Chevy and GMC Duramax Diesel Forum banner

21 - 40 of 72 Posts

LHN...We ARE the Joneses
Joined
26,273 Posts
As a result all the oil is not being filtered at start up.
What 'bout the bypass built in on the Dmax, used @ start up?
 

Registered
Joined
376 Posts
20 micron at 50% efficiency is not better filtration. If you have so much dirt, bearing material, contaminates, etc that cannot be contained in a standard size Duramax oil filter for at least a normal OCI you have issues elsewhere that need to be addressed.

There are literally tens of thousands of actual real world data in UOA that show the standard filter more than does the job. I have over 460,000 miles using the Mobil 1 filter to 20,000 miles with oil changes at 40,000 miles with zero issues.
 

Registered
Joined
7,228 Posts
Discussion Starter #24

LHN...We ARE the Joneses
Joined
26,273 Posts
Bob who?
 

Registered
Joined
7,228 Posts
Discussion Starter #26
The PF932 is a 30 micron @ 98%
It鈥檚 still better having more filter area over the one qt filters.
 

Registered
Joined
480 Posts

Registered
Joined
7,228 Posts
Discussion Starter #28 (Edited)
Considering I've been using the PF2232 (1 qt) 30 micron for 12 1/2 + years without any issues, like our forum filter xpert claims the AC Delco is the worse oil filter on the market.
I haven't read anywhere where GM has had any engine failures because of the AC Delco oil filters they use.

I just got off the phone with Donaldson on the micron rating which is still a little confusing the P550832 they only list the 20 micron @ 50%, which I don't really care.
But they did confirm since its a direct cross replacement for the AC Delco PF932, it will be the same 30 micron rating, apples to apples, they just don't measure this aftermarket filter that way.'dunno;

I like the looks of the oil drain back of the 550832 over the 932.
The Donaldson appeared to be a little lighter, so I was then curious and weighed all 3.
PF2232 - 535 grams
PF932- 605 grams
P550832 575 grams
Not that this really means anything.
 

Registered
Joined
4,934 Posts
You mean that useless mod that makes you feel better? :teehee

Yes, you are more tolerable these days than in the past. :howdy

Edit;
I just don't care for that 2 foot long filter hanging off of a cast filter mount....looks like it just begs to be snapped off.
just for the record, with a density of 0.93 g/cm3 and a diameter of 4", assuming that all the volume was filled with oil, and all of the mass of that oil was set at the far end of 12" away from the block which would be worst case from a torque perspective you are putting 5 ft/lbs on the casting maximum. Realistically it is MUCH lower then that since the mass is distributed over the full length of the filter and not actually concentrated at the end, but i dont think anyone wants to get into calculus. The mass change of the filter and the length change of the filter are non issues with the materials in question.


Its actually 7.87鈥 long OEM is 5.3鈥 which = 2.5鈥 longer than OEM.
The DBL7483 needing a 1鈥 adapter mentioned on another thread is 10.3鈥 which = 5鈥 longer than OEM add the larger diameter, the extra weight of the oil, now this one would be a big concern hanging at a angle from the cast filter mount.

That useless mod makes me feel real good like my HORNEY GOAT WEED supplement, for those special moments at night.:thumb. :wink2:
That filter would have a maximum ideal torque (calculated the same way as above in a fictional world with easy worst case physics) of 4.2 ft/lbs.


I鈥檝e been debating switching to one of these larger filters but hesitant because of the lack of bypass, just realized today I鈥檝e been running the non bypass PF932 on my 6.5 truck for years with no issue.
There is also a bypass valve built into the filter head inside the block.





The PF932 is a 30 micron @ 98%
It鈥檚 still better having more filter area over the one qt filters.

I would agree with you, however this seems to contradict your point about the filter getting dirty as part of the filtration process. Double the surface area, double the time to pack it, double the time your running oil filtered to a maximum of 30 micron.

Adding double the filtering capacity at the SAME micron rating as factory will just take twice as long to pack the filter to the point where it filters well, if we are using the logic that the filter is designed to use contaminants caught as part of the filtering process.

The difference though is that the filter bob is talking about starts off at quite a bit lower micron rating, so out of the box it is filtering as well as the higher micron filter would filter dirty. That is where the larger surface area helps you because the filter will pack with contaminants faster, but since its lower micron will also plug up faster, doubling the surface area on that filter doubles the life of the filter while still maintaining lower overall filtration through its entire service life.
 

Registered
Joined
7,228 Posts
Discussion Starter #30
If the Duramax has a by-pass built-in then there鈥檚 no need of a filter with a by-pass.
I have no concerns with filter having better filtration as it gets dirty, this was Donaldsons theory.

I鈥檓 content with having 30 micron.

Back in the day pretty much every gear head would look for a larger capacity oil filter that screwed on the factory adapter that fit.
That鈥檚 what I鈥檓 talking about.
Now, I need to find one for my Yukon Denali if it would even exist.

7.8鈥 hanging at a angle full of oil vs a 10.3鈥 hanging at the same angle full of oil, this would be more downward pressure against the cast housing.
 

Registered
Joined
4,934 Posts
If the Duramax has a by-pass built-in then

7.8鈥 hanging at a angle full of oil vs a 10.3鈥 hanging at the same angle full of oil, this would be more downward pressure against the cast housing.
yes, however the difference is a couple of foot pounds. There are guys hanging whole turbos off the side of the block. Im not arguing necessarily that one is better then the other, just that the difference in force exerted on the block by the two filters is trivial compared to other loads on the engine that it sees daily under normal use.

if the thing was made of depleted uranium (density of 19 g/cm3) then id say your totally right, but there's just not enough mass present to argue that the cast housing is in danger of failure from the increase in load from the longer filter.

Also the values i used are very inflated, the real world numbers would be much lower if you did the math correctly with an integral equation for total torque applied.


Edit:

based on 2" radius for filter (factory diameter is just under 4" per google) at specified lengths above. This is not the true torque, this is the maximum torque, as if the filled filters were hung off an empty filter from the tip.

Rough torque for factory filter: 3.3 foot pounds
Rough torque for longer filter: 4.3 foot pounds
 

Registered
Joined
7,228 Posts
Discussion Starter #32 (Edited)
I won鈥檛 have to be concerned, I wouldn鈥檛 run that 10.3鈥 filter with 1鈥 adapter anyway.
Even Empire Cat was discouraging about running that large of a filter when I was picking up my 550832.
 

Registered
Joined
4,934 Posts
I won鈥檛 have to be concerned, I wouldn鈥檛 run that 10.3鈥 filter with 1鈥 adapter anyway.
Even Empire Cat was discouraging about running that large of a filter when I was picking up my 560832.
I am not making an argument for one filter or the other, i am just saying there is no reason to worry about either of the filters mechanically damaging the block due to the added load of the oil weight, or extension of the filter as the loads produced by any of the filters currently being discussed on this site for use on the duramax pose no mechanical threat, at least from size complications, to the integrity of the block. This seems to pop up fairly regularly on bobs thread as well as a concern, so i really just wanted to put that concern to bed over anything else. I do not care at all what filter you, or other owners run on there trucks. I understand the points you are making about your filter compared to bobs, and the factory. I also understand the points bob is making about his filter compared to yours. At the end of the day i think the two of you are saying a lot of similar things and are just getting caught up in the terminology more then anything else.
 

Registered
Joined
7,228 Posts
Discussion Starter #35 (Edited)
Email from Donaldson on the rating.

Hi Dan

One thing to keep in mind is the difference in the efficiency ratings.

It would be far more convenient if we did go back and re-rate the older filters at the new level.

I鈥檓 not certain what you know about them, the numbers can be deceiving. These are 2 different ratings and cannot be directly compared.
The micron is the size of the particles it is capturing. So one filter is capturing smaller particles, 20 vs 30 micron, than the other.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.


Thank you,
Colleen


Colleen Smith | Technical Inside Sales Team Lead
Donaldson Company, Inc. | Engine Aftermarket & Hydraulic
Phone: 952-703-4890 | Toll Free: 800-374-1374 | Fax: 952-887-3716
[email protected] | www.donaldson.com | www.donaldson.com
 

LHN...We ARE the Joneses
Joined
26,273 Posts
just for the record, with a density of 0.93 g/cm3 and a diameter of 4", assuming that all the volume was filled with oil, and all of the mass of that oil was set at the far end of 12" away from the block which would be worst case from a torque perspective you are putting 5 ft/lbs on the casting maximum.
I wasn't considering the leverage of just the longer filter weight, not much there with the math. What I was concerned with was a longer lever hanging out and a foreign object impacting it....which would dramatically increase that torque load on the casting.
Cheater pipe, if you will. :|
 

Registered
Joined
4,934 Posts
I wasn't considering the leverage of just the longer filter weight, not much there with the math. What I was concerned with was a longer lever hanging out and a foreign object impacting it....which would dramatically increase that torque load on the casting.
Cheater pipe, if you will. :|
I think your odds of something coming under the truck and impacting the filter 3 inches behind the factory location is quite unlikely, unless your talking about the front shaft, which would take out the factory filter too if it failed.
 

LHN...We ARE the Joneses
Joined
26,273 Posts
All of my trucks are missing the front shaft. :howdy
There's always unavoidable road debris. Had a ladder once, installed open headers on me. :teehee
 

LHN...We ARE the Joneses
Joined
26,273 Posts
Strange things happen when you're a Road Warrior. :teehee
 
21 - 40 of 72 Posts
Top