The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop modern by-pass filter(s) on 235.....

Need some oily advice from the experienced guys on the Forum.

Here is the situation

1954 Chev 235 with full pressure....came equipped with the typical by-pass can filter.

It is installed in a 1945 Canadian Military Pattern truck replacing a dead 216. Top speed will be around 50mph at almost 3000rpm. Will be crusing at 35 mph.

We want to install the modern 1 Micron remote spin on filter(s) assembly..... one to keep the oil clean....two to give the engine an extra 2 quarts of oil.(dual spin on by-pass filters).

What we are concerned with is loosing too much oil pressure from the by-pass installation.

What we have seen listed with dealers on EBay have two differences...... one by pass set up is advertised has having a 0.06 restrictor... the other set up as "full-flow"....both are using the 1 micron spin on filters.

It seems to me that a restrictor of 0.06 is an awfull small hole for the oil to flow to the by-pass filters even at pressure...but what would I know... I flunked hydraulics...

What can be safely used......?

We also have some NOS large can by-pass filters (Fram and AC)from the 60s which would hold almost the same two quarts...... are we overdoing it on a used 235 to filter with expensive 1 micron filters....... what if we just installed the large can
(these are larger than the senior cans at almost twice the size) by-pass with an appropriate cartidge filter.....????

If we do go with the large by-pass can filter(and save $$) how do we insure that we are not bleeding off too much precious oil pressure.... pinch the line slightly...???? We will monitor with a good mechanical gauge......current reading now with just a bypass line is 20 to 50 pounds.

Thanks for your help.

Bob C.

I can't really answer as to the unit you're wanting to use, but if this helps, I'm running a ull flow filter from a '61 261 on my 235. It's set up as a bypass filter. I have little if any drop in pressure. I have it run with 1/4" line, adapted up to the 1/2" npt.

Bob,
Believe it or not .060" is a big hole. To find flowrate you could put your outlet line into a container, fire it up and measure what you get in one minute and decide from there. I run an amsoil bypass filter mount and can say for sure the hole is .030" and I flow about a liter a minute at idle with 30# pressure. Forget about pinching the line as that's unpredictable and dangerous. Experiment for the right size hole and call it done right. Here's a pic:

http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w186/curt160/filters/?action=view&current=Picture002.jpg

Curt B.

Thanks Curt

That is exactly the kind of set up we are considering but with dual filters for greater oil capacity. Filter bracket would be hidden inside the frame and tied to the engine using a combination of steel and rubber lines to cope with vibration.

Now can you tell me where and how accessible that restrictor device is inside the filter mount...???? is it just a matter of a washer with a small hole in the middle..??? could one make a number of washers with different size holes to test out the flow..??

I like your idea of running the engine and measuring the flow/volume for a set time period......

We are also thinking of setting up a T fitting to check out the pressure drop with various size restrictor hole.....

Any other comments.....

Bob C.

Sorry I don't have a picture of the underside of that mount but there's a small npt plug with the metering hole drilled in it. That way one could replace the plug with different sizes to alter/control flowrate.

Comments.....having run a single bypass filter on my full pressure 235 engine using the 1/8 NPT lines with no restrictor, I noted a 5-7 psi pressure drop. To me, this drop in pressure, coupled with the fact that the by-pass system only filtered 10% (max) of the oil and dumped the filtered oil back into the unfiltered oil, negated any benefit from the filter setup. I would surmize that using a double filter setup would reduce additional oil pressure. Changing the oil more frequently was a simple trade-off to replacing oil starved bearings.

I may be mistaken, but I doubt that a 1945 Canadian Military Pattern truck is going to accumulate so many miles that economically, it would warrant using a dual filter system. When you look at the initial cost of adding a dual filter setup with fittings and lines and the cost of changing both filters, I think you would be easier on your engine and your wallet to bump up the frequency of your oil changes.

Dave

Thanks Curt...... now I know that it is easily accessible and we can use smaller or larger restrictor holes has needed.

Dave.... your comments on mileage are very appropriate..... they are not the most confortable vehicle to drive for long trips. We estimated that 2000 miles a year would be a lot of weekend driving.....being out of town driving in for street parades will be minimum 50 miles.....with a few back road runs... but I doubt we would do that 400 times a year....... more frequent oil change maybe the practical solution...... although the extra oil capacity would be nice as they do rev up and the cramped engine compartment makes them very hot.....but hell.. the 216 use to survive.

We may need to consider using the old NOS larger can filter which is more original anyways..... filters are readily available at tractor shops and it would give us more oil volume.

In any event we will experiment and monitor oil pressure drop and opt for the best compromise.

Thanks for your help.

Bob C.

Here's the reasoning behind the approach I took:

A standard full-flow filter is limited in its filtering ability in that it must make sure a constant flow of oil is reaching the engine. A typical full-flow filter is capable of efficiently removing particles that are 25 to 40 microns or larger. However, 60% of engine wear is caused by particles that are in the 5 to 20 micron range. These smaller particles can get inside the precision clearances between engine components, causing serious damage.
These new AMSOIL EaBP Filters have an efficiency of 98.7 percent (Absolute Efficiency) at two microns, compared to the previous AMSOIL BE Filters’ 98.6 percent efficiency at three microns. At normal operating RPMs the EaBP Filter will filter all of the oil in a typical five quart sump in less than 10 minutes.
SAE and ASTM data and research reports make the case that bypass filtration that's this efficient will decrease engine wear rates by 90% or more (compared to OEM full-flow filters), in addition to the 15-50%wear-rate reductions you get from using Amsoil synthetic oils. So if you're the kind of person who keeps a vehicle for a long time, wants to maximize resale value, or wants to avoid an engine rebuild even after decades of use and pass the machinery on to your children in perfect working order, AMSOIL's bypass filtration technology is the valuable secret you've been looking for.
Soot Removal
AMSOIL has designed a new high-efficiency bypass filter element that is also a soot removal device. AMSOIL Ea Bypass Filters use a synthetic/cellulose sandwiched media. The inner layer of the element is composed of a highly efficient cellulose media covered with a full synthetic nanofiber media outer layer.
"We're impressed that these nanofiber filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron: nothing else we've seen can touch this level of performance. Our testing has verified it.
According to soot and wear particle studies conducted by Federal Mogul and GM, that translates into a wear rate reduction of way over 90% compared to OEM filter performance."
Brian Dobben
Degreed Mechanical Engineer - DMT Technical

Thanks for the technical data/quote Curt.

We have decided to install a dual filter set up...... it includes a combination full flow spin-on filter and a spin on AMS by-pass filter..... should give us the best of both world for filtration and the extra oil capacity..... costly for a low mileage vehicle YES.... but when after totalling the $$$ we have put in to the machine ( not including our time) it is probably cheap insurance.

Thanks guys for all the help.

Bob C.