FS2500 observations

[Gary - K7GLD]

FIRST - as to that "old wives tale" about the TP "falling apart" in the Frantz - absolutely NOT! :-laf



That rumor is undoubtedly the most common bit of misinformation that circulates about the TP type filters - here's a pic of a typical used element from mine:



#ad




NOPE, didn't "dissolve", or "fall apart" - and my oil analysis reports are always quite low in insolubles.



As to "spinner" type filters - keep in mind that their function best separates HEAVY material from whatever is being treated - and SOOT is pretty light in comparison to the wear metals we typically are concerned about in oil - and MIGHT not be as easily separated as those metal, which is why I keep following these various filter threads - to see what does work, and what doesn't.

Thanks Gary. . Agreed. .



And not trying to say our Frantzes are better than all the others or worse, but they do seem to stay pretty consistent judging between the posts youve been sharing and others alike. And the filter elements are certainly easily attainable at around a buck a piece. The simplicity is a plus.



I definitely am not going to let the oil go that long again, but do think it is reasonable to change it out once a year (like when spring time comes). Also, ended up burning that last load after circulating it through another frantz fuel filter without any known problems. It ran fine, almost free fuel even!



Am still interested in the FS2500 as it does APPEAR to be a good filter from their video. If we can see some actual test results and they look worth it, I wouldnt mind plumbing one inline after a Frantz. Just a thought, but cant even imagine spending those bucks without seeing some real "unbiased" numbers. .



Particle count to follow. . Thanks.

Phil, I too get nervous as to the darkness of the oil - regardless of lab reports of purity - and have settled on about a 1 year or 12K mile change interval. That's about as dark as I can stand to see my oil with a clear conscience! :-laf



And yeah - I burn my drained oil with my fuel too - after all, my fuel ALSO travels thru a Frantz sub-micron filter, just as the oil does!

 

[steved]

FIRST - as to that "old wives tale" about the TP "falling apart" in the Frantz - absolutely NOT! :-laf



That rumor is undoubtedly the most common bit of misinformation that circulates about the TP type filters - here's a pic of a typical used element from mine:

I will only add that I use paper towels when cleaning the oil out of my NV5600 through the PTO... the paper towels become "crinkly" for lack of a better term... they actually become crunchy and very tough, a lot harder to tear than a dry paper towel. They do lose there absorbancy, but they don't tear or shed.



steved

 

[PRout]

Phil, I too get nervous as to the darkness of the oil - regardless of lab reports of purity - and have settled on about a 1 year or 12K mile change interval. That's about as dark as I can stand to see my oil with a clear conscience! :-laf

And yeah - I burn my drained oil with my fuel too - after all, my fuel ALSO travels thru a Frantz sub-micron filter, just as the oil does!

Gary, Steved, ditto ditto ditto... Thank You.

So, since we are not hijacking the thread, just encouraging some real numbers from the FS2500 users & others... Lets see em. .

 

[Mrudolph]

I'd be more impressed with the FS2500 video if it was connected to an engine and then cleaned the oil.

 

[PRout]

Ok, Here's the numbers... Gulp!

Blackstone Labs Particle Count / Delo / 40k miles / Frantz:

ISO Code (2) ------- 16/13
NAS 1638 Class ---- 1
ISO Code (3) ------- 16/15/13
>= 2 Micron --------- 1085
>= 5 Micron --------- 402
>= 10 Micron -------- 111
>= 15 Micron -------- 43
>= 25 Micron -------- 10
>= 50 Micron -------- 1
>= 100 Micron ------- 0

At first I wasn't very happy with these numbers, then I found the post that showed a baseline sample here:

https://www.turbodieselregister.com...analysis-particle-count-delo-400-15-40-a.html (Post#1 is with a Frantz / Post #28 is without bypass filtering)

Still think it can be improved by fixing the center tube leakage problem. My frantz filters are from the old design with the smaller center tubes which I think the newer ones dont have the same issue.

Will add an actual pic of the report later when I get the energy to get out the cam, but wanted to get the data posted.






Still waiting for some numbers on the FS2500. .

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Ok, Here's the numbers... Gulp!



Blackstone Labs Particle Count / Delo / 40k miles / Frantz:



ISO Code (2) ------- 16/13

NAS 1638 Class ---- 1

ISO Code (3) ------- 16/15/13

>= 2 Micron --------- 1085

>= 5 Micron --------- 402

>= 10 Micron -------- 111

>= 15 Micron -------- 43

>= 25 Micron -------- 10

>= 50 Micron -------- 1

>= 100 Micron ------- 0



At first I wasn't very happy with these numbers, then I found the post that showed a baseline sample here:



https://www.turbodieselregister.com...analysis-particle-count-delo-400-15-40-a.html (Post#1 is with a Frantz / Post #28 is without bypass filtering)



Still think it can be improved by fixing the center tube leakage problem. My frantz filters are from the old design with the smaller center tubes which I think the newer ones dont have the same issue.



Will add an actual pic of the report later when I get the energy to get out the cam, but wanted to get the data posted.



Still waiting for some numbers on the FS2500. .

Lots guys with only *3000* miles would LOVE to see a report that good - let alone at 40K miles! :-laf



Good job - and a report to be proud of!

 

[PRout]

Thanks for the encouragement Gary. . I knew it would be pretty anticlimactic after recovering from the neutron bomb you dropped in post#12 :-laf , but hey, it keeps the thread towards the top where the FS2500 guys can get to it when they're ready to post their particle counts. .

 

[Cal Brewin]

For comparisons, here is a particle count I did back in April, on my '06 with 7,400 miles on Rotella CJ-4, Dual Frantz filters in parallel. I went the full 7,400 miles w/o any TP changes, or make-up oil.



Tom



#ad

 

[amsoilman]

For comparisons, here is a particle count I did back in April, on my '06 with 7,400 miles on Rotella CJ-4, Dual Frantz filters in parallel. I went the full 7,400 miles w/o any TP changes, or make-up oil.



Tom



#ad

Your report looks very good, and you didn't change any filters or added any new make-up oil, which others here ae doing. Anytime you change filter elements and add new oil then do this kind of testing, it will effect the outcome of the tests.



Here are some results of testing showing what better filtration can do for engine wear:



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 would say your "Dual" Frantz filters are doing an excellent job! I'm a believer in oil/air filtration!



Wayne

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Your report looks very good, and you didn't change any filters or added any new make-up oil, which others here ae doing. Anytime you change filter elements and add new oil then do this kind of testing, it will effect the outcome of the tests.

That's true to a degree - and in the earlier days of Amsoils suggested extended oil drains with their oil, the occasional addition of makeup oil as the filters were changed at recommended intervals was regarded as a "good thing" because the added oil restored fuel additives depleted in normal engine operation - has Amsoil's opinion/recommendation changed in that regard?



Personally, I sorta suspect that the 1/2 quart or so of oil I add when swapping elements in my Frantz is enough to reasonably maintain additive quality - but also doubt it would slant wear metal or particle counts too horribly - 1/2 quart out of 12 in the crankcase isn't a whole lot, percentage-wise - and I regard it as a PLUS, not a negative...

 

[PRout]

Wow Cal, im really liking your parallel setup. Would be nice to be able to use the "elements" for a full year and only have to change them like each spring time or something like that and still get numbers like those. . I might have to re-think my setup. .

Wayne, Thanks for the write-up. . If we can get a 30% increase in engine life from just running our bypass setups (whichever brand) then hey thats a pretty good incentive for people to run them. I did not realize they can make that much difference. . Also, I do like the ability to add an oil cooler in line with the Amsoil setup. Keeping the oil cooler while pulling heavy will make a significant difference in engine life too. . (but thats for a different thread).

I really would like to see my numbers improved, so one of these days will get out there and install some o-rings in the center tube, and maybe use a couple t-fittings to parallel them up. . Guess that would require putting the flow restrictor orifice back inline too. .

As for the make-up oil, I dont have a problem with replacing a quart when changing elements. . That just means were keeping the additives up. Yes, it may slightly skew the test if we are testing the filter only, but Im testing the entire process or method of what my routine is, not just the filter.

Gotta love it when were makin things better Oo.

 

[Cal Brewin]

I don't mind changing filters, it was kind of an experiment to see if the filters would go that far and still perform, or possibly filter better as the elements loaded up. The Frantz still got hot indicating flow thru the filters. I put around 7,000 miles on the truck every 3 months, and do a UOA, but not a PC count or TBN each time. My inspiration for going the distance, was a UOA I saw on a CTD running Rotella Syn 5w40, and going over 10,000 miles w/o an element change on his Frantz, and having an excellent UOA, don't think he had a PC done, but wear metals were very low. If interested, I could probably find it, as it was emailed to me last year from Deborah (Frantz)



Tom.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Also, I do like the ability to add an oil cooler in line with the Amsoil setup. Keeping the oil cooler while pulling heavy will make a significant difference in engine life too. . (but thats for a different thread).

Perhaps true to a degree - but in truth, the actual oil flow volume thru a properly restricted bypass filter is so slow that I doubt it would have any significant temperature reducing effect - sorta like peeing in the ocean. :-laf:-laf

 

[PRout]

Sounds good. .

After re-thinking this. Im in the process of "simplifying" things right now, so will probably pull one off to save space. Will change the oil & OEM filter "yearly" regardless of miles, and change the single frantz element every 6 months, and call it "good".

 

[PRout]

Perhaps true to a degree - but in truth, the actual oil flow volume thru a properly restricted bypass filter is so slow that I doubt it would have any significant temperature reducing effect - sorta like peeing in the ocean. :-laf:-laf

True, but I was under the impression that there is a remote unit that houses a full-flow filter and a bypass filter on the same remote unit. Was thinking the flow to the unit would be high enough to effectively tap an inline cooler in one of the lines to the unit, but Im probably wrong...

 

[amsoilman]

GARY,



This is Amsoil's recommendations on their By-Pass elements:



When used in conjunction with AMSOIL motor oil and an AMSOIL EaO or Donaldson Endurance™ filter, (FULL-FLOW element) the EaBP (BY-PASS element ) should be changed every other full-flow filter change up to 60,000 miles. When used with other brands of motor oil or full-flow filters, the EaBP Filter should be changed every other full-flow filter change. AMSOIL recommends using oil analysis when extending oil drain intervals.





The recommendations prior to the EaBP elements were to change every 25,000/one year when used with AMSOIL motor oil. This was the BP-*** elements.



And yes, any additional make-up oil in between an oil analysis, will affect all the readings, as you are analyzing ALL the oil in the sump. This is why it is important to declare any make-up oil that was added when submitting an oil analysis.



Now regular filtration, (NO BY-PASS) is entirely different, and will depend on how the vehicle is driven, such as “SEVERE” or “NORMAL” service and if the vehicle is Diesel or Gasoline.



Diesel Engine “SEVERE” service is defined as-Extensive engine idling, daily short trip driving less than 10 miles (16km), frequent towing, plowing, hauling or dusty conditions.



Gasoline Engine “SEVERE” service is defined as- Turbo/supercharged engines, commercial or fleet vehicles, excessive engine idling, first and subsequent use of AMSOIL engine oil in vehicles with more than 100,000 miles, daily driving less than 10 miles (16km), frequent towing, plowing, hauling or dusty conditions.



“NORMAL” service is defined as-personal transportation vehicles frequently traveling greater than 10 miles (16km) at a time and NOT operating under severe service.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

This is Amsoil’s recommendations on their By-Pass elements:



When used in conjunction with AMSOIL motor oil and an AMSOIL EaO or Donaldson Endurance™ filter, (FULL-FLOW element) the EaBP (BY-PASS element ) should be changed every other full-flow filter change up to 60,000 miles. When used with other brands of motor oil or full-flow filters, the EaBP Filter should be changed every other full-flow filter change. AMSOIL recommends using oil analysis when extending oil drain intervals.

THEN, it would be reasonable to assume that the normal change interval for the full-flow filter - and required makeup oil would also "skew" the recommended accompanying Amsoil oil analysis - which was my point - JUST LIKE it would with a Frantz or any other competing setup.



Not a bad or radical thing, just something to be aware of - and as was stated earlier,

As for the make-up oil, I dont have a problem with replacing a quart when changing elements. . That just means were keeping the additives up. Yes, it may slightly skew the test if we are testing the filter only, but Im testing the entire process or method of what my routine is, not just the filter.

I also sorta tend to look at my use and maintenance of my bypass setup as a "total" system operation - and the accompanying oil analysis I do is primarily for my own comparisons with preceding analysis reports - to monitor wear numbers and compare results when changes are made. Ya gotta have SOME sort of a baseline - mine is swapping filter cartridges about every 3K miles, and adding about a half quart of makeup oil - works for me... :-laf

 

[steved]

Perhaps true to a degree - but in truth, the actual oil flow volume thru a properly restricted bypass filter is so slow that I doubt it would have any significant temperature reducing effect - sorta like peeing in the ocean. :-laf:-laf

I did have a cooler mounted inline with my Amsoil bypass... it was an 12-inch extruded aluminum oil cooler mounted on the passenger frame rail.



As Gary noted, it didn't flow enough volume to do much cooling. There was definitely a drop in temp between the engine supply and the return fitting temps (you could tell by touching them), but at a quart/minute, it doesn't really do a whole lot.



I removed the cooler when I installed my Gulf Coast... I believe the GCF's "surface area" will do more for cooling than the additional cooler.



steved

 

[JWendt]

I have a question. What should the oil test numbers be when you need to change oil? Is there a chart on if the oil is still good or a personal preference? I see every one talking about the results but nothing about what they actually mean.

 

[steved]

Ya gotta have SOME sort of a baseline - mine is swapping filter cartridges about every 3K miles, and adding about a half quart of makeup oil - works for me... :-laf

I intend to complete a couple "before" and "after" UOAs, but I am very seriously considering NOT changing oil again since the filter changes 33% of the total system's oil capacity. I have almost 1500 miles on the GCF and the oil, while dark, is still clear... it is CJ-4 Rotella.



One thing I wanted to throw out here as a conversation starter... do we think the reduction of TBN in the CJ-4 oils will be as big of a detriment (as we assume it will be) since we are running ULSD??



I mean as noted I had a TBN=6. 7 after almost 10k and (from what I have read) the TBN=8. 2 in a VOA of CJ-4... that's not that much of a drop in TBN/10k. I was running a bypass, but...



If you use TBN=2 as a OCI threshhold, and use a linear drop in TBN=1. 5/10k miles, then the CJ-4 oil should be capable of around 40k mile OCIs before TBN actually becomes a concern. (VOA TBN=8. 2, 8. 2-1. 5=6. 7, 6. 7-1. 5=5. 2, 5. 2-1. 5=3. 7, 3. 7-1. 5=2. 2). I'm sure the TBN drop is probably a curve, getting faster as it gets used, but simplistically...



Any thoughts??



steved