[hgerhardt]

There are drawbacks of remote filters too besides the clutter of hoses and filters/housings. Try packaging remote filters in an A/C car for one. There's also greater chance of parts failure; of hose connections leaking, and the need for 10-year hose replacement (if using steel-braided rubber).

Then there's the issue of hose restriction, especially when cold. Have you ever instrumented your installations to measure pressure differential at the pump outlet at the block and the block inlet? When cold? When revving the engine when cold?

Then there's the issue of dry starts after oil change. First, the guy doing the job needs to know to prefill the filters or you'll probably hurt a bearing if you don't.

Then there's all the old oil in the hoses which won't get changed at all. And if you drain the hoses, then even more of a dry start post-oil change. Or do you pull the distributor and prime the pump each time you do an oil change?

FOR A STREET CAR, seems to me the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. However, an aux toilet paper filter, that's a different story and have at it if wanna drink that Koolaid.

[NeighborsComplaint]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

And finally a picture of a Frantz filter installed on a big block mopar musclecar.

Bet that looks even better when you removing the filter for an oil change..

As regards, fluid dynamics, twice the filter material area provides twice the filtration capacity as far as particulate removal. The working pressure might drop but would be offset by the dual filters' capacity to flow more oi. You have a volume vs. pressure trade-off. In the performance aftermarket, Pontiacs are an exception, using a high pressure pump instead of high volume due to the architecture limitations of the motor.

OP, I would put the dual remote filters on in a heartbeat. Use braided steel hose, good fittings and insulated sleeves around the headers. The hoses can be routed back to the firewall, restrained with clamps and routed around the exhaust to the fender well for peace of mind.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by hgerhardt

FOR A STREET CAR, seems to me the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. However, an aux toilet paper filter, that's a different story and have at it if wanna drink that Koolaid.

Since I have used the Frantz filters on most of my own vehicles for over a decade, and been a dealer for them, would you like to elaborate on the, "drinking the Koolaid" comment?

I hope you're not going to, "the paper deteriorates, and plugs up the oil galleys" fallacy, that's a total BS story that has zero basis. You couldn't get any of the paper out of the canister, even if you tried to. BTW, in case you haven't looked lately, 90% of every oil filter sold has a cellulose filter element, made up of what? Paper.

Please enlighten me, and others of the "Koolaid", just trying to keep the facts straight, and separate myth from truth.

Frantz has been making oil filters since 1953, (67 years), if any of the stuff claimed wasn't true, they would have been out of business long ago. Funny thing is there are more bypass oil filter companies now than ever.

Some use spin on filters, and some use paper towels, and some use toilet paper. They all accomplish the same thing, removing the sub 30-40 micron contaminants that a full flow filter is incapable of removing from the oil.

[64speed]

Originally Posted by hgerhardt

There are drawbacks of remote filters too besides the clutter of hoses and filters/housings. Try packaging remote filters in an A/C car for one. There's also greater chance of parts failure; of hose connections leaking, and the need for 10-year hose replacement (if using steel-braided rubber).

Then there's the issue of hose restriction, especially when cold. Have you ever instrumented your installations to measure pressure differential at the pump outlet at the block and the block inlet? When cold? When revving the engine when cold?

Then there's the issue of dry starts after oil change. First, the guy doing the job needs to know to prefill the filters or you'll probably hurt a bearing if you don't.

Then there's all the old oil in the hoses which won't get changed at all. And if you drain the hoses, then even more of a dry start post-oil change. Or do you pull the distributor and prime the pump each time you do an oil change?

FOR A STREET CAR, seems to me the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. However, an aux toilet paper filter, that's a different story and have at it if wanna drink that Koolaid.

I would think that draining the hoses would be simple enough but at the same time do you ever REALLY get all the dirty oil out? I always prefill my filters so that’s no big deal. How cold there be a cold start restriction? It’s 3/4 hose, that’s bigger than any internal oil passage.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by NeighborsComplaint

Bet that looks even better when you removing the filter for an oil change.

First of all you don't change oil, you change the filter. Oil stays in the engine because it doesn't get dirty. I change my oil every 3-4 years, 30-40,000 miles. The reason you have to change oil with a standard system is the inability of the filter to remove all of the contaminants, you have to drain all the stuff the filter can't remove.

When changing the filter media, leave the car sit overnight before you pull the canister off, and you get zero oil drip. It all runs back into the pan overnight leaving the media virtually dry. Since you can mount the Frantz in any position the owner in the picture could have easily mounted it bottom side up, or even sideways, makes no difference what position it's mounted at.

My diesel dually, and my 05 LS2 GTO have the filter mounted the exact same way the picture shows. As long as you leave it sit overnight you get no drips, toilet paper holds a lot of liquid.

A by pass oil filter system supplies zero oil to the internally oiled engine parts, the reason it can be restrictive, and filter oil to a very high standard. The standard full flow filter is kept intact and all the pressure oiled parts are oiled just as the factory designed it.

There are 2 separate filter systems, one to oil the engine parts, as always. One dedicated to cleaning the oil, and returning it to the pan.

Schematic of the 2 systems, and how they operate:

[455-4+1]

Have run the dual filters on street / strip with _10 lines with no issues. I do port / radius the internal passages on the castings though, and radius both ends of the screw on adapter nipple as per photo.
Race engine gets large HP6 style filter with _12 lines and enlarged passages in block. Photo of HP6 style passages in filter housing for size comparison

[NeighborsComplaint]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

First of all you don't change oil, you change the filter. Oil stays in the engine because it doesn't get dirty. I change my oil every 3-4 years, 30-40,000 miles. The reason you have to change oil with a standard system is the inability of the filter to remove all of the contaminants, you have to drain all the stuff the filter can't remove.

When changing the filter media, leave the car sit overnight before you pull the canister off, and you get zero oil drip. It all runs back into the pan overnight leaving the media virtually dry. Since you can mount the Frantz in any position the owner in the picture could have easily mounted it bottom side up, or even sideways, makes no difference what position it's mounted at.

My diesel dually, and my 05 LS2 GTO have the filter mounted the exact same way the picture shows. As long as you leave it sit overnight you get no drips, toilet paper holds a lot of liquid.

A by pass oil filter system supplies zero oil to the internally oiled engine parts, the reason it can be restrictive, and filter oil to a very high standard. The standard full flow filter is kept intact and all the pressure oiled parts are oiled just as the factory designed it.

There are 2 separate filter systems, one to oil the engine parts, as always. One dedicated to cleaning the oil, and returning it to the pan.

Schematic of the 2 systems, and how they operate:

I can see this being a necessity in large diesel engines and diesel engines in general which are notoriously dirty and prone to premature filter failure from contaminants. I just see this as overkill on a gasoline engine that holds 5-7 quarts of inexpensive (relative to diesel) oil and adequate ring sealing.

[hgerhardt]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

... and been a dealer for them, (aha!)

Please enlighten me, and others of the "Koolaid", just trying to keep the facts straight, and separate myth from truth.

For a street-driven car running on unleaded gasoline with good ring seal and a well-tuned carb or EFI, these types of filters are a solution in search of a problem. Ex: I have a '71 Chevy C20 with a '91 TBI 350 with about 300k miles on the engine. Recently pulled the valve covers to replace the valve stem seals (to fix the blue puff of smoke on startup). There was no buildup whatsoever in there and valve stem clearance is still serviceable (certainly not like new, but plenty good enough). The engine still has excellent ring sealing, oil pressure is same as it was when new, and I change oil every 5-7000 miles with standard dino stuff. Changing oil is a cakewalk in this truck. What could a TP filter possibly add to the equation? Fewer oil changes? Please. Besides the oil change, it's also a great opportunity to inspect everything else while under there.

All the other cars I've had over the past 40-odd years, none of them ever had an issue with premature wear attributable to lubrication failure.

I'm not worried about the TP coming apart or other nonsense like that. Time has proven the durability of these things.

Now, where a TP filter could be useful is on a diesel engine. The amount of soot those engines put in the oil is huge compared to unleaded gas engines.

Another good candidate is engines burning leaded fuel. I overhauled the Lycoming in my airplane after 2000 hours and it's staggering how much lead deposits were in there! Although, even with all that crud, the bearings still looked remarkably good. And the oil used in these engines isn't anywhere near as good as modern automotive oil (lack of zinc notwithstanding).

[64speed]

So what’s the part number for the big Baldwin filter with 3/4-16 threads

[hgerhardt]

Originally Posted by 64speed

So what’s the part number for the big Baldwin filter with 3/4-16 threads

What's the 3/4-16 threaded filter for? The remote setup?
Stock Pontiac (and Chevy) threads are 13/16-16.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by hgerhardt

For a street-driven car running on unleaded gasoline with good ring seal and a well-tuned carb or EFI, these types of filters are a solution in search of a problem. Ex: I have a '71 Chevy C20 with a '91 TBI 350 with about 300k miles on the engine. Recently pulled the valve covers to replace the valve stem seals (to fix the blue puff of smoke on startup). There was no buildup whatsoever in there and valve stem clearance is still serviceable (certainly not like new, but plenty good enough). The engine still has excellent ring sealing, oil pressure is same as it was when new, and I change oil every 5-7000 miles with standard dino stuff. Changing oil is a cakewalk in this truck. What could a TP filter possibly add to the equation? Fewer oil changes? Please. Besides the oil change, it's also a great opportunity to inspect everything else while under there.

All the other cars I've had over the past 40-odd years, none of them ever had an issue with premature wear attributable to lubrication failure.

I'm not worried about the TP coming apart or other nonsense like that. Time has proven the durability of these things.

Now, where a TP filter could be useful is on a diesel engine. The amount of soot those engines put in the oil is huge compared to unleaded gas engines.

Another good candidate is engines burning leaded fuel. I overhauled the Lycoming in my airplane after 2000 hours and it's staggering how much lead deposits were in there! Although, even with all that crud, the bearings still looked remarkably good. And the oil used in these engines isn't anywhere near as good as modern automotive oil (lack of zinc notwithstanding).

What's the "AHA" for? was that a "GOTCHA" moment?

Because I said I WAS a dealer for Frantz? I'm not any longer, and haven't been for over 5 years, I have zero monetary gains by someone that buys a Frantz filter, or buys from the competition.

I invested my own money after researching the company and their product for over 6 months, no one gave me a damn thing. I even started a thread on PY asking the forum about experiences with the Frantz filter, Feb 2011, here's the link if you care to read it:

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...31#post4248631

Since the company changed hands, I'm no longer a dealer for the current company, but I use the product because it flat out works, just as described. It does everything it claims to do. There are facts, to back it up the claims, not opinions.

Since I've been a user of the product on both diesel, and gas engines, for close to a decade, I can draw from my experiences as a mechanic for 50 years of being inside and around engines, race and daily drivers. For the bulk of that time using full flow filters, and conventional oil changes for 40 of those years. My shortfall is, in the early seventies I saw a demo for Frantz filters, and I was skeptical that it would do everything it promised, I'm sure you'll understand skepticism. I continued doing the same ritual you described, and not only myself, but my customers could have done better, much better.

There are 2 major studies done on by pass filtering, one by GM, and another by SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), that both conclude that engine wear is dramatically decreased in gasoline engines by filtering particulate matter from the oil to a sub 5 micron level. The studies conclude that engine wear is decreased by 66% minimum, just by filtering the solids from the oil that cannot be removed by a conventional filter system. Even following the manufacturers oil change intervals you will dramatically decrease wear by using a by pass filter, gas or diesel, it doesn't matter.

You reference aircraft engines, Frantz filters are the only by pass filter ever sanctioned ,and approved for aircraft usage by the FAA for reciprocating piston aircraft engines. HurryinHoosier a member on PY that was an aircraft mechanic, as well as an automotive machinist, said he remembers them using the Frantz filter for aircraft engines and how much less wear showed up after the switch to Frantz filters. To get certified by the FAA is no small feat.

You conclude that an engine at 300,000 miles has moderate wear by following conventional wisdom and oil change intervals. Had you used a by pass filter according to GM and SAE studies, the wear would be reduced 66% at a minimum. Put it simply, the wear you now have, wouldn't have shown up until 900,000 miles.

Timing chains and gears are usually all in by 200,000 miles on an automotive engine. in the last 2 years my 6.5 diesel truck when I pulled the waterpump off exposes the timing chain. When I checked the timing chain for slop, there wasn't any, just as tight as a new one, there was 260,000 miles on it at that time. I'm betting that unless you haven't changed the timing chain and gears on that SBC, they aren't anywhere near new condition.

The small particulate, that a conventional oil filter has no way of filtering, is what can, and will, travel through the tight clearances on an automotive engine. The larger matter that a conventional filter can physically remove, will not fit within those clearances to do damage to the wear surfaces. The small stuff will circulate over and over going right through the conventional media of a standard filter.

It continually builds in concentration in the oil until one of 2 things happen, you drain the oil before it becomes a liability, or you leave it in and as the concentration builds, it rapidly starts wearing the surfaces inside the engine. By this time the additives are thoroughly depleted, and it then turns to sludge. Sludge is made up of oxidized oil, and the fine materials that conventional filters can't remove. Over time they attach themselves to each other and sink into low crevices in the engine and oil sump.

By removing the fine solids on the first pass through the by pass filter you eliminate all of the hazards of the fine matter being left to circulate continually, and it doesn't have to be a diesel engine.

Fine silicon will pass through a standard air filter and will eventually end up in the oil, silicon is extremely abrasive and unless it's removed it will continue to concentrate in the oil. That said, if it passes through a paper or gauze air filter, it will also pass through a conventional oil filter. It will continue to abrade the engine parts until the oil is drained and refilled. That could be months, or a year.

By simply switching to a by pass filter, and doing an oil analysis, before and after, the trace wear metals will decrease dramatically just by switching to a filter that removes the solids that continually abrade the wear surfaces internally, it's also documented, not my opinion.

You mention that you like to climb over your car regularly and inspect things, well good news, the by pass oil filter isn't maintenance free, it needs changed even though you can leave the oil in the engine. Perfect time to service all the things you would do if you were changing the oil.

Your stated post is your opinion, I haven't seen a reference to one published fact that supports your statements. For over 6 months I studied everything I could read, asked questions of others who had used the product, talked to other dealers before I laid out over 2 grand to become a franchised dealer. I did my homework, before and since, I continue to study the scientific evidence about the by pass oil filters and their benefits, I also look for any deficiencies, but until now I can't remember one drawback of thoroughly cleaning the oil to a very high standard.

It amazes me that very few on this board ever investigate the advantages, and the payback that a by pass oil filter system has over a conventional filter....

But they'll knock it without ever having tried it, or even educating themselves about it. I'm not selling anything on this board, just trying to help other members here save money, and increase their engine life by decreasing internal wear. Obviously you're not going to be influenced to try anything that could be perceived as new, or better, and that's your prerogative........

[64speed]

Originally Posted by hgerhardt

What's the 3/4-16 threaded filter for? The remote setup?
Stock Pontiac (and Chevy) threads are 13/16-16.

Yeah but this kit uses a Baldwin B2 or a Wix 51515 I found out

[64speed]

Got the kit. Ordered two Baldwin B2

[P@blo]

Originally Posted by Sirrotica

You conclude that an engine at 300,000 miles has moderate wear by following conventional wisdom and oil change intervals. Had you used a by pass filter according to GM and SAE studies, the wear would be reduced 66% at a minimum. Put it simply, the wear you now have, wouldn't have shown up until 900,000 miles.

These are some big claims and as mentioned on the other threads, post the studies for guys to read themselves instead of triangulation. Hopefully these studies were for gasoline engines and aren't 50+ years old either as lubricant properties change.

You are talking about the automotive holy grail and have no evidence supporting your 66% wear reduction claims. Warm fuzzy isnt proof.

[64speed]

I love how these always turn into the TP filter argument when this is never the intention. I have 368,000 miles on my Yukon and there is no reason being indicated by the engine at this point that it can’t go twice that. But it’s been serviced religiously

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by P@blo

These are some big claims and as mentioned on the other threads, post the studies for guys to read themselves instead of triangulation. Hopefully these studies were for gasoline engines and aren't 50+ years old either as lubricant properties change.

You are talking about the automotive holy grail and have no evidence supporting your 66% wear reduction claims. Warm fuzzy isnt proof.

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Articles/Search

3151 articles from "Machinery Lubrication" publication for search on "bypass oil filters", start reading, it's in there. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. Articles were all published after January 1,2000

[P@blo]

Yet not one proving your claims...

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by 64speed

I love how these always turn into the TP filter argument when this is never the intention. I have 368,000 miles on my Yukon and there is no reason being indicated by the engine at this point that it can’t go twice that. But it’s been serviced religiously

I guess you don't remember sending me a message about wanting a by pass oil filter for your new engine, do you? Asking me for detailed directions about installing a by pass oil filter system because your builder said it would be a good addition.

I still have the messages if you want me to refresh your memory.

All I did was ask you why you shelved the idea, it went on from there.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by P@blo

Yet not one proving your claims...

So you read all the articles?

Nice try.

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by P@blo

Yet not one proving your claims...

GM Study - Influence of Filtration on Engine Wear
AC Delco Division of General Motors tested diesel engines and found an eight-fold improvement in wear rates and engine life with lower lube oil contaminant levels.

In a related study on both diesel and automotive engines, General Motors reported that “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”. Read that again. That's a lot of motivation for clean oil!

I was wrong, I said 66%, it was really 70%.