5.9 oil filters

[Super Briar]

The industry standard is a 5u particle, and it takes a lot of soot to start aglomerating to a 5u particle. And by industry standard, a 5u particle is considered harmless...

I know there is a lot of hear-say that says "5um is harmless"... could you post up any tests or evidence that confirms this?



Thank you,

SB

 

[steved]

I'm not going back to research it again... did that years ago when looking at a bypass. . From what I remember, a 5u particle is smaller than the clearances of the bearings... and how many actually run their oil long enough to get a submicron particle agglomerated to a particle greater than 5u? Not to mention, how many oil-related Cummins failures from agglomerated soot have been discussed here??



Start with BITOG, and then get into some of the industrial reports on the web... that's what I did.

 

[Super Briar]

I'm not going back to research it again... did that years ago when looking at a bypass. . From what I remember, a 5u particle is smaller than the clearances of the bearings... and how many actually run their oil long enough to get a submicron particle agglomerated to a particle greater than 5u? Not to mention, how many oil-related Cummins failures from agglomerated soot have been discussed here??



Start with BITOG, and then get into some of the industrial reports on the web... that's what I did.

steved,



I did a search as you suggested & came up with the following test titled "Lube Oil Filtration Effect on Diesel Engine Wear" that was conducted by The Society of Automobile Engineers, Inc (SAE) & published by Cummins Engine Company, Inc.



Here is a link to the report... http://www.kleenoil.ca/pdf/otherinfo2.pdf



SB

 

[steved]

The only thing I would question is the date of that study... I see two things that imply its old:

* The reference to a 60u fullflow, when modern filters are typically around 20u to 30u, and;

* The reference to the "750 cu in" bypass which is likely the "Motorguard 750" or the "Fleetguard 750", which are physically huge and around the capacity of our entire sump.

Not sure the age of the document means much, other than oil filtration, engine durability, fuel quality, and oil quality have greatly improved greatly within the past few years.

I still stand by my earlier statement, I doubt many of us even get soot loading, let alone enough soot to damage parts. And further, an engine will still wear even if all the soot is eliminated.

I still think back to those guys with over 500k without a bypass and with nothing more than routine oil changes... soot is an issue (in our application) how? While there are a few of "us" that probably do get soot loading (those that are in the high HP brackets or otherwise dumping loads of fuel into the cylinders), the majority of us don't.

 

[Super Briar]

The only thing I would question is the date of that study... I see two things that imply its old:



* The reference to a 60u fullflow, when modern filters are typically around 20u to 30u, and;



* The reference to the "750 cu in" bypass which is likely the "Motorguard 750" or the "Fleetguard 750", which are physically huge and around the capacity of our entire sump.



Not sure the age of the document means much, other than oil filtration, engine durability, fuel quality, and oil quality have greatly improved greatly within the past few years.



I still stand by my earlier statement, I doubt many of us even get soot loading, let alone enough soot to damage parts. And further, an engine will still wear even if all the soot is eliminated.



I still think back to those guys with over 500k without a bypass and with nothing more than routine oil changes... soot is an issue (in our application) how? While there are a few of "us" that probably do get soot loading (those that are in the high HP brackets or otherwise dumping loads of fuel into the cylinders), the majority of us don't.

steved,



I would strongly tend to agree with you about this test being dated, with that being said that means the engines tested were pre-EGR/DPF engines that did not produce the quantity of soot that is being pumped into today's EGR/DPF engines, but yet this test report clearly states in the first paragraph on page one that Cummins recommends the use of by-pass filters in combination with spin on filters on all their engines.



Everyone is free to interpret this test as he chooses & act on it as he chooses but as for me until I see a test report published by the Cummins Engine Co. that states regular spin on filters, diesel oil & engine quality have improved to such a level that by-pass filters are no longer recommended I will take this test as the last authoritive word by the Cummins Engine Co. on this subject.



Good Day,

SB

 

[steved]

steved,



I would strongly tend to agree with you about this test being dated, with that being said that means the engines tested were pre-EGR/DPF engines that did not produce the quantity of soot that is being pumped into today’s EGR/DPF engines, but yet this test report clearly states in the first paragraph on page one that Cummins recommends the use of by-pass filters in combination with spin on filters on all their engines.



Good Day,

SB

And why do we believe that yesterday's diesels contaminated oil less than today's? They had poorer fuel and NO emissions requirements... remember back to the 70s and 80s when a diesel truck would roll black smoke for miles on end?? I would hazard a guess that between poorer fuel, less advanced oil, and looser tolerances; that they were every bit as hard on the oil and produced just as high of soot levels in oil as today's EGR/DPF engines.



That article also doesn't specify a displacement size that is being targeted... I would guess this article and discussion applied to large displacement engines in OTR trucks, which are a fairly different animal than our much smaller (and detuned) 5. 9L and 6. 7L. Not to mention that the typical "bypass filter" sold to the diesel pickup market is not the same as that discussed in that article. . the MG750 uses depth filtration to achieve excellent results... only a handful of bypasses such as the Gulf Coast, Oil Guard, Motor Guard, and Frantz utilize that type of filtration.



Another thing to consider is that most of the diesel pickup owners don't keep their trucks that long before pawning them for the latest and greatest. There are a lot of examples on this forum that prove a 5. 9L Cummins will endure to half million or more miles with nothing more than routine oil and filter changes... it doesn't take boutique oil or bypass filters to do it either.



The main thing to consider as far as the bypass filter is whether your dealer will honor your warranty if you install one...

 

[Super Briar]

And why do we believe that yesterday's diesels contaminated oil less than today's? They had poorer fuel and NO emissions requirements... remember back to the 70s and 80s when a diesel truck would roll black smoke for miles on end?? I would hazard a guess that between poorer fuel, less advanced oil, and looser tolerances; that they were every bit as hard on the oil and produced just as high of soot levels in oil as today's EGR/DPF engines.



That article also doesn't specify a displacement size that is being targeted... I would guess this article and discussion applied to large displacement engines in OTR trucks, which are a fairly different animal than our much smaller (and detuned) 5. 9L and 6. 7L. Not to mention that the typical "bypass filter" sold to the diesel pickup market is not the same as that discussed in that article. . the MG750 uses depth filtration to achieve excellent results... only a handful of bypasses such as the Gulf Coast, Oil Guard, Motor Guard, and Frantz utilize that type of filtration.



Another thing to consider is that most of the diesel pickup owners don't keep their trucks that long before pawning them for the latest and greatest. There are a lot of examples on this forum that prove a 5. 9L Cummins will endure to half million or more miles with nothing more than routine oil and filter changes... it doesn't take boutique oil or bypass filters to do it either.



The main thing to consider as far as the bypass filter is whether your dealer will honor your warranty if you install one...

steved,



To answer your question; my original statement is based on comparing the soot content published in oil analysis reports of non-EGR/DPF diesel engines to the soot content of oil analysis reports of EGR/DPF equipped diesel engines.



Your "hazard guess" that pre-EGR/DPF diesel engines pump the same amount of soot into the oil as EGR/DPF diesel engines by casually observing the amount of soot coming out the exhaust is less than scientific to say the least... I know of no legitimate test that uses this method to measure the soot content of oil... but if you can post one up to confirm your theory I'd be more than happy to read it.



As to your comment; "That article also doesn't specify a displacement size that is being targeted... I would guess this article and discussion applied to large displacement engines in OTR trucks, which are a fairly different animal than our much smaller (and detuned) 5. 9L and 6. 7L".



The size of the engine in this test has no basis in your assumption that this test is not valid to the 5. 9/6. 7 engines. To confirm Cummins was not excluding certain size engines in their report they made it a point to say, the Cummins Engine Co. recommended by-pass filters be used on ALL Cummins engines. Do not Cummins engines range in size from 1. 4 liters to 91 liters and does not the 5. 9/6. 7L engines fall into this range size?



SB

 

[steved]

steved,



To answer your question;

SB

To answer your question, I'm done here... if your going to base everything on what appears to be an obviously outdated document, so be it.



Have a nice day.

 

[Super Briar]

To answer your question, I'm done here... if your going to base everything on what appears to be an obviously outdated document, so be it.



Have a nice day.

Your assumotion that the Cummins Report is (as you say) is "an obviously outdated document" is incorrect.



Below is a Cummins document dated 2010 & states "Cummins Filtration Recommends Bypass Filtration" & goes on to detail a Fleetgard 9000 Series Filter that is a combination flow flow & by-pass filter in a spin on canister. The Fleetgard product number for the 5. 9/6. 7 Cummins Diesel Engine is LF9028.



Other Cummins info I accessed on the web states the full flow part of this filter is rated at 30 microns & the by-pass part is rated at 5 microns.



http://www.fleetguard.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/LT36172.pdf



SB

 

[timelessconstructionllc]

JK. i agree 100%. very good point. I live just north of okc. I just run to the cummins shop down in the city and pick up 3 of each filter at a time. they are fleetguard of course.

 

[STEVEBROOKS]

I saw the writeup in issue 71 of the TDR about the LF9028 "Venturi Combo" oil filter, and found this thread on it too. Since the last post, does anybody have any more info about its use on our 5. 9 engine? If you do, please provide any positive/negative comments.



Thanks,



Steve