JLT vs Bob's Oil Separators.

[Iceman5000]

I finally put my car away for the winter on Thursday w 5,000 K on the odo.

As most of you know I have been running a Bob's Oil Separator since the day I brought the car home. Since there has been so much discussion about Bob's Vs. JLT, I decided to do a test of my own. At the 2,000 mile mark I ran the Bob's in Series with the JLT. The JLT was first in line and the Bob's was 2nd. Well after 3,000 miles here is the results:

The JLT contained this much oil:

Pretty good right?

Well, not exactly. The Bob's which was in line AFTER the JLT had this much oil in it:

That is a lot of oil getting by the JLT's.

Now in fairness I must say I have not done the test with the oil separators in the reverse order, yet. I will do that in the spring. But I have a theory that the JLT's have a design flaw that lets a lot of oil flow through them. The flaw is that the inlet and outlet are directly across and perpendicular to each other. The Bob's inlet and outlet are offset. I believe this make a huge difference. But I will have to wait until next year to reverse the test. Unless someone else wants to try it this winter.:rolling:

 

[03outlaw]

Wow awesome research...I have Bob's just haven't put it on yet, although I only have 330 miles on the car. Thanks for sharing!

 

[eagle eye]

I finally put my car away for the winter on Thursday w 5,000 K on the odo.

As most of you know I have been running a Bob's Oil Separator since the day I brought the car home. Since there has been so much discussion about Bob's Vs. JLT, I decided to do a test of my own. At the 2,000 mile mark I ran the Bob's in Series with the JLT. The JLT was first in line and the Bob's was 2nd. Well after 3,000 miles here is the results:

The JLT contained this much oil:

Pretty good right?

Well, not exactly. The Bob's which was in line AFTER the JLT had this much oil in it:

That is a lot of oil getting by the JLT's.

Now in fairness I must say I have not done the test with the oil separators in the reverse order, yet. I will do that in the spring. But I have a theory that the JLT's have a design flaw that lets a lot of oil flow through them. The flaw is that the inlet and outlet are directly across and perpendicular to each other. The Bob's inlet and outlet are offset. I believe this make a huge difference. But I will have to wait until next year to reverse the test. Unless someone else wants to try it this winter.:rolling:

Yes, an interesting test next spring would be to switch positions.
Thanks for posting your finds.

 

[san6279]

Good info. Thanks for posting. Looking fwd to the next phase.

 

[MJN]

Man that looks like alot of oil I did not think these had that much blow by. I had only 1,000 on mine but I never had but a teaspoon in the bottom of my JLT. What knind of oil you running?

 

[Iceman5000]

Amsoil 10W40.

 

[mullens]

Two other reasons why Bob's is more efficient:
-It uses a larger 5/8" hose which slows the oil vapor allowing it to collect more
-It has a longer travel to the SC inlet

 

[Farmer-Ted]

Wow, looks like neither one is ideal. I have a theory why the Bobs typically works better than the JLT. The JLT is mounted higher than the Bobs. All the installations I've seen the Bobs is mounted to the strut tower or firewall with the lines sloped downward. The JLT is mounted up above the valve cover in line with the original vent tube. For the Bobs any oil left in the lines on either side of the can will run down to the Bobs can due to gravity. Since the JLT lines are straight, the oil will stay in the lines and not run into the can. Don't know if this is really why but I would be interested to see a Bobs mounted in the JLT location to compare how it works in that position.

 

[Snoopy49]

Two other reasons why Bob's is more efficient:
-It uses a larger 5/8" hose which slows the oil vapor allowing it to collect more
-It has a longer travel to the SC inlet

Doesn't the outlet port on Bob's separator sit lower than SC port when it is mounted on the shock tower? If so, the oil would have to flow uphill from the separator to the port and any residual oil in the outlet hose would drain back into the separator.

 

[Snoopy49]

Farmer-Ted,
Evidently we were typing at the same time, so you beat me to it.
Note to self, learn to type with more that two fingers.

 

[MJN]

Amsoil 10W40.

Same one im using, you guys ever check out Reagen Racing the one they sell?

 

[Iceman5000]

Actually the way I had them mounted, They were very level with a 3" length of hose connecting them.

 

[Snoopy49]

Actually the way I had them mounted, They were very level with a 3" length of hose connecting them.

I remember you mentioning that, I thought you posted a picture of the setup, but couldn't locate it. I would think that the normal Bob's shock tower mounting location would be more efficient, but your test at least put both units on a level playing field.

 

[railroad]

Do you think having the catch cans mounted in a cooler location would let more of the vapors condense in the cans? Since I do not have my 13 yet, I can only look at pictures to look for that location.

 

[san6279]

I know for the passenger side typical locations are strut tower and firewall. I wonder if there are any issues with running two Bobs, one at each location, to maximize oil removal. Just a thought.

 

[mullens]

Doesn't the outlet port on Bob's separator sit lower than SC port when it is mounted on the shock tower? If so, the oil would have to flow uphill from the separator to the port and any residual oil in the outlet hose would drain back into the separator.

Good point. The uphill path would contribute to efficiency.

I know for the passenger side typical locations are strut tower and firewall. I wonder if there are any issues with running two Bobs, one at each location, to maximize oil removal. Just a thought.

Probably overkill. I'm getting 40ml every 1000 miles mounted on the shock tower. Pretty efficient.

 

[Farmer-Ted]

It would probably be more effeicent to mount a larger can in a lower position. Could probably fab up a larger can mounted down near the k-member and drain it when the oil is changed. It would also make it less noticable in the engine compartment. Maybe one of those aluminum tube style over flow tanks could be modified.

 

[Farmer-Ted]

Farmer-Ted,
Evidently we were typing at the same time, so you beat me to it.
Note to self, learn to type with more that two fingers.

I only type with one.

 

[Steve@BAS]

It would probably be more effeicent to mount a larger can in a lower position. Could probably fab up a larger can mounted down near the k-member and drain it when the oil is changed. It would also make it less noticable in the engine compartment. Maybe one of those aluminum tube style over flow tanks could be modified.

More efficient than what?

Every test has shown the Bobs can to be extremely effective. I haven't seen any post showing anything got past a Bobs can yet.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Iceman5000]

More efficient than what?

Every test has shown the Bobs can to be extremely effective. I haven't seen any post showing anything got past a Bobs can yet.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse.

I believe you are correct, I have seen nothing to indicate oil is getting past the Bob's.