Anatomy of a Frantz toilet paper bypass oil filter

[amsoilman]

First, I'd like to tell me why you think it's SO important to filter out particles down to 2 microns or below, something a microscope can barely see? Sure... . I know cleaner is better but, if our trucks needed that much filtering..... those that don't do it must have their trucks in a junkyard by the time they see 100K. I happen to have a International 7. 3L in a Ford van that has well over 100K and it's never had anything done but, an oil change. Is it superior to a Cummins ?



I've said it before... . your average consumer will never do what we here at these forum do to our trucks. I'd bet the these forums make up 1% of the average truck buyer. A TP filter or any by-pass would be the last thing on their mind.



I'm really not trying to start something here... I'm just playing the devils advocate. I personally wouldn't use a TP set up how ever well it works. There's just no need for it. There's other by pass filter that will filter out as much or enough to do the job.



Beside everything else... . what a mess to deal with when changing the roll.

According to the (SAE) Society Of Automotive Engineers paper 881825, AC Spark Plug and Detroit Diesel Corp. performed a joint study of the relationship between the level of engine oil filtration and Engine wear rates, and found finer filtration reduced the rate of Engine wear.



Diesel and Gasoline Engine wear rates were established by building a Diesel and Gasoline Engine with fully inspected wear components and inspecting them after the test.



In both Engines, the upper and lower main bearings, oil rings and compression rings were inspected. In the Diesel Engine, the cam lobe profile and cylinders were also inspected, while the piston pin bushings, piston pins and cylinder liners of the Gasoline engine were inspected.



The total test duration was eight hours. To accelerate wear, 50 grams of AC Fine Test Dust was added, in slurry form, to the crank case every hour.



Diesel Engine wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes: 40 Microns, 8. 5 Microns and 7 Microns.



Gasoline Engines wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes of the following sizes: 40 Microns, 30 Microns and 15 Microns.



ANALYSIS



The researchers found clearances in the Diesel and Gasoline Engines varied between 2 and 22 Microns during engine operations. That means particles in the 2 to 22 Micron size range are most likely to damage Engine parts. Particles smaller than 2 Microns will slip through the clearances without damaging bearing surfaces.



CONLUSIONS



The researchers drew the following conclusions:



Abrasive Engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in single pass efficiency. Compared to a 40-Micron filter, Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30-Micron filtration. Likewise, wear was reduced by 70 percent with 15-Micron filtration.



Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the range of 2 to 22 Microns in the lube oil is necessary for controlling Engine wear, and “The Micron rating of a filter as established in a single pass efficiency type test, does an excellent job indicating the filter’s ability to remove abrasive particles in the Engine lube oil system.



The smallest particles most popular “full Flow” filters capture with high efficiency are sized 25 to 40 Microns, depending on the filter brand.



I’m here to tell you the Amsoil brand “by-pass” oil filter achieves high efficiency. For particles of 2 Microns and greater, they are 98. 7 %!



Their “Full flow” oil filter achieves high efficiency for particles of 15 Microns and greater. In fact, its efficiency for 15-Micron particles is 98. 7 percent. The tests I am referring to is the ISO 4548-12. Together, the “By-pass” and the “full-flow” filters offer significantly greater protection than that of a conventional filter system.





This is the parameters for the ISO-4548-12:



Testing Standard

The ISO 4548/12 multi-pass test is a widely accepted industry standard test used by OEMs for the purpose of evaluating and comparing the efficiency and capacity of liquid filtration products.



Test results are an average from the testing of three product samples in accordance with ISO 4548/12 specifications.

The ISO 4548/12 specifies ISO 12103 test dust. Test data reported at 25 psid terminal restriction point.





Wayne

 

[Triton]

According to the (SAE) Society Of Automotive Engineers paper 881825, AC Spark Plug and Detroit Diesel Corp. performed a joint study of the relationship between the level of engine oil filtration and Engine wear rates, and found finer filtration reduced the rate of Engine wear.

Diesel and Gasoline Engine wear rates were established by building a Diesel and Gasoline Engine with fully inspected wear components and inspecting them after the test.

In both Engines, the upper and lower main bearings, oil rings and compression rings were inspected. In the Diesel Engine, the cam lobe profile and cylinders were also inspected, while the piston pin bushings, piston pins and cylinder liners of the Gasoline engine were inspected.

The total test duration was eight hours. To accelerate wear, 50 grams of AC Fine Test Dust was added, in slurry form, to the crank case every hour.

Diesel Engine wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes: 40 Microns, 8. 5 Microns and 7 Microns.

Gasoline Engines wear tests were performed using filters with high efficiency ratings for particle sizes of the following sizes: 40 Microns, 30 Microns and 15 Microns.

ANALYSIS

The researchers found clearances in the Diesel and Gasoline Engines varied between 2 and 22 Microns during engine operations. That means particles in the 2 to 22 Micron size range are most likely to damage Engine parts. Particles smaller than 2 Microns will slip through the clearances without damaging bearing surfaces.

CONLUSIONS

The researchers drew the following conclusions:

Abrasive Engine wear can be substantially reduced with an increase in single pass efficiency. Compared to a 40-Micron filter, Engine wear was reduced by 50 percent with 30-Micron filtration. Likewise, wear was reduced by 70 percent with 15-Micron filtration.

Controlling the abrasive contaminants in the range of 2 to 22 Microns in the lube oil is necessary for controlling Engine wear, and “The Micron rating of a filter as established in a single pass efficiency type test, does an excellent job indicating the filter’s ability to remove abrasive particles in the Engine lube oil system.

The smallest particles most popular “full Flow” filters capture with high efficiency are sized 25 to 40 Microns, depending on the filter brand.

I’m here to tell you the Amsoil brand “by-pass” oil filter achieves high efficiency. For particles of 2 Microns and greater, they are 98. 7 %!

Their “Full flow” oil filter achieves high efficiency for particles of 15 Microns and greater. In fact, its efficiency for 15-Micron particles is 98. 7 percent. The tests I am referring to is the ISO 4548-12. Together, the “By-pass” and the “full-flow” filters offer significantly greater protection than that of a conventional filter system.


This is the parameters for the ISO-4548-12:

Testing Standard
The ISO 4548/12 multi-pass test is a widely accepted industry standard test used by OEMs for the purpose of evaluating and comparing the efficiency and capacity of liquid filtration products.

Test results are an average from the testing of three product samples in accordance with ISO 4548/12 specifications.
The ISO 4548/12 specifies ISO 12103 test dust. Test data reported at 25 psid terminal restriction point.


Wayne

Very nice information. All it says though is that by using filters and by-pass filters you can reduce engine wear. I'm not disputing that fact at all.

What I am saying is that your typical consumer for one, will never see this info and for another, never bother to use a " Fleetguard stratapore " or by-pass of any kind and yet still have a vehicle that will run find for the duration of it's life.

For this reason, I don't see being so anal about which filtration is used whether it be TP, synthetic fiber, stainless steel or paper media. Sure, one might be a little better than the other but, most of the good one's filter about the same microns.

Is everyone that cheap that they have to get 1,000,000 miles out of there truck so they count every little micron ? I don't know about you guys but, at 100,000 miles or less... I'm gettin a new truck! geeezzz.

 

[Arkapigdiesel]

Is everyone that cheap that they have to get 1,000,000 miles out of there truck so they count every little micron ? I don't know about you guys but, at 100,000 miles or less... I'm gettin a new truck! geeezzz.

Wanting a truck to last as long as possible doesn't equate to cheap. Most people don't have money coming out of their ears and they need a $40K vehicle to last as long as it possibly can.

 

[Triton]

Wanting a truck to last as long as possible doesn't equate to cheap. Most people don't have money coming out of their ears and they need a $40K vehicle to last as long as it possibly can.

Believe me, I don't have that kind of money either. At 100K or maybe 200K with a diesel though... . most vehicles have about had there day. If it's not the motor it's other major components.

I have a 12 yrs old Ram 5. 9L 1500 w/ 150K sitting in my yard. It runs great, it still looks good and I still drive it once in awhile but after 12yrs it was time for a new one. Besides that it's not worth a thing. I think about $1500 blue book if that. Sure, a diesel will likely be worth more but, not by much.

What happens when those you talk about do need a new ride... they'd have to start from the beginning with cash or payments. At least if you trade it in with semi decent miles on it, you can get some money back out of it.

How many people do you think ask if when buying a used diesel, the truck has had a by-pass filter used or stratapore filters? Is by using these things that much a benefit ? maybe... or not. It's all how you look at it.

 

[CFAR]

Most people who use bypass filters are concerned with longevity, I can afford to buy a new truck, but I don't want to. I'm at 130k on my 2001. 5 and the only failure I have is the lovely lift pumps. So hopefully I will be good for a couple hundred thousand more. I still have great power, so I'm not worn out yet. 100k on Bully Dog III's, comp, various air filters (K&N, ScottyII, Amsoil dura??) south bend FE, lots of pretty gauges, I will still be driving this truck for years. If it dies I will probably rebuild it. I know what I have, if I buy your used truck, I get one that wasn't care of as well as mine or Gary's.

 

[Triton]

if I buy your used truck, I get one that wasn't care of as well as mine or Gary's.

FYI, I have a FS2500 by-pass. So you know for a fact that if you bought my truck used it wasn't as well taken care of as yours because you or anyone used a TP or Amsoil filtration ???

Personally, I'd rather buy a used truck that hasn't had a 5th wheel pulled behind it, it's whole life which many here do. My truck pulls a boat and that's it.

I do understand your point... I was just trying to make mine ;-)

This is my 12 yrs old. Pic taken about a year ago ... . I'd say I take pretty good care of anything I have... .

#ad
​

 

[CFAR]

I don't know your garage looks a little damp to me



My 96' 1/2 ton had 140k when I traded it in, still ran great.

 

[Nate]

Where does the 100k thing come into place. That "myth" is so out and outdated, it's rediculous.



Every car I have got rid of so far had well over 200,000 miles, some closer to 300,000.

 

[Pawpaw]

I can't believe some of these last few posts.



This is an ENTHUSIAST forum!



No one questions the guy that wants advice on mods to produce more power. No one questions why he NEEDS more power. It is generally accepted that he simply wants more power, as do others on this site.



Are those of us who simply want to extend the life of our trucks as far as possible somehow a lower class of enthusiast?



Our hobby takes many forms. Just because you don't "get it", dont come around telling me my view and/or interest is invalid.



My two cents.



Bob

 

[CFAR]

The "myth" is perpetuated by the dealers, it allows them to buy your car cheaply, and since generally they don't keep cars with that many miles on them for resale, they can wholesale them cheaply. I think the standard is still 12K miles a year, I don't think I have done that few miles since my bicycle days.

 

[steved]

I don't know your garage looks a little damp to me

And a little environmentally irresponsible.



I agree, don't flame me for wanting to add a filter to my truck... it's no different than someone squeezing every pony from under the hood... some of us are going for longevity.



And if it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling, what do you care???



steved

 

[Triton]

you guys constantly proof my point :-laf No one is flaming anyone ! and I haven't told anyone what to do. The problem here is... if you don't follow the herd you ( I ) get flamed.

What's wrong with an opposing opinion ? That's all I've written. I know very well this is an enthusiast forum and I'm one myself.

Then the sarcastic remarks start with a damp garage and environmetally irresponsible ??? ... Are you guys really adults ?

My whole point of posting here is because I've made several posts asking about several different filters. I get slamed for not using what everyone else uses which seems to be TP and or Amsoil. Everything else seems to be crap. I feel for the vendor who hopes to sell anything but a Frantz. NO ONE is willing to accept the fact that another product might work as well as something they're already using.

Talk about close minded subject. There's nothing at all wrong with wanting more miles out of your truck but, I don't deserve to be told " my truck wouldn't be bought used because I didn't take care of it like someone else because they use a TP filter... . plz.

 

[amsoilman]

I think the BIGGEST reason for ANY by-pass filtraton system is for extending oil drains, as they do keep the oil cleaner which allows for the longer drain periods. And the plus is that they DO reduce wear.





Wayne

 

[steved]

What's wrong with an opposing opinion ? That's all I've written. I know very well this is an enthusiast forum and I'm one myself.



Then the sarcastic remarks start with a damp garage and environmetally irresponsible ??? ... Are you guys really adults ?

If you have an opposing opinion, then why do YOU run a bypass since you are going to trade truck every 100k??????? I guess that is my main hangup... you tell everyone how great the FS2500 is (with no data to back it up, unlike Gary and Wayne), put down the Frantz and Amsoil, then brag you trade trucks every 100k and that a bypass is basically a waste of time?????? Explain to me again why you run a bypass???



And yes, the remark is accurate about parking your truck in the middle of a stream. Do you realize the damage you caused to the stream? While it might not seem like much, it adds up. Do you realize some states will fine you thousands of dollars for driving in a waterway?? You destroy riparian buffer that is crutial for promoting a healthy waterway, and ultimately cleaner drinking water for most. Are you an adult?



steved

 

[Arkapigdiesel]

Triton,



You may want to reread your original post. You referred to TP as old school... . then you said it's not the best thing since sliced bread unless you use it to wipe. Wow.



What would you think if someone criticized in an abrasive like manner some of the choices of install options on your truck?



I don't know if you're meaning to come across as condescending and somewhat of a smart ***, but people take it that way.



You also stated on DTR that the TP would come off and be mixed in with the oil. I called you out on that as an untruth and you turned defensive (are you starting to see a pattern here)?



I'm sure once again that you will get mad at what I've typed but you really need to learn how to be tactful and maybe people won't think of your posts as fingernails on a chalkboard.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

My whole point of posting here is because I've made several posts asking about several different filters. I get slamed for not using what everyone else uses which seems to be TP and or Amsoil.

You haven't been "slammed" in the least - you came into a Frantz filter thread with a rather blustering attitude, and TWICE have claimed there are "better" bypass filters available, but have YET to name a single one - will you NOW name just ONE?



Here's an oil analysis done on my Frantz TP filter equipped '91 truck with miles generally the same as yours - nearly 7000 miles on Delo 400:



#ad


Do you have any better ones to show from your truck and filter setup - or some other brand/type?



Further, here's a particle count done recently with my '02 - about the same miles, same Delo 400:



#ad


Can you show lower particle percentages with your, or some other setup?



You see, when some of us make statements about items or issues, we prefer to do so from an informed and documented basis, rather than vague assumptions and prejudiced guesses - and as in the above examples, provide documented PROOF to back up our claims.



You are entirely free to state you simply don't LIKE TP filters, and no problem, many folks don't - that's your choice.



BUT, when you *TWICE* claim there are "better filters out there", you either provide PROOF to back up your claim, or are reasonably considered to be just stirring the pot and blowing smoke... :-laf

 

[Triton]

You haven't been "slammed" in the least - you came into a Frantz filter thread with a rather blustering attitude, and TWICE have claimed there are "better" bypass filters available, but have YET to name a single one - will you NOW name just ONE?

Here's an oil analysis done on my Frantz TP filter equipped '91 truck with miles generally the same as yours - nearly 7000 miles on Delo 400:

#ad

Do you have any better ones to show from your truck and filter setup - or some other brand/type?

Further, here's a particle count done recently with my '02 - about the same miles, same Delo 400:

#ad

Can you show lower particle percentages with your, or some other setup?

You see, when some of us make statements about items or issues, we prefer to do so from an informed and documented basis, rather than vague assumptions and prejudiced guesses - and as in the above examples, provide documented PROOF to back up our claims.

You are entirely free to state you simply don't LIKE TP filters, and no problem, many folks don't - that's your choice.

BUT, when you *TWICE* claim there are "better filters out there", you either provide PROOF to back up your claim, or are reasonably considered to be just stirring the pot and blowing smoke... :-laf

I never said anything about " better filters" I said, there are filters that are capable of doing the same thing... .

My whole point is... . WHY SO ANAL about the filters you use ? You can show me all the numbers you want but, do those numbers really mean your truck will last longer than mine ??? I don't think so. You might have a little cleaner oil.

I never proclaimed to be stating facts. I never said " this product is better than that product " I said... . TP is old school and there are other products out there capable of doing the same thing. Ok, so maybe they don't filter like TP as you guys are so dead set on letting people know. That SAE test posted above shows what was found at certain levels. The levels they found can be filtered by other set ups than TP to accomplish the same results. I only couldn't understand why everyone is so hard on someone who is using something different.

My posts if you were read them aren't about who's better than who, it was about there are other products that can do enough filtering to accomplish good enough result.

I came into this thread with these statements because you guys are so narrow minded when it comes to any other product but, what you've used for 50 yrs... .

 

[Nate]

You sir are really starting to pi$$ me off!

 

[05mxdiesel]

There could possibly be a bypass filter that would filter out particles as good as tp, but the choice is availability and price for TP. I can go to my local grocery store or pharmacy and get a roll of scotts 1000 for $0. 89. Instead of buying a $30-$50 replacement filter that you have to order and wait for it to be shipped. Yes I have to change more frequently than others and spend more on oil since some is lost during the change, but I wouldn't of bought it if I didn't mind doing maintenance. That is what this whole thread is about, taking something from decades ago that worked remarkably well and using it to benefit our 40k trucks of longevity and extended oil intervals. I wouldn't of known about a tp bypass filter until Gary started this thread some time ago and did all the legwork for us to benefit from. Thanks Gary and Wade for all the advice...

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I never said anything about " better filters" I said, there are filters that are capable of doing the same thing... .

Sure, it may work well but there are other product capable of producing the same results.

I said, there are filters that are capable of doing the same thing... .

I said... . TP is old school and there are other products out there capable of doing the same thing. Ok, so maybe they don't filter like TP as you guys are so dead set on letting people know. That SAE test posted above shows what was found at certain levels. The levels they found can be filtered by other set ups than TP to accomplish the same results.

Name one - just ONE - and preferrably also post supporting documentation like what I have provided from my own setup further above! Otherwise, all you are doing is continuing to post undocumented personal OPINIONS, with no supporting FACTS!



You started by making a rather aggressive and exaggerated statement, got caught, and are now trying to squeak out with word games...



And along with that is your CONTINUED failure to name JUST ONE of those "just as good as" filters. TP in HUNDREDS of tests, both by the military and commercial interests, has consistently proven to be the best available for use in bypass filters - I've provided pointers to those sources earlier in this thread.



I started this whole thread as an effort to CLEAR UP misunderstanding, false statements and misconceptions regarding TP filters - so sure, I tend to get a bit defensive when statements like yours are again presented as fact - when I know better!



I'll readily agree there are EASIER maintained bypass filters available, but I have yet to see one meet the ability of TP, let alone exceed it. And if I choose to invest in a device that has the potential to maximize the lifespan of my long term investment (I don't trade my truck every few years, I keep mine for DECADES!), WHY would I deliberately then choose one that is second or third best - and probably even pay MORE for that poorer efficiency?



You are correct that the TP filters are messier to maintain, and might take a FEW moments more to service - I personally have pointed out they are NOT for everyone - only for those dedicated in obtaining what SO FAR has proven to be the highest filtering capability commonly available for our engines.



You are perfectly entitled to dislike and NOT choose a TP filter for a variety of personal reasons - no problem - but when you continue to publicly state there are other filters out there that are capable of "the same" efficiency, I, for one, would like to know what they are, and who makes them - and see some actual comparative test specs.



Because *I* sure have never seen any!



Otherwise, why not simply admit to a bit of unsupported exaggeration - and we'll settle on and accept the fact that there are other brands/types of filters that YOU are willing to accept as adequate for YOUR use, even at a bit of sacrifice of total efficiency - then we can shake hands and continue TDR activity as friends?



Fair enough? Oo.