Advice on car please!

[RevNev]

Subaru did this on the early Tribecas. The spin on filter makes SFA difference to fluid filtration as the majority of the fluid bypasses the spin on filter anyway as you risk fluid starvation by forcing it all through the spin on filter. They deleted it on later models of the Tribeca.

That makes sense! It's like mechanical camshafts and solid lifters in a 308, rev it up and they'll spin big ends despite high oil pressure shown on a gauge. What happens there, is the effort of pushing the oil through the filter at high revs, opens the pressure relief valve prematurely. The gauge is reading the oil pressure at the filter housing not the oil gallery.

Harry Firth from HDT devised a mod for the L34 Torana where you port the filter housing and block the filter bypass valve to redirect the oil around the pressure relief valve so it's open to oil gallery pressure instead of filter pressure and fixes the big end failure issue at high RPM. I bought an oil pump from Ian Tate around 1992 and found the trick! Prior to that, we'd use high volume oil pumps and shim the pressure relief valves and fill the rocker covers up with oil blocking the breathers. On the circuit a few laps in, the catch can was full of oil spraying it around the engine bay!

 

[J_D 2.0]

It’s why I said full flow filter…. Bypass filtration sucks…

It’s not rocket science to design a full flow filter with a pressure sensor on each side of the filter reading the pressure differential. TCU can then read the pressure differential and in over a set level flag a “change transmission filter soon” message, if ignored and pressure differential increases, flag DTC, turn on Check engine lamp and go into limp mode.

Just cost another pressure sender and some wires, maybe a comparator… but manufacturers are cheap beasts and prefer designed obsolescence

Or the manufacturers could just go back to recommending you change your fluid on a regular basis.

 

[Commo64]

Or the manufacturers could just go back to recommending you change your fluid on a regular basis.

I agree with you, but I believe it hurts their new car reliability reputation B.S as you need to take the car to the service centre more often...

 

[Skylarking]

Or the manufacturers could just go back to recommending you change your fluid on a regular basis.

I agree with you, but I believe it hurts their new car reliability reputation B.S as you need to take the car to the service centre more often...

Yes they could just change the service interval though I’d prefer some real analytics rather than changing oil and filter at a set frequency.

Interestingly, GM has an oil life monitoring system used within their US vehicles (even on the Chevy SS but not activated on our SS’ down under).

It recommends when the engine oil should be replaced based on evaluation by the driveline engineers where de eloped an algorithm that considers stop/start cycles, run time and oil temps, etc… very analytical process those engineers followed to maximise engine longevity and reduce unnecessary oil changes (thus gaining their environmental kudos)…

Unfortunately it worked too well and dealers complained to GM management that their service income was reduced as a result. So GM ordered those engineers add a bit of extra code so that the oil change would still occur at the required interval of 12 months (which is what I think they use in the states for our Chevy SS, why we have a 9 month interval who knows)…. A service bulletin exists for this but much more politically worded.

Meh…

 

[Forg]

I agree with you, but I believe it hurts their new car reliability reputation B.S as you need to take the car to the service centre more often...

It's not reliability reputation, it's solely about marketing based on predicted operating cost.
People (who IMHO have the wrong priorities in life) do make car buying decisions based on the published service-interval & cost-per-service.
And these people are more likely to be new car buyers ... so manufacturers don't care if the whole thing falls over in a screaming heap at 7 years of age, that has no effect on new car buyers as they unloaded their car long before that.

 

[J_D 2.0]

I agree with you, but I believe it hurts their new car reliability reputation B.S as you need to take the car to the service centre more often...

It’s all about “ownership cost” rather than longevity and reliability. They just want the lowest cost of ownership for the initial purchaser, who will dump the car before the warranty period ends so long term reliability won’t be their problem.

Edit: Should have read Forg’s post first who beat me to the punch!

 

[lmoengnr]

Interestingly, GM has an oil life monitoring system used within their US vehicles (even on the Chevy SS but not activated on our SS’ down under).

It was used on VE's, don't know why it didn't carry over to VF...

 

[Commo64]

It's not reliability reputation, it's solely about marketing based on predicted operating cost.
People (who IMHO have the wrong priorities in life) do make car buying decisions based on the published service-interval & cost-per-service.
And these people are more likely to be new car buyers ... so manufacturers don't care if the whole thing falls over in a screaming heap at 7 years of age, that has no effect on new car buyers as they unloaded their car long before that.

It’s all about “ownership cost” rather than longevity and reliability. They just want the lowest cost of ownership for the initial purchaser, who will dump the car before the warranty period ends so long term reliability won’t be their problem.

Edit: Should have read Forg’s post first who beat me to the punch!

That's what I meant... My bad if I didn't explain it properly...