jim said:
It seems to take you a long time to google for quotations that turns
out
to contradict the point you were previously making. Before you were
quoting the results of single pass tests. Now you quote the
procedure
for a different test. What is it you think these quotations
contribute
to your position?
I was jsut trying to help you out. You made some really dramatic
claims for Fram filters (like "tests have shown they [Fram] do remove
smaller particles than wix or purolator." I thought if I posted what
Honewell actually claims and what the test involves, you might quit
making claims that exceed what the manufacturer claims.
Yes it is exactly and precisely the same . At least it is if you are
using the same basic definition of the words that automotive
engineers
use. If you have your own definitions for words then you should give
them.
I don't see where you have explained what exactly "remove a lot of
very
small, non-harmful particles" means. But it is Crystal clear that
previously you were claiming Frams are bad because they are too
aggressive at removing the smallest particles. Now you seem to be
desperately digging for data on the web to refute that claim.
Again, you are making up stuff and trying to twist what I said. I
never said Frams are too agressive at removing small paricles. You are
taking stuff out of context and trying to interpert it to imply I said
things that I never said. Go back and read the original statement in
context. It was a broad general statement, that even you agree is
true - removing very small "NON-HARMFUL" particles is not a good
thing., I never said Fram filters did this (in fact I am sure they
don't). I certainly never said anything like - "Frams are bad because
they are too aggressive at removing the smallest particles." It seem
you arguement technique is to deliberately misinterpert what someone
saids and then attack a your twisted version of the position, while
pretending not to notice what they actually said.
For reference, here are the original paragraphs in context (forgive me
for reposting something) -
***Begin Repost***
[You said]
The fact is it has been scientifically proven that Fram filters
do a better job than Wix for removing the smallest particles
from the oil.
That was not determined by cutting filters open but by doing tests
on the oil after many miles of service. And the effects of not
filtering the finest particles takes many years and many miles to
show up. The look of the filter may be important to you, but
many taxi and delivery services use fram filters because they
are more interested in the results than what the filter looks like
on the inside.
[I previously said]
[You said:]
Because tests have shown they do remove smaller particles
than wix or purolator. That can be a good thing or a bad
thing. If you have an old beater that is loaded up with an
accumulation of those fines plus a worn out oil pump from
many years of pumping those small particles putting a
Fram filter on the engine can lead to trouble.
[I said]
Who's tests have shown that? I've read everything FRAM calims, and
they don't claim to be better than WIX. I can't find numbers for
Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters,
but I'll bet they are.
And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not
important. What is important is removing as many as possible of
particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very
small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the
filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting
in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't
filtering anything.
Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end
caps often come loose.
****End Repost****
You are now claiming that I implied Fram filter could lead to problems
becasue they filter too fine particles. This was actually your claim
("If you have an old beater that is loaded up with an accumulation of
those fines plus a worn out oil pump from many years of pumping those
small particles putting a Fram filter on the engine can lead to
trouble").Clearly I never said Fram filter were particlularly good at
removing fine particles. In fact, I repeatedly questioned your
unsupported claims that "tests have shown they [Fram] do remove
smaller particles than wix or purolator." I was sure this was BS then
and I still do. There are no tests that I have seen that show this. My
comments about the dark side of removing very small particles was in
direct response to yourr BS claims about Fram removing smaller
particles than Wix or Purolator. I was not claiming that Fram filters
were bad becasue they removed very small particles, I was responding
to your BS about how Fram could remove very small particles. No filter
manufacturer (not even Fram) would create a filter that removes
particles that were to small to be harmful. This would increase filter
cost for no reason and actually make it less useful.
So your comparison is what WIX filters remove from oil in a test
involving multiple passes to what Fram filters remove in a single
pass?
You think that is a meaningful comparison?
Go back and read what Honeywell actually claims - they are claiming an
efficency based on a multi-pass test, just like Wix. Honeywell is
using the newer ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test, Wix is referencig the
older SAE J1858 multi-pass test. Wix actually provides the Beta Ratio
from the test. Honeywell just quotes one number for 20 micron
particles. For the Extra Guard they claim 95% for particles 20 microns
are greater. As I pointed out, the Beta ratios provided by Wix imply a
96% efficiency at removing particles 20 microns or greater. The two
companies are using different multi-pass test standards, but I think
it is reasonable to assume the results for a given particle size
should be comparable. BTW, Purolator claims the PureOne removes 99.9%
of all particles 20 microns or larger when tested according to ISO
4548-12 (same test Fram is using in claiming 95% efficiency see
http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx )
.. A PureOne cost with a few cents the same as a Fram ExtraGuard, yet
it includes a silicone anti-drain back valve, is better made (my
opinion) and filters much better (at least if you believe each
companies advertising copy). Tell me again why you prefer Fram
filters.
So is the quality of the filters Fram makes other than the standard
line OK? If someone buys the other Fram filters you see no problem?
Actually I think the more expensive Fram fitlers are a horrible
choice. The Tough Guard uses basically the same construction
techniques as the Extra Guard, but with supposedly better filter
medais (99% efficient at removing particles >20 microns) and a
silicone anti-drain back valve (like the standard Motorcraft filter).
The Xtended Guard is really a weird one - it costs even more, yet it
has a lower filtering efficiency than the Tough Guard (97% for >20
microns). It's main claim to fame for it is the addition of a metal
screen around the media. The High Mileage Fram filter claims to add
some sort of sanke oil to "balance oil PH and maintain viscosity."
They are definitely moving into Slick 50 territory with that one.
If the Extra Guard is so great, why offer all these other choices?
Your the one doing all the googling of SAE tests. You must have
stumbled
across several by now.
I tried, but I cannot find a single one that shows a Fram filter is
better than a Wix or Purolator filter. Can you point me towards one?
It's better than leaving a Fram in place for longer than the auto
makers
recommendations. The assumption you are changing filters at least as
often as the recommended maintenance schedules.
So you think the choice of filter must always be based on some kind
of
superstition belief? I didn't state a criteria for picking Fram. I
simply stated your criteria for avoiding Fram was primarily
superstition. And it is obvious the superstitious beliefs started
after
cutting open a filter.
As far as I can tell the price available to you is the only criteria
you have for selecting a brand that is based on anything real.
Again, you are trying to argue against stuff I never said. Here is
what I beleive (I'll try to be as clear as possible):
Of the "popular natonwide brands" (Motorcraft, Wix, Purolator), I
think Fram filters use the poorest construction techniques. Fram does
not claim to have better filtering efficiencies that filters from
Motorcraft, Wix, or Purolator. They only claim to be better than
unspecified "economy filters." I am not sure which filters these are.
The standard Fram Filters (Extra Guard) are not particularly cheap.
They usually cost around the same as brands that appear to me to be
better made (Motorcraft, Wix, Purolator, and some others). Given that
I feel they are not as well made as some others, and that Fram doesn't
claim the Extra Guard filters have better filtering efficiency than
other brands available on the same shelf in the store (usually
Purolator and Motorcraft), and that Extra Guard filters often cost as
much or more than other filters I like better (Wix, Purolator,
Motorcraft), why would I buy a Fram filter?
Yes there is a gap above the endcap but it never moves into the gap.
How
would it with the oil pressing against it pushing in the opposite
direction?
OK, again, look at the picture and tell me how the Fram relief valve
works. And then tell me why the same forces cannot affect the end
caps.
That description describes a Fram also. The Fram pleats are glued
together at the ends also. But what you just described has nothing
at
all else supporting the pleats. The Fram has the extra cardboard
support
to keep them evenly spaced. So isn't that a better design?
They are not glued together in the manner I was trying to describe.
The Fram pleats are open up to the end cap. They are closed off solely
by the end cap. The other technigue involves bonding the individual
pleats together along the top edge. It gives the top and bottom edges
of the element a sucked in look becasue the pleats are bunched tightly
together at the ends - sort of like an old wodden barrel instead of a
uniform cylinder. The "end caps" are not glued to the filter element
at all, they just act like retainers. The Fram end caps are the
sealing surface.
You mean kinda like this"
"I've seen other filters that use just
a simple retainer (think plastic or paper)
at the top of the filter
element, but these filters
glue the pleates together, "
NO, see above - completely different techniques.
So obviously because you "know" this can't possibly work it is now
perfectly OK to now make up stories about engine failures - Right?
It can work, but it is not as reliable as other methods. I've never
made up any stories about engine failures. QUit trying to dismiss my
comments based on things I have never said. I've seen the filter
element detached at the glue joint, not torn. I understand that the
Fram methods usually woks OK, but I have seen the joint fail as well.
I have never personally had any sort of engine failure related to a
bad oil filter. I am only saying that compared to other fitlers that
are in the same price range, Fram filters use an inferior constrcution
technique. Their technique can work, but, in my opinion, it is more
likely to fail than other techniques. The results of the failure may
be unimportant most of the time, but why would I spend as much or more
for a filter that is at best no better than filters from other
suppliers?
You don't need to describe how these filters are constructed. I have
seen hundreds of paper replacement cartridges with this same design.
I
have seen them when they are new and after they have filtered the
oil
and I didn't need to rip and tear and damage anything to get a look
at
them.
Well there are several engine manufacturer's OEM filters that use
this
design since they are made by Fram. They I'm sure have looked at a
lot
more filter guts than you have and they have the reputation of their
entire manufacturing process at stake. So I find them a just tad
more
credible.
The fact that the thinner paper pleats can collapse and rip away
from
the end cap in many cases is caused by cutting the filter open.
Explain why this would be the case. I have a purpose designed device
for cutting open filters. I always cut them open at the base end. The
element always come out whole. The only filter I've ever cut open with
detached pleats was a Fram filter (although the I am amazed that some
of the Delco filters don't fail as well).
But you
haven't said anything convincing that the end caps themselves move
anywhere at all. The mode of failure you describe was the paper
filter
media collapsing inward and ripping away from the end caps. This
could
happen even is the caps were steel and you have said nothing that
would
indicate the Fram filter media ia any more fragile than anyone
else's.
If the filter media is collapsing towards the center with any brand
of
filter, that should be telling you something about your engine.
I've never had this problem. I've never claimed to have even seen this
happen. In fact, I can't see how it would happen unless you had a
filter that was almost completely plugged. The pressure differential
across the filter media is usually much less than 10 psi (more like
2). Anyperson with a collasped filter core likely used oil that was to
viscous and didn't change the filter for ages. I have heard of people
blowing filter cans open, but this is a whole different problem. The
pressure diffferential accross the filter wasn't the problem, it was
the internal pressure in the oil system (as with a stuck pressure
relief valve). I suppose a blown case might damage the fitler core,
but it might not as well. The pressure inside and outside the filter
core is still limited by the bypass valve. SO as long as the bypass
valve functions properly, the differential force that might crush the
filter element is relatively low.
Sounds like since you endcap theory fell on its face you are
modifying
your position to claiming they don't use enough glue. And I imagine
if
that theory was shot down you would move to a theory that there is
too
much glue and it is using up valuable space that could be used for
filter media and crud.
Which end cap theory is that? I've been consistent in not liking the
Fram construction techniques. The paper end caps are not particualry
rigid. FIlter media retention is dependent on the glue joint from one
non-rigid body to another non rigid body perpendicular to the first.
They only apply a thin bead on both sides of the filter media and the
inside of the central core. Any gaps or misplacement of the bead can
lead to failure of the joint and leakage past the filter media. Most
other filters use metal end caps and the filter media is completely
encapsulated in glue (or potting compond). The Motor craft filter
media (and central core) are potted into the end caps which are filled
with the glue (or whatever you want to call it). There is little
chance that the media and core won't be firmly attached to a
relatively stiff metal end cap (which includes flanges that make them
much more rigid than the paper end cap used by Fram).
I would much prefer to have an engine where there is zero danger of
it
going into by pass mode. That isn't hard to achieve. If you do have
such
a cruddy engine then don't use a Fram I strongly suspect that Fram
would
like to see those engines go to their competitors. But since you
brought
it up what has the bypass got to do with the endcaps moving.
The filter on just about every engine goes into bypass mode at one
time or another. The bypass opens at something like 8 to 16 psi
pressure differential cross the media (varies by application). With
warm oil at an idle, the pressure differential accross the filter
probably never exceeds a few psi. But on a cold morning, when you race
an engine, I'll bet it will and therefore lift the bypass valve.
And you still didn't answer my question about how the Fram bypass
valve works. Saying you don't want it to work is not answering. The
reason I ask you to explain its working is simple. You keep implying
there are no forces which might deform the paper end caps. I suspect
the Fram bypass valve works very poorly. It seems to offer less flow
area than the bypass valves for many other brands. I think it is
possoible this will lead to higher pressure differential across the
element than will be seen by these other brands. Higher forces
pressure differential across the element combined with an inferior
media to endcap bond design has to increase the chances of that bond
failing. Maybe it is still only a minor concern, but again, why pay
the same or more for an inferior design?
No need to google. I'll concede that point. When the outer shell
blows
off, the end cap and everything else inside the can is going to fall
out
on to the ground. But don't you have any curiosity as to what would
cause a can to burst.
No actually the cardboard looks a little thinner. And as far as I
ever
saw everybody made them pretty much the same.
As I said if the center tube hasn't collapsed you can be sure the
end
caps haven't gone anywhere.
Not the ones for the 283. All brands have the inner support tube.
How
they are made probably depends on what the specs are for a
particular
application are.
Nope I still have one and i cut open a used Fram extra gard to
compare
. The modern spin on has thicker cardboard end caps and more glue on
the
ends of the pleats. Other than that and the size there doesn't seem
to
be much difference in design. The filter I have is a hardware store
brand so it may or may not be made by Fram. But IIRC they all pretty
much looked the same on the shelf in a store where you had a choice.
The first picture looks like the stock filter for the 283. The
endcaps
are made of cardboard and what you are calling a metal can is just
glossy paper wrapped around the filter media. The purpose of the
paper
is probably to keep the mechanics greasy fingers off the filter
media.
That paper looks like what you would find in a typical glossy
magazine
with a bunch of holes punched in it.
The other bypass filters in your pictures must be some after market
product for an auxiliary add-on filter. Couldn't tell you what those
filters are made of.
What about the millions of engine applications where the filters do
not
fail as you have imagined they are going to? You're the one
claiming
they are not any good and have a high probability of failure. I
myself
wouldn't have typed a single word about Fram filters if I had not
seen
others typing so much misinformation. It is just plain irksome to
listen
to all these obviously unsupported allegations.
I could have said that. Until i see some believable facts to change
my
mind I will be sticking to my own beliefs - thank you very much.
Not really no. But then I can't recall making a statement about my
filter preference. I have never personally had a problem when I used
a
Fram. I have never met any one else who had a problem and all told
that
represents quite a lot of filters that haven't failed. I never even
thought about it until I started reading some of the obviously bogus
claims by the Fram bashers. The typical Fram basher has used only
one
Fram filter in his whole life (and he usually won't even admit to
buying
that one) and he will tell you about the numerous defects that one
filter exhibited. Well I'm sorry that is just way too implausible
and
improbable to be believed.
Care to point out some of these stories? I Googled Fram failures and I
do see a lot of people unhappy with Fram filters and some stories that
claim engine failure related to Fram filters, but there are not that
many out there. I am not basing my preference for filters other than
Fram on these sorts of stories. I just don't like the way they are
made. You made claims (or at least I thought you made claims) that
Fram filters did a better job of removing stuff from the oil than
other comparable brands. I don't believe this to be true for the
standard Fram filter (the Extra Guard). At best they claim to be about
the same as Wix filters (I am being charitabkle to Fram here). I've
never seen any "official" independent tests that compared the various
filter brands based solely on filtering performance. I have personaly
cut open many different oil filters and see no reason to believe Fram
filters are better than competitive filters from other manufacturers
(like Purolator, Wix, Motorcraft). It is true you cannot devine
filtering efficiency by looking at the media, but I would argue that
media of the same thickness, densisty, and appearance are likely to
have similar filtering performance - particualy since when the
manufactuers claim similar efficiency. Fram does claim greatly
superior efficiency compared to some unnamed "economy filter." I've
never seen them try to compare thier Extra Guard filters to filters
avaialble at similar prices from the other major filter suppliers
(Wix, Purolator, Motorcraft). It is pretty easy to claim you are great
compared to some theoretical bad filter. Maybe Fram should match
claims with Purolator (Purolator claims the PureOne Filter removes
99.9% of particle 20 microns or larger when tested according to ISO
4548-12).
I don't know what your asking?
So if one scenario of filter failing doesn't support your
superstition
you move on to another. Please don't ever pay any attention to all
the
cars that aren't having the problems you imagine they must be
having.
What has superstition got to do with anything? It seem to me you are
the one making faith based decisions. As best I can determine you buy
Fram fitlers becasue you you assume past performance guarantees future
performance and you believe the Fram advertising copy.
Which senario am I moving from / to? I think I have been pretty
consistent in saying I don't like Fram filters becasue of the way they
are made. I've never said I don't like Fram filters becasue they fail
and destroy engines. I have persoanlly seen a Fram filter with the
pleats detached from the end caps, but the engine didn't fail (in fact
it seems to be doing just fine). I don't buy Fram filters because I
think there are better made filters available for the same or even a
lower price. When I was younger I used Fram filters all the time. I've
never had an engine fail. In fact, I've only ever worn one engine
out - a Ford 800 Tractor engine. And, this engine used Fram filters as
long as I can remember. It originally had a cartridge filter, but my
Father converted it to a Fram spin on around 1960. That's all we ever
used on it after that (we used it another 35 years with Fram filters).
BTW - it still ran the day we sold it.
Just for the record, here is my filter preference for the different
vehicles I maintain:
Toyota
1) Toyota OE Japan made filter
2) Wix or Napa Gold
3) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch
owns Purolator)
4) Toyota aftermarker filter (Thailand made)
5) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch)
6) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to
investigate)
7) Fram
Ford
1) Motorcraft (not sure what will happen - Purolator was making them,
but last OE filter was different)
2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch
owns Purolator)
3) Wix or Napa Gold (same filter)
4) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch)
5) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to
investigate)
6) Fram
Nissan
1) Nissan OE (Japan or China)
2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch
owns Purolator)
3) Wix
4) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch)
5) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to
investigate)
6) Fram
Honda
1) Honda OE - except I can't seem to find them these days, the Honda
aftermarket filters appear to be Fram
2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch
owns Purolator)
3) Wix
4) Fram
Mazda
1) Mazda
2) Motorcraft
3) Wix
4) Purolator Pure One
5) Fram
New Holland (farm tractors)
1) New Holland (nothing else)
Kubota (fram tractor)
1) Kubota (nothing else)
I am not particularly rigid on this. Sometimes the local Autozone runs
a special where you get a Mobil 1 Filter and 5 quarts of Mobil 1 for a
low price. When they do this I always take the deal and use the Mobil
1 Filter. And occasioanly I can't get my preferred brand of filter, so
I pick something else. I've even used a Fram on Hondas several times
(heck I believe the Honda dealer sells repainted Frams as Honda
filters). When I am at my farm, I usually go by a local garage and
pick up filters. The garage carries Motorcraft, Delco, and Wix
Fitlers, so I use which ever of those he has for my application (BTW,
the garage owner doesn't use Fram filters wither - if he can avoid
them - I guess he has been reading the Internet stories, well except
he doesn't have an Internet conenction). I am also using Toyota
aftermarket filters on the SO's Toyota. I bought a case of filters
from a distributor thinking I was getting the OE style Toyota filter
(which is a really unique filter) but got the aftermarket ones made in
Thailand instead. I don't like them as well as most other filters
available for the application, but I am not throwing them away becasue
of "like" or "dislike."
In my opinion one of the best filters you can buy is actually an
Amsoil EA Oil Filter (made by Donaldson I think). I am often offended
by Amsoil claims, but the filters are really quite nice, BUT, they are
very pricey and I don't see then being worth it. Likewise Donaldson
and Fleetguard have some very well made oil filters, but they are also
pricey and not worth it in my opinion for my particular usage.
Donaldson makes an especially nice filter for Ford FL820 applications,
but since I do regular oil changes (5000 miles max) I don't think I
need them for my Fords (i did try a couple though). I've never
actually worn a Ford car or truck engine out, and some of them used
Fram filters for years.
If I am going to over spend on filters, it will be on air filters, not
oil filters. Oil filters can only remove what is already in the
engiens. Air filters keep bad stuff out.
Ed
