attention all you amsoil guys!!

[John]

Originally posted by Bob Riley:
..... maybe all the problems seem to be in the Dodge adapter. I have not even heard of problems with the Ford adapter.

Bob, the Amsoil BMK-15 (dual remote/Cummins) and the BMK-16 (dual remote/PSD) use THE SAME Amsoil block adapter... that's why there are two different O-ring grooves on the adapter. . one to fit the Cummins, one to fit the PSD. Have you ever installed one of these????


CPFF, from one machinist to another, thanks again for manufacturing such a high quality component at a very reasonable price. #ad

 

[Bob Riley]

I have installed many. The FOrd unit is completely different than the Dodge unit. The Ford filter mounting thread is twice the size as the one on the dodge. The Ford filter mounting area is about 1 1/2" diameter larger. If they were the same, it would be the same kit. The only difference in the two kits IS the block adapter.

In fact, I was looking at both just yesterday trying to see if I could figure out why you guys have more problems. I was thinking it was maybe because of this difference. Maybe the Dodge plate looses up because of the smaller threading? I have no idea, except there are much different.
Bob

------------------
DiabloSport Dealer

 

[John]

Bob, I was either told or had read the difference between the two kits was the O-ring used for the block adapter... same block adapter, the PSD using the outer (larger) O-ring groove, the Cummins TD using the inner (smaller) O-ring groove. If that was not correct information????? #ad
Now you have me wondering where I heard/read that. However, if what I stated earlier was bogus information, why are there two O-ring grroves in the block adapter? I was also told the difference between the BMK-15 and the BMK-16 is the bypass valve in the filter adapter (i. e. , different bypass rates)... any comments on this?

 

[Timinator]

So how much are CPFF's adapters? Are they availbale for immediate delivery? What size fittings do you need to use braided SS lines?

 

[Bob Riley]

Originally posted by John:
Bob, I was either told or had read the difference between the two kits was the O-ring used for the block adapter... same block adapter, the PSD using the outer (larger) O-ring groove, the Cummins TD using the inner (smaller) O-ring groove. If that was not correct information????? #ad
Now you have me wondering where I heard/read that. However, if what I stated earlier was bogus information, why are there two O-ring grroves in the block adapter? I was also told the difference between the BMK-15 and the BMK-16 is the bypass valve in the filter adapter (i. e. , different bypass rates)... any comments on this?

The BMK 15, 16, and the 13 are the same block. The rates of oil distribution are based on oil pressure. When the engine is cold, The oil pressure is slightly higher, causing the bypass ball to close off the flow to the BE filter. This is so more oil can get back to the engine when the flow is at it's slowest. As engine temps come up, oil pressure falls as the oil thins and the ball comes off the seat more allowing more oil to go thru the BE filter.
The reason they make different kits are simple as this. Filters are included in the diesel kits so people don't make mistakes buying the wrong filters initially. IOWs, at least the BE-100. The Dodge Cummins adapter nipple is about 3/4" in diameter and is different than the gas engines. The Ford nipple is 1 1/8" in diameter. The o-ring is larger than would even fit in the other adapters.
I can't tell you why there are two o-ring slots in the Dodge unit.
Bob

P. S. The BMK-11 is a fixed orifice type distribution.

------------------
DiabloSport Dealer

[This message has been edited by Bob Riley (edited 04-05-2001). ]

 

[unclebilly]

With regard to patents:

Patents last 17 - 20 years (depending how long it took from filing to granting of the patent) - if this part has "been around for years", the patent may have expired or is set to expire.

Changing the material may allow the mount to be copied, depending on the wording in the claims. If it says something like ... the preferred embodiment, cast of aluminum... in the first claim, changing the material or manufacturing process would allow the design to be coppied.

You can not patent an oil filter mount, it is neither novel nor inventive, the embodiment can be patented so by merely changing the shape of the mount, it could be copied. If the design is neither novel or inventive, it can be coppied and the patent will be found to be notwithstanding.

Furthermore, the purpose of a patent is to make the invention public knowledge, in return for this you get to have a monoply on your invention for the term of the patent. Patents are public knowledge, go to the USPTO site @ http://164. 195. 100. 11/netahtml/search-bool.html and do a patent search, every US patent ever filled is there. #ad


As a design engineer, I devote 1 hour of my days to reveiwing prior art (other patents).

------------------
91. 5 CTD 4X4, 5" Stacks, Tweaked Pump, 33" Boots (in the summer), Unlimited Slip,
Big, Bad Dodge

[This message has been edited by unclebilly (edited 04-05-2001). ]

 

[Bob Riley]

Thanks unclebilly. #ad
So basically, they could have a patent on it, but that doesn't mean they could enforce it if someone did copy it?
Bob

------------------
DiabloSport Dealer

 

[Dan Watson]

So far a good discussion. Maybe I can help a little. The Amsoil Bypass kit for the Cummins uses a different but flexible (can be used in more than one application) adapter plate with two o-ring grooves. The Ford PSD kit use a special made adapter with a much larger threaded opening and the o-ring groove is set further out from the center than either of the o-ring grooves for the Dodge Cummins. The compression of the o-ring for the Ford is sufficient to prevent any leaking or seepage from happening. My experience with the Cummins Amsoil bypass system is that you have to tighten the adapter plate about 1/ 8 to 1/4 turn when it is hot to ensure it will not seep when it heats up. Also, don't forget to lubricate the o-ring before you screw the adapter on. Failure to lube the o-ring will cause it to grab and you will stretch a portion and that can cause seepage. I think you would risk damaging the plate if you tried to torque it enough when it is cold to get this extra compression when it is hot. What happens is the threaded nipple lengthens when it gets hot taking some of the compression off the o-ring. To date, I have not seen this procedure fail to stop any leakage or seeping.

When it come to installing the hose fittings in the adapter plate, you don't need to over tighten them. This is a low pressure system and the hose fitting will hold this pressure if properly installed into the plate.

As for the billet adapters, good deal. If you want to spend the money they sound like a superior design. I saw where one person used braided shielded hose, again superior design just cost more money. Maybe the competition of the billet design will cause Amsoil or their supplier to improve the basic design. That's why competition is good, it usually benefits the consumer.

Dan Watson www.AdvancedLubeTech
(see my banner this site)

 

[unclebilly]

Yes, it all comes down to what is claimed. Obviously, an inventor would love to patent the entire lubrication system. The claims start out very vague and become more specific. The patent office decided where to draw the line as to what is allowed to be claimed (how precisely the claims must describe the invention), the first claim is the most vague description that is permissible. Sometimes, people at the patent office are sleeping and the damndest things get patented! These patents are easily contestable. Furthermore, if the inventor failed to list any and all prior art, the validity of the patent becomes into question.

Too bad Amsoil guy there wont give us the patent number (if it exists) so we can search the patent and see exactly what the patent pertains to - if a patent actually exists.

If someone wants to get me the patent number (which may be either printed on the packaging or stamped (cast) on the mount, I'd be hapy to do a search. I'm on holidays now, so instead of emailing it to me, post it here. I'll let everyone who cares know what I find.

------------------
91. 5 CTD 4X4, 5" Stacks, Tweaked Pump, 33" Boots (in the summer), Unlimited Slip,
Big, Bad Dodge

 

[americana]

hey, cpff, i e-mailed you last night begging you to sell me one of your adaptors.

the rest of you ought to take a look at his design then look at the amsoil design. if you don't think it isn't significantly better and different in it's approach, design and intent then i can't help you, nor can anyone else. HOWEVER, the insight of some regarding info on patents was informative, even if it was a little off topic, and i enjoyed it.

the other part of my question was how to install the tap for my sample taking. are there any torque specs? teflon tape recommended? any takers on that one?

 

[CPFF]

Americana
I just sent you a e-mail. It took me awhile to go thru 33 e-mails! Now i only have 32 more to answer tonight.
Now to answer your other question. In my humble opinion, I would not use the petcock for samples. I feel you will get a more accurate reading by using the vacuum pump with the suction tube run down the dipstick tube to draw the sample directly into the bottle. This way the engine is not running,the fan is not turning - blowing stuff into the open bottle your waiting to fill with oil. I hear there's a lot of "bad stuff" in the air out there!!!
I hope this helps.
CPFF

------------------
CUMMINS POWERED FAST FORD

 

[Timinator]

Unclebilly and Bob,
I believe that someone CAN patent a new adapter, but it's highly unlikely. Any improvement would need to be unobvious to those skilled in the art. I can't think of any unobvious improvements, but that's the point, I think. Don't rule out design patents. They are relatively easy to get and people who get them act as if it is a utility patent. I could get a design patent on an adapter design in short order.

 

[John]

Thanks for the information/correction Dan. #ad


In addition to using the billet block adapter, there are many of us also using the Aeroquip -08 AN Teflon/braided stainless steel hoses for our remote mounted systems. The swept 90 degree steel fittings are superior to the hard 90 degree fittings provided by Amsoil. I'm not disputing whether the fittings Amsoil provides are capable... I just think all aspects of the Teflon/braided stainless steel Aeroquip replacements are superior.

 

[EMDDIESEL]

As mentioned, i used braided Stainless steel lines on my Amsoil Steup. Aeroquip makes Stainless braided hose with a rubber or Teflon core. They look identical on the outside, But they DO NOT use the same fittings. Make sure when you order hose and fittings that you have the right part numbers.
-8 Rubber lined hose is cheaper and flows the same as Teflon, Just technically it wont last as long (Maybe only 10 years instead of 11 with Teflon).
As far as fittings go, you can go with Steel or Aluminum. Both will work with pressures up to 1,000 PSI. The aluminum fittings dissapte heat better. I used Aeroquip Aluminum fittings in plain aluminum finish (Not the out of place looking red and blue)And i got "Swivel" style fittings that allow the hose to twist freely even after they are installed to eliminate stress and makes install a breeze. I used 2 90 degree and 2 straight fittings. If anyone needs P/N let me know.
I got all my stuff from Summit racing equipment. They dont list the fittings i got in the catalog. But if you talk to the tech Department, they stock ALL of them. Again, let me stress, make sure they send you the right fittings for the hose you are using. You CAN NOT use Rubber lined hose with fittings made for Teflon hose and vice-versa.