Centrifugal oil filter

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #21

On or around Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:07:40 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> If they use bypass oil (from the pressure limiter?) can they be
>retro
>> fitted?
>>
>> AJH
>
>The ones I know of have all been factory fitted. If there is a version
>for remote mounting then I can see no reason why such a thing cannot
>be retrofitted. You may know that they have a disconcerting noise on
>shutdown, rather like a jet engine shutting down only quieter. Lovely
>things as far as efficiency and operating cost goes, unless they are
>the Land Rover version apparently.

there was a site about bypass oil filtering, some time ago. I don't think
it used s centrifugal one though, just a high-efficiency filter. Still
gives you the advantages from the point of view of engine wear and longevity

 

H

Huw

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #22

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around Sun, 10 Oct 2004 02:07:40 +0100, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> If they use bypass oil (from the pressure limiter?) can they be
>> retro
>>> fitted?
>>>
>>> AJH
>>
>> The ones I know of have all been factory fitted. If there is a
>> version for remote mounting then I can see no reason why such a
>> thing cannot be retrofitted. You may know that they have a
>> disconcerting noise on shutdown, rather like a jet engine shutting
>> down only quieter. Lovely things as far as efficiency and operating
>> cost goes, unless they are the Land Rover version apparently.
>
> there was a site about bypass oil filtering, some time ago. I don't
> think it used s centrifugal one though, just a high-efficiency
> filter. Still gives you the advantages from the point of view of
> engine wear and longevity

It will have negligible effect on engine longevity. That is not the
purpose of a bypass filter. It is to facilitate the safe use of very
long drain intervals in conjunction with suitable oil.

Huw


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/04

 

S

[email protected]

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #23

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:06:25 +0100, "Huw"
<hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>It will have negligible effect on engine longevity.

I see where you are coming from, in effect in the absence of this
equipment long drain intervals cannot be used as the oil and filter
bung up with particulate?

Once the oil is filtered to this high degree the limit on oil life
being build up of chemicals which the oil can no longer neutralise and
loss of lubricity from long chain molecules being broken up?

I have extended the drain interval on my lpg powered V8 to 15K miles,
the oil remains golden and from an old posting to an lpg list I hope
the oil still remains in spec. No signs of problems yet, and I do
drive it set very lean as this increased economy by ~5%. Mind I am
very envious of the lpg mileage Martyn reported from his 4.6 grumble,
which should be heavier than my 110 by some degree, I take it it is
the gearing that makes use of the better characteristics of the 4.6.

AJH

 

H

Huw

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #24

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:06:25 +0100, "Huw"
> <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It will have negligible effect on engine longevity.
>
> I see where you are coming from, in effect in the absence of this
> equipment long drain intervals cannot be used as the oil and filter
> bung up with particulate?
>

Yes. The bypass filter actually filters much finer particles than most
standard full flow ones. These finer particles do not cause wear until
they saturate an oil to a large extent and overwhelm the oil. Take
these out and the limit of the oil is greatly enhanced.

Huw


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/04

 

L

Landy Fred

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #25

does the filter also work to hold sulpur particals/
I use the Land Rover in north and west africa and i know the diesel
overthere is not 'that good'
Higher level of sulphur, so I change the oil every time I get back from a
trip (driven ~10000 km per trip)
Is the change necessay, what do you all think?

regards
Fred (Holland)

"Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> beamendsltd wrote:
> > In message <[email protected]>
> > "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> beamendsltd wrote:
> >>> In message <[email protected]>
> >>> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Martin Lewis wrote:
> >>>>> "Huw" <hedydd[nospam]@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>> Are you *absolutely* sure that anything other than the 'o' ring
> >>>>>> is replaced? I ask because although I have not serviced a TD5
> >>>>>> centrifuge myself, I have serviced industrial centrifugal
> filters
> >>>>>> from the same manufacturer and the only service needed is the
> >>>>>> removal of sludge and dirt residue. There are no routinely
> >>>>>> replaceable filter media in the ones I have seen.
> >>>>>> If you have actually changed a media in a TD5, I would be
> >>>>>> greatful if you could post a description. I take an interest in
> >>>>>> such things for no good reason. Sad!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Huw
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yep, you have to change the centrifuge cartridge itself, it's
> part
> >>>>> number ERR6299 and comes with the o-ring as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for the links. ISTM though, that the part should be able
> to
> >>>> be cleaned. Are you sure that it has to be changed or is the LR
> >>>> dealer making a quick buck by selling new parts that are not
> >>>> needed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Huw
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> It *definately* should be replaced at the specified interval.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Being cynical and knowing that they can be made to be easily
> cleaned
> >> and reused long term, I have to conclude that this situation is
> just
> >> a profit opportunity for dealer and manufacturer.
> >>
> >> Huw
> >>
> >
> > Well it's your engine........ ;-)
> >
> > Richard
>
> Most of the ones I have actually worked with just come apart to be
> easily wiped clean with a paper towel. The residue varies from sludgy
> to near solid.
> It is not just used on engines, it is also used on transmissions to
> excellent effect.
>
> Huw
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/04
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.775 / Virus Database: 522 - Release Date: 8-10-2004

 

H

Huw

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #26

Landy Fred wrote:
> does the filter also work to hold sulpur particals/
> I use the Land Rover in north and west africa and i know the diesel
> overthere is not 'that good'
> Higher level of sulphur, so I change the oil every time I get back
> from a trip (driven ~10000 km per trip)
> Is the change necessay, what do you all think?
>
> regards
> Fred (Holland)
>

In general terms, if fuel sulphur levels are above 0.5% then the oil
should be changed twice as often as listed in the normal service
schedule.

Huw


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.742 / Virus Database: 495 - Release Date: 19/08/04

 

E

EMB

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #27

[email protected] wrote:

> I have extended the drain interval on my lpg powered V8 to 15K miles,
> the oil remains golden and from an old posting to an lpg list I hope
> the oil still remains in spec. No signs of problems yet, and I do
> drive it set very lean as this increased economy by ~5%.

LPG powered vehicles require *more* regular oil changes. The oil stays
clean looking because there is significantly less carbon produced by the
combustion of LPG however a relatively large amount of acidic byproducts
are created. These acids stay in the oil and attack bearing surfaces
within the engine. I would suggest a maximum 5K mile service interval
for a LPG powered vehicle.

--
EMB
change two to the number to reply

 

S

[email protected]

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #28

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:00:27 +1300, EMB <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> I have extended the drain interval on my lpg powered V8 to 15K miles,
>> the oil remains golden and from an old posting to an lpg list I hope
>> the oil still remains in spec. No signs of problems yet, and I do
>> drive it set very lean as this increased economy by ~5%.
>
>LPG powered vehicles require *more* regular oil changes. The oil stays
>clean looking because there is significantly less carbon produced by the
>combustion of LPG however a relatively large amount of acidic byproducts
>are created. These acids stay in the oil and attack bearing surfaces
>within the engine. I would suggest a maximum 5K mile service interval
>for a LPG powered vehicle.

This was not the experience of the chap that ran a medium term test on
this, having the oil regularly sampled and tested. The oil remained in
spec such that the extended change interval could be used.

If you can cite a reference to why lpg should produce more acidic oil
contaminants than petrol I may delve around and see if I can find the
site I referenced.

I can see running lean will produce more acidic products (principally
dissolved NOx) when on full power but do not think lpg differs from
petrol much in this respect.

AJH

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 10, 2004

• #29

On or around Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:55:28 +0100, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>I can see running lean will produce more acidic products (principally
>dissolved NOx) when on full power but do not think lpg differs from
>petrol much in this respect.

and if it's properly set up, it shouldn't be running significantly lean
anyway.

I've noted that the oil stays clean, and more to the point, stays "feeling"
right. I still change it anyway at 6K, same as for petrol - the vehicle
does some miles on petrol, and in any case, the extra cost is minimal. For
the same reason, I don't follow the modern practice of changing the filter
every other oil change - the filters cost about a fiver, so why not put a
new one on with the new oil - the one that's done 6K miles can't be all that
clean.

 

E

EMB

Guest

• Oct 11, 2004

• #30

[email protected] wrote:
>
> If you can cite a reference to why lpg should produce more acidic oil
> contaminants than petrol I may delve around and see if I can find the
> site I referenced.

Can't cite it online - and can't find the printed material at the
moment, although the head of automotive engineering at the local trades
school (who agrees with me) is going to look out a copy for me.

AIUI part of the problem is the higher combustion temperatures of LPG
help break down the additive package in the oil more quickly which
reduces it's ability to neutralise the acids.



--
EMB
change two to the number to reply

 

S

[email protected]

Guest

• Oct 12, 2004

• #31

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:42:54 +1300, EMB <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> If you can cite a reference to why lpg should produce more acidic oil
>> contaminants than petrol I may delve around and see if I can find the
>> site I referenced.
>
>Can't cite it online - and can't find the printed material at the
>moment, although the head of automotive engineering at the local trades
>school (who agrees with me) is going to look out a copy for me.
>
>AIUI part of the problem is the higher combustion temperatures of LPG
>help break down the additive package in the oil more quickly which
>reduces it's ability to neutralise the acids.

OK. Have a look at this
http://www.dotslashslash.com/LPG/EngineOilAnalysis.htm

Which was put up from a guy on the lpg list in 2001, it seems to point
to the opposite, plus commercial lpg is also lower sulphur than petrol
(0.02% IIRC).

From the earlier bits of this thread it just might be that oil in
petrol engines is life limited more by particulate saturation than
loss of detergent or lubricant properties.

AJH

 

S

[email protected]

Guest

• Oct 12, 2004

• #32

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 22:42:13 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On or around Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:55:28 +0100, [email protected]
>enlightened us thusly:
>
>>I can see running lean will produce more acidic products (principally
>>dissolved NOx) when on full power but do not think lpg differs from
>>petrol much in this respect.
>
>and if it's properly set up, it shouldn't be running significantly lean
>anyway.

I doubt mine is properly set up as it is a simple system, I have
previously posted how the mixture probably leans out as the coolant
gets hot. I am sure I run it lean though and it has been worth a few
mpg at the cost of lousy pick up.
>
>I've noted that the oil stays clean, and more to the point, stays "feeling"
>right. I still change it anyway at 6K, same as for petrol - the vehicle
>does some miles on petrol, and in any case, the extra cost is minimal. For
>the same reason, I don't follow the modern practice of changing the filter
>every other oil change - the filters cost about a fiver, so why not put a
>new one on with the new oil - the one that's done 6K miles can't be all that
>clean.

Fine but one of the reasons I could justify the lpg conversion over
buying a diesel was that I could extend the oil change interval, to
save pence per mile compared with a diesel.

I imagine now, some 5 years on that this would not be the case as
modern diesels have long change intervals, better performance and good
economy.

AJH
>

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Oct 12, 2004

• #33

On or around Tue, 12 Oct 2004 13:39:01 +0100, [email protected]
enlightened us thusly:

>Fine but one of the reasons I could justify the lpg conversion over
>buying a diesel was that I could extend the oil change interval, to
>save pence per mile compared with a diesel.

I'm under no illusions about it, I could run a diesel one for similar money.
In fact, the main thing the V8 gives me that a diesel one wouldn't apart
from slightly better performance (and mine ain't running lean - not at
average 13 mpg) is a nice noise.
>
>I imagine now, some 5 years on that this would not be the case as
>modern diesels have long change intervals, better performance and good
>economy.

You can't make a convincing case for LPG being cheaper than diesel. You can
however make a case for it costing about the same. Considering specifics,
and comparing a 300 TDi disco with my 3.5 V8, to get the same performance as
the V8 I'd have to up the boost slightly on the TDi and increase the
fuelling accordingly, and maybe fit a bigger intercooler. There remains
also the finding of most that the 3.9 engine gives similar economy and a bit
more performance, or a bit more economy with the same performance.