Jump to content
jnf

Shelby oil separator

Recommended Posts

Wow, amazing real world test. Hope to see what JLT new filter medium will do.

Thank you and this was with the proto type filter which we should have out in July.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although interesting, that would not be an accurate "real world" test for separators.

The oil for the test is cold and in liquid form, not hot and atomized like it would be in a engine running at normal or hot temperatures.

Also, crankcase pressures would vary quite a bit under heavy/intermittent use, ranging from a vacuum to substantial pressures.

This would create more of a oil ladden vapour than running/liquid oil.

It is pretty obvious that the cold oil would take on a syrupy texture, and would primarily sit on top of the shelby screens, which is what was responsible for the results shown.

To me a real world test would be running the filter on a car for a full track day and see the results, much like Revan Racing posted.

Repeat the test with other separators on the same vehicle and try to replicate the runs as close as possible.

Personally I would like to see all of the parties involved spend more time tweaking and improving their products that they offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is real world(yes I know is on a engine). You have too break it down on how the oil is present. It is misted in the engine and the filter/screen media is to remove this mist from the air. SInce the oil is just poured in it will run down the tube and collect in the botton no filter is required. I think the reason why the Shelby unit fails in this test in the oil collects on the screens and pools and then runs out the other side. The JLT unit not using a screen will not let the oil pool and can run to the bottom(I think if you remove both filters you will get the exact same result as the JLT unit result). In my eyes this is not a real world test and only proves if you have oil running like a river you have bigger problems you need to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B64 beat me to it :).

 

 

Not sure if this is real world(yes I know is on a engine). You have too break it down on how the oil is present. It is misted in the engine and the filter/screen media is to remove this mist from the air. SInce the oil is just poured in it will run down the tube and collect in the botton no filter is required. I think the reason why the Shelby unit fails in this test in the oil collects on the screens and pools and then runs out the other side. The JLT unit not using a screen will not let the oil pool and can run to the bottom(I think if you remove both filters you will get the exact same result as the JLT unit result). In my eyes this is not a real world test and only proves if you have oil running like a river you have bigger problems you need to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although interesting, that would not be an accurate "real world" test for separators.

The oil for the test is cold and in liquid form, not hot and atomized like it would be in a engine running at normal or hot temperatures.

Also, crankcase pressures would vary quite a bit under heavy/intermittent use, ranging from a vacuum to substantial pressures.

This would create more of a oil ladden vapour than running/liquid oil.

It is pretty obvious that the cold oil would take on a syrupy texture, and would primarily sit on top of the shelby screens, which is what was responsible for the results shown.

To me a real world test would be running the filter on a car for a full track day and see the results, much like Revan Racing posted.

Repeat the test with other separators on the same vehicle and try to replicate the runs as close as possible.

Personally I would like to see all of the parties involved spend more time tweaking and improving their products that they offer.

 

 

 

Not sure if this is real world(yes I know is on a engine). You have too break it down on how the oil is present. It is misted in the engine and the filter/screen media is to remove this mist from the air. SInce the oil is just poured in it will run down the tube and collect in the botton no filter is required. I think the reason why the Shelby unit fails in this test in the oil collects on the screens and pools and then runs out the other side. The JLT unit not using a screen will not let the oil pool and can run to the bottom(I think if you remove both filters you will get the exact same result as the JLT unit result). In my eyes this is not a real world test and only proves if you have oil running like a river you have bigger problems you need to look at.

 

Well, I agree and have posted tons of test videos online ( look for videos by Tucker1154)

 

And I agree, about heat and vapors, but think about it.

Finer oil vapors going through a separator with no filter media. Hmmm

The finer the vapors the easier it is to pass through a screen, but when it's forced through a packed metal mesh filter it has tons of surface area to stop it, collect, grow and drop. That's the idea behind filters in separators ;)

 

Another thing to ponder,

So far 2 tests have been done, both with similiar out comes.

How is it that the Shelby unit doesn't work in a blow through test, doesn't work on a running engine going through a hot separator, but will work with hot vaporized oil?

I have no question the results would be the same no matter the RPM, temp, driving conditions or whatever, this is a controled test and the 2nd time the Shebly unit failed easily.

Again, this is why we need to ask for proof.

 

In my opinion no matter how it's done the results should stack up in the same order, but we'll see on our next track outing

 

Also, the oil in our test didn't run like a river, the valve was only slightly opened and I had a brass fitting on top with a reducing hole in it, only .100 in size. So oil was dripping into hot engine PCV air and going into a hot separator.

I had run several tests before this video, so you can bet everything was up to operating temp, not cold.

 

These tests are the only way to test without taking a year to do it, so it's as close to real world as possible and easily repeated.

 

Just get a clear water separator and plumb it in after your Shelby unit to see how much oil is getting through, it's easy and you'll be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very interesting test. One thing interesting is that Shelby does say no filter is needed. How come everyone else is using some sort of filter media? I have the UPR separator and it has the media just like the Bob's unit. So how come everyone else needs to use a filter media but not Shelby? I know Jer said they don't want to restrict air flow or anything but it shouldn't be sacrificing the filtering of the oil. My separator has been working great. Checked the return line and it is dry and clean as could be. I know Shelby is busy but I would like to see them do a test as well. So far in the two tests that have been done, you can see the Shelby unit didn't do so well. I know it's not a hot engine and vapor test but still. If the others can do good in these tests why not Shelby? Looking forward to Shelby proving these tests wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, here is what a good oil separtor should do:

 

1 - Efficiently remove oil from crankcase vented gases

2 - Do so without being overly restrictive to air flow, to avoid excessive crankcase pressures

3 - Come in a relativley compact & appealing package

 

 

I think that Shelby has attempted a high tech approach to removing the oil from the vented crankcase gases, rather than a low tech filter media approach.

The entry charateristics and reduction of velocity should cause the oil to collect on the screens, as the gases are directed down through it, and back up again.

I understand that actual filter media has increased surface area to collect, but it also inherently becomes more restrictive to air flow as it becomes saturated with oil.

I am not saying that their method is better than the other techniques being used, but I think it does merit consideration.

Think of the whole separator function as a process that has multiple ways to achieve the same result.

That is where the testing comes in, to see what actually works the best by meeting all 3 of the above requirements.

 

I feel that many of the tests performed so far are not valid because they do not accurately simulate actual crankcase venting, gases and oil particulate characteristics.

To me it makes sense to test them on a car that is being put through its paces at a track, exactly like Revan Racing did with the Bob's unit.

Use the same car, perform the same runs (as close as possible) with the various separators.

At the end of each track test outing, measure the captured oil.

Since the maximum crankcase pressures will be achieved at WOT, track testing should offer the quickest substantial results.

I would think that type of testing should be do-able, and not take an excessive amount of money or time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but is that new high tech approach actually working? Nobody really knows for 100% certain they are just taking their word for it. And yes it does merit consideration but they should prove that it works and not just say "yes we tested it and it works." People would like to see that it works. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Like you, I would like to see a real world test like that done as well. It should then show once and for all, which ones are collecting the most oil. Maybe they will all pass, that would be great. But at least people would then see if they actually perform good during real world driving. Maybe it will take a customer that has all three to test them before they actually get tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you can do is ask for proof a product works.

 

 

We have already supplied that, as well as customers in the field already reporting the same... I was actually done with this thread barring any customer questions, but since you said:

 

Ask Marcello to show you how it was tested and how they get the results.

 

Not just a screen shot of a computer generated graphic because that's not real world, actual results. You know, like video documentation, pictures, oil measured at set miles driven. Like we have tons of on our web site and Youtube page.

 

 

I did just that for you this morning. We had an install to do at Source Interlink's HQ in Tampa. It is ~300 miles round trip, mixed highway and stop-and-go driving. Oil separator was empty and wiped dry prior to leaving. During our trip and when we returned, we took photos. Again, this is our design with no filter media, backing up the computer simulation with real-world driving tests, not putting cold liquid oil into a system that was not designed to be trapping that. If your engine has cold liquid oil dropping into the PCV system, trust me the oil separator's efficiency is the least of your problems :).

 

As a matter of fact, while you don't have a camera inside the separator in your test (and I really wouldn't expect you to in all fairness), I would be *guessing* that the reason oil came across one and not the other was due to wicking of the liquid across the top of the unit. Since your unit has a filter at the head, it probably eliminates much of this under this specific test condition. But in a real-world application, there should not be much, if any wicking because the oil should not be in liquid form when it hits the turn-down point of the inlet hole. Again though, this is only a guess as to why they performed differently in this specific test.

 

Not, "I drove xxx miles and collected a teaspoon of oil" I mean a harsh serious miles test or an extreme test like this:

 

So is 300 miles in one day sufficient? Or do I need to drive until our unit is full (which I've done in a long day as well @ around 1300 miles)- I'm a little confused as to how many xxx makes it valid or not.

 

As to your video test being extreme, I'd say your test is equal to both units, however it is not an accurate representation of the real world and only "extreme" in the respect that an engine with that much liquid in the PCV is not long for this world. I have a test in mind, but again, I never said yours didn't work, just that ours does work. You want to have a "test war", but we've already disproven your assertion that ours cannot work, so anything more is just prolonging this discussion for no reason.

 

For someone who does not care about a competitive product being available though, you sure are spending a lot of time with these comparisons... video editing alone takes hours to do after shooting is complete.

 

Now it's long, but you really should watch the entire thing.

 

 

It is, and I did. Nice jabs, but I'm a big boy... FWIW, you do realize that all the "big boys" use computer simulation to test things now, right? To dismiss simulation as a valid method of initial data gathering goes in the face of everything done in aerospace and automotive to a lesser extent for at least the past 40 years. Boeing and F1 teams might want to know if flow simulation tests are invalid for modeling purposes, they could probably save a lot of money!

 

This test is very easy to do and easily repeated, so I suggest you check your separator for how much is getting past it, you'll be surprised.

 

 

All of them will have some passage of oil, that is a function of the fact that you don't want to have to put a lot of pressure on this to get airflow - that would lead to gasket blowouts and engine damage, something you might want to consider. Get a stuck PCV valve on an older engine - or better yet a plugged inline filter in a separator with no bypass mechanism - and you will see this firsthand. The Shelby unit if it were to have a clogged filter would automatically go to bypass mode, something your design cannot do.

 

the majority who watch this will want to know why Shelby didn't just copy the entire JLT.

 

Because as has been stated ad nauseum, nobody was attempting to copy your product. But just so I read that correctly, you state that this isn't a copy of your product? Because I thought the last 8 pages or so were stating exactly that. Now that it does not fit the narrative for the discussion, both the Shelby and SHR units are inferior, since if they were copies, then by extension your unit would be equally ineffective, correct?

 

How is it that the Shelby unit doesn't work in a blow through test, doesn't work on a running engine going through a hot separator, but will work with hot vaporized oil?

I have no question the results would be the same no matter the RPM, temp, driving conditions or whatever, this is a controled test and the 2nd time the Shebly unit failed easily.

Again, this is why we need to ask for proof.

 

 

Looking at the attached photos, taken today I think answers your request for proof. But you don't want to see it, so you ignore it. The weather photo through the windshield - that was Orlando at about 3pm approximately 90 miles from returning to our facility - check radar logs if you'd like to confirm that this test was conducted on 5/22/13. The bottle shown with the trapped oil (looks like I should do an oil change soon) is a 20oz soda bottle for reference. And guess what - it looks similar to other 20oz bottles on the market - amazing! :)

 

These tests are the only way to test without taking a year to do it, so it's as close to real world as possible and easily repeated.

 

But we have tested for that long, so it was a real-world test over an extended period of time because that's how we do things. Shelby has had plenty of time to do the same - are you really suggesting both companies did not have the ability or desire to offer a functional product and that your design is the only viable solution to a problem that has been around for 40+ years?

 

You are correct in stating that the tests are easily repeated, that's good. What's in question is your methodology, which leads to your questionable results.

 

Just get a clear water separator and plumb it in after your Shelby unit to see how much oil is getting through, it's easy and you'll be surprised.

 

 

Or just skip all the units on the market and use a standard clear coalescing filter only, and see that it works too... of course it isn't as "cool" as some that are available, but it does work. I'm willing to state that publicly, are you?

post-40531-0-57922300-1369262532_thumb.jpg

post-40531-0-68950100-1369265622_thumb.jpg

post-40531-0-46411800-1369265631_thumb.jpg

post-40531-0-06214900-1369265642_thumb.jpg

post-40531-0-57922300-1369262532_thumb.jpg

post-40531-0-68950100-1369265622_thumb.jpg

post-40531-0-46411800-1369265631_thumb.jpg

post-40531-0-06214900-1369265642_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On and on and on, OMG

 

I'm glad your bedazzled JLT separators doesn't use a filter either, it will be easy to discredit too.

 

People need to be aware of how these things work and all you have to do is "think" about it.

 

Also, don't try and fool these smart Shelby people here, every engine is different in the amount of oil it will put through the PCV system.

You and Shelby still have not posted any videos of your product "working"

 

You may see oil in there, but it's how much is getting by we want to know...

 

We want to see the clear tank after yours to see how much is getting by.

This is how we do our testing, we video miles and results.

 

We've done this for 3-4 years now and even though it worked, we know what we need to improve our product even more. What's awesome is you didn't copy the entire thing exactly and I can thank you for that.In recent tests we found out why our 5.0 and other kits worked so well and the GT500 kit didn't work as good. This has allowed us to find the fix and new "filters" are being made now to make it collect oil 10x better. Why? Because filters are needed.

To think I haven't ever tested my separator with no filter is a joke. I've tested different sizes, shapes, with and without and yours works the same, don't try and fool these members.

 

Your copied JLT doesn't hold magic powers, I had it in my hand, measured it and tested it. It has no "by pass" it has a screen, period.

Again, you should be ashamed that you took my product and copied it, that's something small comapnies do to large companies, not the other way around. Plus the fact that YOU have been copied in the past and cried to the world about it.

 

 

Your's is a V6, here's our V6 test:

 

2011 GT:

 

 

So, let's not "guess" how our products work in real world conditions and prove it.

 

Oh and I'll say it yet again, Steve is 1-2 hours from you and offered to come to you to do a head to head, no interest??

 

Ok, now to start my day, I've got tons of oil separators to go out today ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all this bickering I have no interest in ANY oil separators!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On and on and on, OMG

 

 

You are absolutely right.

 

* You ask for results, we provide them, you discredit them as impossible even though we're all looking at the same pictures.

* You discredit computer modeling of the airflow and function in the face of what almost all capable companies use daily to do the same.

* You ask for more tests, we conduct more, then you argue that because we used a still camera and not a video camera they are not as worthy as your tests.

* You argue the product is a copy, and when you finally admit that it is not, you argue that your product is superior and that we are incompetent because we intentionally did not copy your product. Yet in the same breath you suddenly have a "revised" piece coming after successfully selling the same piece for years? Why revise it, and why now?

* I explain how we arrive at our finished dimensions, provide links to the equipment used to do so, yet you have no explanation why your product is produced the way it is.

* I provide links to industrial equipment we use here that functions using the same theories as our unit, yet you ignore them as well even though they cost thousands of dollars and have been in use for many years in manufacturing all over the world.

* Instead of just sticking to facts, you continually try to make this a personal attack, resort to name calling, and blind refusal of any comments not in-line with yours, whether from us or from customers.

 

And with that, I will end our participation in this thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all this bickering I have no interest in ANY oil separators!

 

 

right!?!? i'm glad someone finally said what i bet alot of us are thinking!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am gonna buy a JLT from jay

 

 

 

Oh yeah? Well I'm going to buy a Shelby, from Jer!

 

How'd you like THEM apples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I installed my Shelby oil separator yesterday. Got to order another for the wifes SGT-C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good things have to come to an end, too bad this topic isn't a good thing. Time to move on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I was done, but I have to add this. Tucker said it himself that Ford designed his filter, which tells me that hes mad about a shape. Your mad about a shape? You can't sue over something like that, its not stealing, and its not even the same.

 

The Shelby mechanism is different because it doesn't use this misconception that it NEEDS to hold more oil, it uses an anti-eddy effect by pulling the oil through with just enough delay to allow air to separate from oil. Their densities are vastly different, and it does not take much to separate them; certainly does not take retention, build up, denaturing the oil, and then allowing it through to properly work. Your videos prove virtually nothing since you bash the Shelby one for passing it through so fast when that is NOT a failing product, its working just fine. But how would you know, Ford designed yours.

 

Enough is enough, you are WRONG, a bad business man, a cry baby, and an idiot. Please get off our forums for your own good, you've made an ass out of yourself already for who knows how many pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to be working for me. I must admit that I didn’t look at my mileage when I put it on but I would guess this between 50 and 100 miles. We'll see what it looks like after the Shelby Nationals.

 

IMAG1508_zps63d25ba5.jpg

If someone wants to send me a free JLT separator I will put it on behind the Shelby and see if anything gets through. :hysterical2:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yuck, I do not think I want that that going into my intake anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess no one here was taught right from wrong, just, take, copy and steal?

Funny thing is the videos are getting seen by a ton and the feedback I'm getting is heavily negative toward what Shelby did, so it's good to hear.

 

Like I said, I don't expect anyone on "this" forum to speak against the all mighty, but I will!

 

* You ask for results, we provide them, you discredit them as impossible even though we're all looking at the same pictures.

You didn't provide squat. Show your customers video proof no filter is needed, how many times do we need to ask?

 

 

* You discredit computer modeling of the airflow and function in the face of what almost all capable companies use daily to do the same.

Because it's not real world with rpm, temps and vacuum. It goes by what the human inputted in the computer.

 

 

* You ask for more tests, we conduct more, then you argue that because we used a still camera and not a video camera they are not as worthy as your tests.

Yup, do it right, prove it

 

 

 

* You argue the product is a copy, and when you finally admit that it is not, you argue that your product is superior and that we are incompetent because we intentionally did not copy your product. Yet in the same breath you suddenly have a "revised" piece coming after successfully selling the same piece for years? Why revise it, and why now?

This is funny: we intentionally did not copy your product

Good try, by chance Shelby contracted you to make a separator, we sold them separators and it comes out the exact measurements as ours. Your good, but not that good. You copied my product, your someone who knocks off other peoples products. Like Isaid afew times, I'm glad you didn't copy it 100%, because if you did it would work just as good and it doesn't.

 

We have been testing filters to improve our GT500 separator before this mess even came about. We always look at our products to see if we can improve on them, that's just good business.

It also helps me know that no filter = no worky or at least no worky as goody, LOL

 

* I explain how we arrive at our finished dimensions, provide links to the equipment used to do so, yet you have no explanation why your product is produced the way it is.

See above, your company knocks off products others designed!

 

 

 

* I provide links to industrial equipment we use here that functions using the same theories as our unit, yet you ignore them as well even though they cost thousands of dollars and have been in use for many years in manufacturing all over the world.

This is funny too

 

 

* Instead of just sticking to facts, you continually try to make this a personal attack, resort to name calling, and blind refusal of any comments not in-line with yours, whether from us or from customers.

No name calling from me, maybe that's your conscience you hear.

 

Hey, when is yours coming out, I need one to copy, er uh I mean test... LOL

 

 

You can bet this isn't over and you will wish you never made the unit for Shelby as well as your bedazzled JLT copy

 

Oh, enjoy your weekend everyone ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enough already!!, this is absolutely ridiculous beating this into the ground! Keep it private, no need for the continuous bashing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard. At first I agreed that JLT had a point it is similar looking. But then you open it and Tucker is even arguing that his operates differently by using a filtering medium. This is unfortunate I would have considered purchasing a JLT, but his immature attitude toward this is laughable. Stomping your feet and calling people names will not prove your point. If he copied your product exactly like you say then why are you saying that yours is better, wouldn't they funciton the same, wouldn't your test of the "exact copy" be sufficent. But you keep stating over and over that their design is inferior to yours, which mean it can't be a copy. I understand you are mad, but your claims of a copy would never hold up in court. This is a free market they think they improved on a design that is not patented. If anything I would be mad I didn't get a patent on it. And believe me its not that expensive to get them, all that is a bunch of crap.

 

Overall, I ask you please air your issues in private, make and sell a product you think is better. All you are going to do is continue to lose more customers, like you have with me, if you keep acting like a child.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my question is, JLT, SHR, Shelby going to have a throw down at Carlisle in a enclosure? maybe in the burnout box? haha

Edited by ShelbyEra08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why haven't all the tens of thousands of Mustangs out there without oil separators burned to the ground or coughed up their guts already?

 

If y'all could kindly stop the tap-dancing and deckchair-rearranging maybe I could hear the answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay has been around this site many many years. I met him when the site was called "Stangs Unleashed". I have his CAI, Oil separator and some dress up mods on my car. Any time I have had any questions or problems or inquires about upgrades I have received nothing but the utmost professionalism and customer support. This entire thread disappoints me.

 

Jay is a good man. A family man at that. I will continue to purchase his products and tell my friends about them. In fact I just made another on line purchase from his store.

 

 

002-4.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...