Anatomy of a Frantz toilet paper bypass oil filter

[Gary - K7GLD]

"Courierdog" is starting some analysis runs with his new bypass setup, and has just obtained a baseline "before" analysis to use as a basis to check performance of his added bypass after he gets the proper miles operation on it - here's his baseline he asked me to post for him:



#ad




Sorry I don't have more details to provide, so I'll let him chime in with whatever added info he cares to provide, such as oil brand, miles on oil, and the brand/type of bypass he will be using in later analysis - the baseline looks quite good in wear metals, will be interesting to see the "after" reports!

 

[PRout]

Fantastic! Thanks to both of you guys. . Will be a good one to follow. I would guess that may be the new style Delo, with the moly & boron numbers but just a wild guess.

I take all my OA reports in to work to show some of the crew and they get almost as interested in them as we do on here. . We laugh at the things people can get into. I came into work all worked up about my high silicone count and the mechanical guys had to give it the "full analysis". Determination was sealant in the oil. No unusual wear. they told me to quit using so much sealant. . I hardly used any! sheesh. .

Edited: Great courierdog. . Thanks for sharing. Not familiar with the harvard unit. . Will have to look that one up.

 

[courierdog]

Oil brand - Mopar CJ-4 15-40, nominal 5000 Km on oil, Total milage is 36,000 Km, I have two types of bypass filters I am considering using.
1. Harvard 150L - on hand
2. Spinner II, model 25, futre consideration
Mounting will have to be in the box as opposed to on the frame rail. At age 66 I hate climbing under the truck to check for leaks or change the bypass filter.
Once the mount is complete and the filter is installed I will send along the photos. I have my local dealer, Service Manager and his top Diesel Tech working with me on the install.

 

[amsoilman]

"Courierdog" is starting some analysis runs with his new bypass setup, and has just obtained a baseline "before" analysis to use as a basis to check performance of his added bypass after he gets the proper miles operation on it - here's his baseline he asked me to post for him:



#ad




Sorry I don't have more details to provide, so I'll let him chime in with whatever added info he cares to provide, such as oil brand, miles on oil, and the brand/type of bypass he will be using in later analysis - the baseline looks quite good in wear metals, will be interesting to see the "after" reports!

This report shows 0. 81 % SOOT! IS this supposed to be a "NEW" oil? It also shows some Fuel at 1. 9 %



I was under the impression this analysis was for new oil.



Wayne

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

This report shows 0. 81 % SOOT! IS this supposed to be a "NEW" oil? It also shows some Fuel at 1. 9 %



I was under the impression this analysis was for new oil.



Wayne

Read the post directly above yours, #749 - it gives the parameters of the tested oil. This was a baseline test on used oil BEFORE adding any bypass filtration...

 

[amsoilman]

Read the post directly above yours, #749 - it gives the parameters of the tested oil. This was a baseline test on used oil BEFORE adding any bypass filtration...

Gary,

It still doesn't make a lot of sense, as the additives shown for the "used" oil are higher in numbers than the "new" oil. Example: Molybdemum for the "New" oil was 1 ppm, the "used" oil showed 41 ppm. Magnesium showed

4 ppm for the "new" oil and 744 ppm for the "used" oil.



I've never seen additives increase in used oil, unless oil has been added!





Wayne

 

[amsoilman]

Gary the report is showing "New" oil highlighted by green.



Wayne

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Gary the report is showing "New" oil highlighted by green.



Wayne

I suspect either of 2 possibilities:



1. The outfit doing the analysis inserts "new oil" values from a sample they tested at some past point in time for their own reference - and which might vary from what was used/sent for analysis in the displayed report - I don't think Courier dog had sent in a "new" sample of his own for them to test...



2. There might possibly be some remnants of previous lube that DID contain Moly, etc. , and that mixed in with the Mopar lube, slewed the report on the used oil.



I did a cross check over on the BITOG oil site on virgin oils, and all I saw there was a CI grade Mopar lube, which also showed NO Moly content... .



By the way, it was suggested that Exxon packages their oil for Mopar...

 

[PRout]

I suspect either of 2 possibilities:

1. The outfit doing the analysis inserts "new oil" values from a sample they tested at some past point in time for their own reference - and which might vary from what was used/sent for analysis in the displayed report - I don't think Courier dog had sent in a "new" sample of his own for them to test...

2. There might possibly be some remnants of previous lube that DID contain Moly, etc. , and that mixed in with the Mopar lube, slewed the report on the used oil.

I did a cross check over on the BITOG oil site on virgin oils, and all I saw there was a CI grade Mopar lube, which also showed NO Moly content... .

By the way, it was suggested that Exxon packages their oil for Mopar...

#1 is probably the explanation. After taking a re-look, it appears that the lab is showing (in green) what a new oil sample would look like as a reference for their customers to compare to. Kind of like Blackstone shows 'Universal Averages" off to the right to compare to.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Was just exchanging Email with Deb Harley of Frantz - Frantz Filters Manufactured by We Filter It! Inc - Oil, Diesel and Gas Filters - and she has a great January filter special on for Dodge owners - anyone interested might want to check it out - be sure to mention TDR... Oo.

 

[moparguy]

Gary, as I recall you were trying the Frantz filter elements. How'd they do compared to the Scott singles?



RJR



As I think back, we may've already discussed this, if so, disreguard. Man, old is a burden.

 

[PRout]

Gary, as I recall you were trying the Frantz filter elements. How'd they do compared to the Scott singles?

While were awaiting Garys comments, I have been using the elements from Deb at Frantz along with using Garys idea of adding the folded shop towel to lock everything in tight. Also still using the needle valve inline to keep the flow slower than usual. Havent gone the full 5k miles to take a sample for analysis yet, but can say the oil is the cleanest Ive ever seen it at this point. Personally, I like the frantz elements better than the scotts overall. But others may disagree. .

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Gary, as I recall you were trying the Frantz filter elements. How'd they do compared to the Scott singles?



RJR

Miles on my truck come slow in the winter, since the longer trips are when towing the 5th wheel, and we're "fair weather" RVers. :-laf



Will get results eventually, but probably not until spring weather and the first RV outing. I'm on the 3rd Frantz TP element so far, and my (worthless!) gut feeling is that the Frantz elements are substantially more dense, and maintaining the oil cleaner, longer than what I've used previously - but then, the added layer of shop towel seems to provide much improved resistance to stray oil migration down the outside of the element that undoubtedly would benefit the Scott TP as much - or more - than the Frantz stuff...

 

[JDancoe]

Very impressive. I use the Amsoil bypass, but my oil never looks that clean except immediately after the oil change. Just curious, what brand/weight oil do you use? And how often do you change the oil & full-flow filter?

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Very impressive. I use the Amsoil bypass, but my oil never looks that clean except immediately after the oil change. Just curious, what brand/weight oil do you use? And how often do you change the oil & full-flow filter?

Bigger injectors and shorter around-town trips dirty the oil faster than before we moved up here to rural eastern Oregon - but oil analysis numbers remain superior! I use Delo 400 15/40, the CI stuff, and change oil at 12 months or 12K miles, whichever comes first.

 

[Coalsmoke]

Fantastic! Thanks to both of you guys. . Will be a good one to follow. I would guess that may be the new style Delo, with the moly & boron numbers but just a wild guess.



I take all my OA reports in to work to show some of the crew and they get almost as interested in them as we do on here. . We laugh at the things people can get into. I came into work all worked up about my high silicone count and the mechanical guys had to give it the "full analysis". Determination was sealant in the oil. No unusual wear. they told me to quit using so much sealant. . I hardly used any! sheesh. .



Edited: Great courierdog. . Thanks for sharing. Not familiar with the harvard unit. . Will have to look that one up.

Would you please post that oil analysis again. That link no longer seems to work. Thanks.

 

[Coalsmoke]

Fantastic! Thanks to both of you guys. . Will be a good one to follow. I would guess that may be the new style Delo, with the moly & boron numbers but just a wild guess.



I take all my OA reports in to work to show some of the crew and they get almost as interested in them as we do on here. . We laugh at the things people can get into. I came into work all worked up about my high silicone count and the mechanical guys had to give it the "full analysis". Determination was sealant in the oil. No unusual wear. they told me to quit using so much sealant. . I hardly used any! sheesh. .



Edited: Great courierdog. . Thanks for sharing. Not familiar with the harvard unit. . Will have to look that one up.

Thanks for fixing that link. Don't take offense, but you are confusing silicone with Silicon, two very very different molecules. The high Si (Silicon) reading makes me think you are having air cleaning problems. I'd check into it if it were my truck.





Gary, I've read this thread cover to cover, great thread, but I'm scratching my head a bit. Frantz claims that the new 2000 model is greatly improved, but essentially it seems that all they have done is added that frustrating turn-knob style clamp. Are there other significant differences between the new and older style Frantz units. I guess what I'm wondering is if I get an oldie, what should be addressed before using it. I believe you said something about the TP core sizes having changed from 1. 5" to 1. 65"

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Thanks for fixing that link. Don't take offense, but you are confusing silicone with Silicon, two very very different molecules. The high Si (Silicon) reading makes me think you are having air cleaning problems. I'd check into it if it were my truck.





Gary, I've read this thread cover to cover, great thread, but I'm scratching my head a bit. Frantz claims that the new 2000 model is greatly improved, but essentially it seems that all they have done is added that frustrating turn-knob style clamp. Are there other significant differences between the new and older style Frantz units. I guess what I'm wondering is if I get an oldie, what should be addressed before using it. I believe you said something about the TP core sizes having changed from 1. 5" to 1. 65"

Probably as much cosmetic, minor changes as anything - tho' there HAVE been changes to address center core and canister sealing, as well as the adjustment to the larger TP core sizes you mention...



As covered lots further back, at the start of this thread, I have made some mods/additions to my own 45 year old unit, and the results I get from those are good enough for me, even in an "older" Frantz unit...

 

[Coalsmoke]

Ok, thanks Gary, I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything.

 

[05mxdiesel]

Just recieved my case of frantz rolls last night. They are much more dense compared to the scotts 1000 I was using. I will try Gary's trick with the blue shop towel around the roll as well.