Not happy with new Amsoil bypass filter

[steved]

Y-knot had the right idea. ULSD may be the cause of the high soot levels. When the sulfur levels dropped from 500 ppm to 15 ppm this decreased the NOx emissions. In doing so, it increased the EGR rates. Increased EGR results in less efficient combustion and raises the levels of soot that finds its way into the engine oil.



I'd like to also hear what Amsoil Tech has to say.



Paul

I will only say that soot is soot, should not matter how much is "produced", it should still get filtered out...



Especially for someone like me that does 90% highway. With the same fuel and BE90, I had better results (ULSD isn't new around here by anymeans from what I have recently found out).



steved

 

[amsoilman]

Steved,

If you looked at the video which I sent the link to you, you would see by what is left on my hands there is not much soot there! If there were, my hands would be black, as in SOOT!



Wayne

amsoilman

 

[steved]

Steved,

If you looked at the video which I sent the link to you...



Wayne

amsoilman

Umm, what link??



I will go dip MY oil out and show you that it is as black as NOT running a bypass with only around 4k on the oil... it is black enough that you cannot see through it... it is no longer transparent/opaque like the BE90 kept the oil... you cannot even begin to read the dipstick through it as I was able to do with the BE90s...



My point is that we are paying MORE for a filter that appears to do LESS.



steved

 

[amsoilman]

Umm, what link??



I will go dip MY oil out and show you that it is as black as NOT running a bypass with only around 4k on the oil... it is black enough that you cannot see through it... it is no longer transparent/opaque like the BE90 kept the oil... you cannot even begin to read the dipstick through it as I was able to do with the BE90s...



My point is that we are paying MORE for a filter that appears to do LESS.



steved

I sent you a link by e-mail.



Wayne

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

I have a Amsoil bypass sitting in the garage, due to other posts like this. I'm not gonna install it until Amsoil fixes the problem.



I don't remember having an EGR system on my 2nd Gen? I thought that was 3rd Gen.

3rd Gens do not have EGR either. No EGR until Jan 2007, that's what all the consternation is about.



Not sure what PLaFrombois means by ULSD affecting "EGR rates," maybe amount of soot in the exhaust?

ULSD if anything would reduce soot in the oil if it's supposedly cleaner burning, but who knows. . .

 

[CumminsPower98]

Below is the response I got from Amsoil. I don't know what to think but will run it on up to it's change time probably and then run my last BE-100 and see what that one does. Maybe it was just a fluke but that doesn't explain what Steved is seeing so I don't know.



Thank you for contacting AMSOIL with your concerns.







In response to your inquiry, I had an opportunity to review your oil analysis results with our Oil Analyzers personnel. The following are a several explanations for the very slight increase in reportable soot/solids level:







1. The overall soot/solid level is extremely low and barely within the detection limits of the analytical equipment. Any minor variation in the sample, sample preparation, and external contaminant can skew the results.

2. Any variation in driving conditions, habits, fuel, air filter performance can change the overall soot/solids trends, especially at these low soot/solids values.

3. The number of hours/miles on the engine is increasing, thus increasing the potential of the engine not performing at optimal levels.







Through testing at Southwest Research Institute and Milwaukee School of Engineering the efficiency of the EaBP filter exceeds that of the BE series filter. The EaBP efficiency was determined to be 98. 7% efficient at 2 microns, with time weighted average soot removal of 39%. The BE filter was determined to be 93% efficient at 3 microns.







Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your concerns. As always, please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance.







Sincerely,







Richard Holappa, Jr.



Technical Product Manager: Filtration

 

[Diesel Power]

Below is the response I got from Amsoil. I don't know what to think but will run it on up to it's change time probably and then run my last BE-100 and see what that one does. Maybe it was just a fluke but that doesn't explain what Steved is seeing so I don't know.



Thank you for contacting AMSOIL with your concerns.







In response to your inquiry, I had an opportunity to review your oil analysis results with our Oil Analyzers personnel. The following are a several explanations for the very slight increase in reportable soot/solids level:







1. The overall soot/solid level is extremely low and barely within the detection limits of the analytical equipment. Any minor variation in the sample, sample preparation, and external contaminant can skew the results.

2. Any variation in driving conditions, habits, fuel, air filter performance can change the overall soot/solids trends, especially at these low soot/solids values.

3. The number of hours/miles on the engine is increasing, thus increasing the potential of the engine not performing at optimal levels.







Through testing at Southwest Research Institute and Milwaukee School of Engineering the efficiency of the EaBP filter exceeds that of the BE series filter. The EaBP efficiency was determined to be 98. 7% efficient at 2 microns, with time weighted average soot removal of 39%. The BE filter was determined to be 93% efficient at 3 microns.







Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your concerns. As always, please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance.







Sincerely,







Richard Holappa, Jr.



Technical Product Manager: Filtration

nice to see richard got back to you, he is correct in his statement.

 

[steved]

1. The overall soot/solid level is extremely low and barely within the detection limits of the analytical equipment. Any minor variation in the sample, sample preparation, and external contaminant can skew the results.

2. Any variation in driving conditions, habits, fuel, air filter performance can change the overall soot/solids trends, especially at these low soot/solids values.

3. The number of hours/miles on the engine is increasing, thus increasing the potential of the engine not performing at optimal levels.







Through testing at Southwest Research Institute and Milwaukee School of Engineering the efficiency of the EaBP filter exceeds that of the BE series filter. The EaBP efficiency was determined to be 98. 7% efficient at 2 microns, with time weighted average soot removal of 39%. The BE filter was determined to be 93% efficient at 3 microns.

If this is extremely low and barely detectable, then why were you getting LOWER numbers consistantly from your lab?? Coming from a semi-analytical background, each machine has it's own detection limit which can vary from batch to batch... and they can report lower detection, they just need to qualify them as an "estimated quantity", but they still see a number. While I agree that most instruments cannot actually read "zero", some compounds are detectable to the parts per trillion... I can not see where a particulate would be difficult to analyze.



As to the second and third response... why does the truck's condition or driving style matter? You are still pumping the oil throught the bypass which should keep the oil clean... particulate levels should not have spiked up as they did by just changing the filter. You should see a general and smooth increasing trend if it was indeed a "wear" related cause... not a jump as you did.



And again, I follow your logic about the jump in particulates... that should not happen because of wear, different driving styles, etc... not with the consistancy you have already shown. I agree the change you saw was most likely from the filter...



And as for the ratings... you can make numbers say anything you want... it's funny they express the comparison in microns but not the time weighted soot removal, which leads me to believe that while the EaBP is a better filter (than the BE) in regards to micron size, it is NOT as good in the time weighted department.



Marketing is a wonderful thing... you can say things so many ways to make it sound really good. A good salesman could sell a turd... and make you feel good about buying that turd at the same time...



steved

 

[amsoilman]

If this is extremely low and barely detectable, then why were you getting LOWER numbers consistantly from your lab?? Coming from a semi-analytical background, each machine has it's own detection limit which can vary from batch to batch... and they can report lower detection, they just need to qualify them as an "estimated quantity", but they still see a number. While I agree that most instruments cannot actually read "zero", some compounds are detectable to the parts per trillion... I can not see where a particulate would be difficult to analyze.



As to the second and third response... why does the truck's condition or driving style matter? You are still pumping the oil throught the bypass which should keep the oil clean... particulate levels should not have spiked up as they did by just changing the filter. You should see a general and smooth increasing trend if it was indeed a "wear" related cause... not a jump as you did.



And again, I follow your logic about the jump in particulates... that should not happen because of wear, different driving styles, etc... not with the consistancy you have already shown. I agree the change you saw was most likely from the filter...



And as for the ratings... you can make numbers say anything you want... it's funny they express the comparison in microns but not the time weighted soot removal, which leads me to believe that while the EaBP is a better filter (than the BE) in regards to micron size, it is NOT as good in the time weighted department.



Marketing is a wonderful thing... you can say things so many ways to make it sound really good. A good salesman could sell a turd... and make you feel good about buying that turd at the same time...





steved

Here is a link to Southwest Research Institute, who did the testing of the Amsoil filters. I might add, they used the (ISO) International Standards Organization standards for all the tests.



http://www.swri.edu/3pubs/brochure/d03/filtra/home.htm



Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) is an independent, nonprofit applied research and development organization. The staff of 3,000 specialize in the creation and transfer of technology in engineering and the physical sciences. The Institute occupies more than 1,200 acres in San Antonio, Texas, and provides nearly two million square feet of laboratories, test facilities, workshops and offices. SwRI's total revenue for fiscal year 2005 was $435 million.



I guess if you can't beleive reports that come from this kind of testing, you will just have to rely on your own eye ball testing



Wayne'

 

[ThrottleJockey]

My oil is the color of honey, a bit darker.



I don't change my oil. I change the toilet paper element. Cost $. 98 cents. Then I add some more oil to top off.



Toilet Paper. Cleans the tushy. Cleans the oil.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I use the stuff, just not for my engine.

:-laf :-laf



I change the oil WHEN it starts to show soot.

 

[steved]

I guess if you can't beleive reports that come from this kind of testing, you will just have to rely on your own eye ball testing



Wayne'

Almost as scientific as your "hand washing" technique to show "clean oil"...



steved

 

[amsoilman]

Almost as scientific as your "hand washing" technique to show "clean oil"...



steved

Steved,

I did not intend to show the condition of the oil with the video, but I did intend on showing how the oil wiped off my hands without leaving any "soot" deposits on my them! Having seen that, don't you honestly think if there were much soot in the oil, it would stay on my hands?



Respectfully,



Wayne

 

[steved]

Steved,

I did not intend to show the condition of the oil with the video, but I did intend on showing how the oil wiped off my hands without leaving any "soot" deposits on my them! Having seen that, don't you honestly think if there were much soot in the oil, it would stay on my hands?



Respectfully,



Wayne

And respectfully, any "good" detergent oil will do the same thing... you could do that with high mileage oil with no bypass and have a similar effect. Smearing the oil on your hands to a thin film thickness will cause that effect... I did similar "experiments" in grade school.



Besides, you question my "visual" assessment between the BE and BP filters and then present me with this super high tech, "let's wipe some oil on my hands" test. How is that MORE scientific than a visual assessment between two oils used under similar conditions with one change... the filter?



Do you really know how they test for particulates??? I'll bet, while more controlled, it is a visual assessment. I'll bet that, simplified, it is nothing more than a test where the lab is shining a light through the sample, then determining how much light is/isn't transmitted. Same as they test water for turbidity.



steved

 

[Red Ram]

CAN YOU SEND MY THE VIDEO MY EMAIL IS -- email address removed --



THANK YOU amsoilman

 

[amsoilman]

And respectfully, any "good" detergent oil will do the same thing... you could do that with high mileage oil with no bypass and have a similar effect. Smearing the oil on your hands to a thin film thickness will cause that effect... I did similar "experiments" in grade school.



Besides, you question my "visual" assessment between the BE and BP filters and then present me with this super high tech, "let's wipe some oil on my hands" test. How is that MORE scientific than a visual assessment between two oils used under similar conditions with one change... the filter?



Do you really know how they test for particulates??? I'll bet, while more controlled, it is a visual assessment. I'll bet that, simplified, it is nothing more than a test where the lab is shining a light through the sample, then determining how much light is/isn't transmitted. Same as they test water for turbidity.



steved

Yes, I do know how they test for particulates! However, you would not beleive me if I told you! I've been around oil testing many, many years.



Now if you want to use your eyes to determine how much "soot" there is in oil, feast your eyes on this picture:



The Engine has 150,000 miles on it with only "ONE" oil drain! DO you see ANY "SOOT"?



Wayne

 

[steved]

Yes, I do know how they test for particulates! However, you would not beleive me if I told you! I've been around oil testing many, many years.



Now if you want to use your eyes to determine how much "soot" there is in oil, feast your eyes on this picture:



The Engine has 150,000 miles on it with only "ONE" oil drain! DO you see ANY "SOOT"?



Wayne

Umm, we had my dad's cover off last weekend with 254k on a 99 24-valve... it was as clean as those... it ran nothing but Rotella 15w40 with regular changes... was I supposed to be impressed??



I will restate: REGULAR 100% DINO 15W40... not synthetic.



steved

 

[amsoilman]

CAN YOU SEND MY THE VIDEO MY EMAIL IS -- email address removed --



THANK YOU amsoilman

I pM'd you.



Wayne

amsoilman

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Umm, we had my dad's cover off last weekend with 254k on a 99 24-valve... it was as clean as those... it ran nothing but Rotella 15w40 with regular changes... was I supposed to be impressed??



I will restate: REGULAR 100% DINO 15W40... not synthetic.



steved

I've seen under quite a few valve covers involved in injector swaps. You could tell by the level of cleanliness in the higher mileage trucks which ones ran a quality synthetic (looks like Amsoilman's) and which ones didn't (brownish residue on valvetrain, noticeably more soot).



My '98 had been treated to 3000-mile oil changes before I bought it at 137k, so the valvetrain on it was pretty clean. But after switching to Amsoil at 140k it looked noticeably cleaner when I did a valve adjustment recently (at 145k). I don't know what brand of oil the previous owner used though.



Vaughn

 

[amsoilman]

Umm, we had my dad's cover off last weekend with 254k on a 99 24-valve... it was as clean as those... it ran nothing but Rotella 15w40 with regular changes... was I supposed to be impressed??



I will restate: REGULAR 100% DINO 15W40... not synthetic.



steved

You still didn't get the point! This picture is AFTER 150,000 miles and only ONE OIL DRAIN! Don't you think the oil and filtration system had something to do with that?



Respectfully,





Wayne

amsoilman