 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Centrifugal Oil Filter |
 
|
|
|
| oburrill Member Since: 09 Aug 2014 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 33   
|
Hello, I know that the TD5 had a centrifugal oil filter and then when they went to the 2.4 puma and then the 2.2 puma Land Rover didn't bother with them. Does anyone know why? Surely they are a good thing to have?
When doing some searching on the internet it seems that Ford did use centrifugal oil filters in the 2.4 puma engine (140ps version) which increased the recommended oil change frequency, see page 31 on this transit workshop manual, here is the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99105872/cg8171sen#scribd Also it seems that on the other 2.4 and 2.2 duratorq engines of the lower output had the same rocker cover with a large hole/space for where the centrifugal oil filter would have gone, but they don't have it. So Ford just standardised the rocker cover across the range. When you do a search for a 2.4 or 2.2 duratorq centrifugal oil filter you can find things like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mann-Oil-Filter-Ce...1318393571 This is a mann filter, which is the same part number that they use for the TD5 centrifugal oil filter, ZR 700, as shown here. http://catalog.mann-filter.com/EU/eng/vehi...20(T31266) So, I'm wondering why Land Rover decided not to use the centrifugal oil filter when it had already been considered for the puma engine. What do you think? I'm also wondering how easy it would be to fit onto a Land Rover 2.2 puma engine. If it were to be fitted the same as how Ford did, it would need a different rocker cover and the oil feed line, then it looks like it returns into the rocker cover then down through its normal return to the sump. Do you think that they are worth having? If so, enough to justify fitting one onto the puma engine? I have a 2.2 puma CSW 2013. Thanks in advance. |
||
16th Feb 2015 1:29pm |
|
| munch90 Member Since: 26 Oct 2013 Location: guildford Posts: 3558 
|
never seen one fitted to any 2.2 or 2.4 transits of any age
|
||
|
16th Feb 2015 2:46pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018 
|
Would bonnet height in a Puma be an issue?
|
||
|
16th Feb 2015 2:50pm |
|
| taazzukcb Member Since: 30 Aug 2013 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 663 
|
 |
||
|
16th Feb 2015 3:43pm |
|
| Kevzeboy Member Since: 19 Jul 2014 Location: Cumbria Posts: 83 
|
I didn't like the size of the only oil filter element when I serviced mine.
The answer is that it is big enough because it relies on the oil being specific. That's what that special code ending in B, C and now D is all about. (lack of friction debris). Witchcraft if you ask me. Your trusting something you can't see or get your head round. Make sure you change you oil and filter regularly is all you can do to buy your peace of mind. (good oil of the correct grade and a quality filter too) Kev |
||
|
19th Feb 2015 8:49pm |
|
| oburrill Member Since: 09 Aug 2014 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 33
|
I'm continuing to look into it.
I changed all the oils when I got it, I plan on regular oil changes, but I still think that land rover should have considered fitting a centrifugal oil filter if possible. Maybe they did but decided against it? Found this, http://www.fordpartsuk.com/shop/ford_trans..._c_468.htm which is for the 2.4/3.2 puma engine. Thanks again. |
||
|
20th Feb 2015 11:25pm |
|
| Mogboy Member Since: 21 May 2013 Location: Brisbane Posts: 31  
|
You can retrofit and remote mount off a bracket. Glacier were (are?) the original manufacturer. I had sold a few years ago. If you have a clean burning engine they don't have much work to do, but sooty diesels (toyota, nissan, perkins, etc PRE-combustion types) certainly benefit from it.
Concentrate on optimizing combustion efficiency, properly working emission controls and your oil should stay a lot cleaner. If the fuel burn is dirty, soot from combustion will be causing wear as it blows past the rings into the oil. Centrifuges are good at removing it from the oil, and reducing further wear. If you can find a Landcruiser 2H diesel around the 1980-2 model (approx), it will be fitted with a glacier on top of the main filter housing. Get em real cheap from the wreckers. Few people know what they are. Make up a plate to the base of the glacier, drill to take an oil supply from the engine. Also oil drain into the sump pan or other suitable point. Must have free flow on the drain and no back pressure, or else the centrifuge chamber floods and it won't spin fast enough. Cheers Mogboy |
||
|
21st Feb 2015 3:21am |
|
| dgardel Member Since: 30 Nov 2008 Location: Veneto (Heart & Head) Posts: 3586 
|
Click image to enlarge
Click image to enlarge Click image to enlarge P/Ns http://1drv.ms/1LnNbUX Admin note: this post has had its images recovered from a money grabbing photo hosting site and reinstated  Discovery 5 td6 HSE Stornoway Gray Outback Engineering Limited Edition
IID Pro MV License |
||
|
21st Feb 2015 5:42pm |
|
| oburrill Member Since: 09 Aug 2014 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 33
|
Thanks, that's great. It looks like they had two different rocker covers and possibly two different camshaft retainer flanges (the alloy casting on top of the camshafts below the rocker cover) where the centrifugal spindle goes, as one shows a smooth machined face where the spindle would go, the other shows, I assume, that the spindle would bolt to the side, so I would assume that it would have threads machined into it.
The important thing is that those pictures shows all the oil feed point and lines, so even if I fit a remote unit I can use the same oil feed and then fabricate the oil return. It looks like a good setup that ford put onto the engine with that centrifugal oil filter, I still wonder why land rover didn't put it on the engine. Thanks again. |
||
|
23rd Feb 2015 6:03pm |
|
| munch90 Member Since: 26 Oct 2013 Location: guildford Posts: 3558
|
they didn't fit it because they thought it wasn't needed
never seen a transit 2.4 with one fitted the flange that holds the cams down is machined as one with head ( half cam bearing in head , half in flange ) so cant be changed , you would need to change the whole cyl head |
||
|
23rd Feb 2015 6:16pm |
|
| vito115 Member Since: 29 Aug 2012 Location: kent Posts: 29 |
the early 140 2.4 transit was on 30k svs intervals this was fitted with the filter as is the 5 cyl 200 which is also the same svs interval
|
||
|
23rd Feb 2015 6:42pm |
|
| oburrill Member Since: 09 Aug 2014 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 33
|
Thanks for all the information/help.
|
||
|
24th Feb 2015 5:56pm |
|
| oburrill Member Since: 09 Aug 2014 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 33
|
Hello, I put the question to Millers oils, and got an interesting reply.
I asked basically what I asked here, and that the previous engines did not have a dpf, and if that was something to do with it not having the centrifugal filter. Read below. "Thank you for your enquiry and I will try to explain things for you regarding the different types of oil used now compared to the oils used in the TD5 and Transits. First of all your engine in your Defender is a ID4 engine which is different to the TD5 and transit engines. These engines called for a oil which is known as a full saps oil of a semi synthetic 5w/30 meeting ACEA B1-98 for the TD5 and Ford M2C913-B for the transit. This type of oil has been around for many years and they had to have a large amount of detergent in to keep the engine clean because of the high sulphur content in the fuel which although this was the lubricant in the fuel the down side was that diesel engines then kicked out loads of black smoke and by using a centrifuge on them this help to keep the engine clean by taking out the contaminants so prolonging the life of the oil. The ID4 engine which is in your defender is one of the new type of engine which has to use a oil which has to have the reduced amounts of Sulphated Ash, Sulphur and Phosphor, and these types of oil are known as LOW SAPS OILS. The reduction of these amounts in the oil is so that you meet the emission levels now required. These additives although they did the job of keeping the engine lubricated were also the reason that we kicked out clouds of black smoke. These new types of low saps oils which there are four types ACEA C1, C2,C3 and C4 5W/30 and 5W/40 and which one that you use all depends on the vehicle that you are driving and what the OEM says that you have to use are also fully synthetic oils using the latest types of additives and base oils. Because diesel is now a much cleaner fuel now and this was part of going forward with the changes in the environment and the development of newer cleaner engines which some are now calling for even thinner viscosity oils like 0W/20 and 0W/30 and I can tell you that even 0W/16 and 0W/12 oils are being developed as we speak and the need for putting centrifuges on engines are no longer needed. Ford took the decision to use the lowest spec out of the 4 specs for their engines which have a DPF filter on. The problem now is not the oil but the Bio content that is in the diesel which causes problems with the injectors and the DPF filter. Bio although it is green and friendly and that is a correct thing to have there is a problem in that it does not burn at the same temperature as the normal diesel and so what does not get burnt in the cycle starts to block up injectors or can get pushed past the rings if worn and end up in the oil which then sets like a jelly in the bottom of the sump and it also blocks up the DPF which garages then like to charge you a small fortune to correct. We have a product called Diesel Power Ecomax in a 500ml bottle which treats 500 ltrs of diesel and this product does quite a few things. First of all it puts lubricant back into the fuel which the fuel companies did nothing about when they took the sulphur out. It also cleans all the fuel system up which keeps your injectors in peak condition and it increases the cetane number of the fuel by 4 points so if you are steady with the pedal you get a better mpg but if you need to put your foot down then you get a much quicker response. I have had customers who have failed their MOT on the emissions and I have told them to get the 500ml bottle which has a measure chamber on the side and put 2 or 3 full measures in so that it does a quicker clean up and then take it for a good hard run to clean the system out and they have then gone back and passed the test. I have used this for years in all my cars and I even use supermarket fuel and I have never had any problems or failed MOT." So, basically, as mentioned here already, basically it doesn't need one. Interesting anyway. Seems like you should be more bothered about the quality of diesel. I already use Millers diesel power ecomax, so that should help. Thanks for your help/advice/information. Hopefully this is useful to others too. |
||
|
10th Nov 2015 3:04pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
