoing, you haven't learned too much. The engine could fail, or begin to fail, 2K miles after you do the analysis and you'd never see a sign.
2) Oil analysis is a snapshot of a particular moment in time for both the engine and the oil. In theory, the universal averages the labs use are the arbiter of good or bad, as far as wear metals go, but each engine has a particular trademark sample. First time people often freak if their engine is at the higher end of the normal range. I remember a guy who actually tore an engine down based on a relatively high wear metal number and found NADA. Some engines in some situations throw out a little more metal... it's normal for THEM. Again, you can't really know anything until you have a few samples under your belt to see what "normal" is for your engine. Just don't get too excited (at both ends of the spectrum) until you have seen a minimum of 5 UOAs.
3) The only way to use oil analysis for engine health monitoring is by constant (and ultimately expensive) trending analysis, whereby you test often and at regular intervals to establish a baseline of wear, e.g. so many PPM per 1000 miles. For example, I have done enough testing on my 5.4L to know that 4-6 ppm/1000 miles of iron is normal for that engine being used the way I use it. Oh yes, wear trends change with the type of use. Trending oil analysis will get to be expensive and it isn't much use to the average joe. At $28/test with no extras, it really adds up.
4) IMO, the best way to use oil analysis's for determining the OCI. You run the oil out to your normal interval and sample (with or without changing the oil but without is better because you are not wasting the oil but it generally does require an investment in tools to be able to sample without draining the oil). View the results and adjust your interval to suit. Could be shorter or longer but for most of us "regular shrubs" it's longer. Sample at the new interval. Adjust as necessary. Repeat until you see the oil reach the condemnation state, back off a thousand miles or so and there's your interval. If you make no major changes in the equation, change of operation, major change in oil formulation or a major change in filtration, you don't need to sample more except perhaps every few years for verification. On my F-150, I have a Fumoto valve on the oil drain so I can take a sample at any time. I also have a suction gun where I can get samples thru the dipstick tube.
5) Sampling methodology is VITAL!!! Did I say VITAL? In a nutshell you sample warm oil that has recently been mixed up by the engine running. If you are taking a sample at drain time, fill the container at the middle of the process, not the first slug to come out, not the last. Seal the bottle ASAP. If you are using a suction gun thru a dipstick tube for example, make sure that tube is clean. I made the mistake of getting a gummed up sample thru a dirty tube that really skewed the results. The hose has to be super clean. They want you to use a new hose every time but you can clean them if you are thorough. You want the engine running when sample thru the tube or from a Fumoto valve (Google it).
6) Bypass filtration and even an enhanced primary filter skews the samples a bit, basically throwing off the statistical norms. The analysts can compensate but they do so from a smaller batch of statistics. It's vitally important that you report a bypass system when sending in a sample.
Yeah, I don't think much of the FL784 either, nor any of the clones. I haven't seen any premium filters in that application but it doesn't matter because we have access to the Powerstroke filter. All but a few unlucky souls where they don't fit can use it.
Clean Vs Dirty ****** Oil:
I have a collection of particle analysis of new oil taken by a contact I have in a major filtration company. I promised that I would not release the entire list or the source (the guy is one of my "go-to's" for writing magazine stories). I was gobsmacked at how dirty most lube oils are. I added to the list from my own oils as the opportunity arose. The oil is not "terminally" dirty, nor outside "industry norms," just dirtier than you think it should be. On the list, in the diesel oils, the worst by far were the Mopar oils and the best were the DELO oils. They didn't test any boutique oils. I did some Royal Purple and it was better than average but no better than the DELO. Rotella oils were in the top 10%. The Mopar oil was appalling. I can honestly say that I once drained some used oil that was cleaner than the new Mopar. Obviously, some oils from any mfr could comes out a little dirtier than another batch.. manufacturing tolerances and all that.. but there are multiple samples of each brand from different batches. It's not as huge a deal as it sounds because a few passes thru the filter will clean it up. But still... it upsets my delicate sensibilities.
Finally, everything above is based on my being an oil geek. It cost me a lot of money to learn the stuff I have learned. I was fortunate in that my magazine work sometimes offers me freebees in this area so I can walk further into geekhood and learn from experts. The bottom line is that oil analysis will add a lot to the cost of maintenance. Sure, there are some "perfect world" aspects to it and some inner satisfaction and "warm fussiness" to it for gearheads, but for most people, in most cases, intensive oil analysis is not cost effective. Using it for OCI extension determination can pay off if you play it right and that's how I advise using it.
Last edited:
I've had an FS-2500 on the Moose Truck since 2001. Blackstone does my oil analysis every few years, and my reports come back shining brightly. I used to have them posted, along with pics of the filter, but that was before Webshots went belly up.
direwulf23
Full Access Member
I like people who swim in the geek pool, especially if they specialize (because then I don't have to Lol ).
I would like to use oil analysis for OCI because I understand the single most important maintenence aspect of a PSD is keeping your oil clean. I greatly appreciate your sharing the information. I'm a huge geek so I liked reading it, even if I didn't quite understand all of it. Lol
I would like to use oil analysis for OCI because I understand the single most important maintenence aspect of a PSD is keeping your oil clean. I greatly appreciate your sharing the information. I'm a huge geek so I liked reading it, even if I didn't quite understand all of it. Lol
79jasper
Chickenhawk
A lot of good information.
I was just thinking the other day. I don't think I would run a synthetic oil without having a bypass setup.
I have a few reasons.
Sent from my SM-T537R4 using Tapatalk
I was just thinking the other day. I don't think I would run a synthetic oil without having a bypass setup.
I have a few reasons.
Sent from my SM-T537R4 using Tapatalk
Similar threads
