Who was it who mentioned Fram oil filters and dropping oil pressure?

[jim]

The large particles cause the fastest and most severe wear to the most
parts of the engine. Small amounts of very fine particles wear areas
with tight tolerances - things like hydraulic lifters.

Small particles cause pretty much the same wear as large - just not as
much. And an oil pump will wear out faster pumping dirty oil than clean
oil.

Cheap filters use Cellulose filter media. Better filters use synthetic
media, and the best filters use either "micro-glass" of extremely fine
metal screens.

That's just marketing BS. There are tradeoffs in engineering a product
like this. For instance, after you have stuffed the can full of filter
media - how much room have you left for the dirt to accumulate? That
would be the question I would ask the toilet paper filter people if I
ever met one. Another consideration is how durable is the design - will
it fall apart in the field? There are laboratory
tests and real world testing that answer these questions. The results of
those tests do not agree with the assessments of the amateurs cutting
filters open. So who are you going to believe?

Some research done by GM in recent years shows ta "Typical low cost
oil filter" will remove about 40% of particles in 8 to 10 micron range
Typical OEM oil filter will remove about 72% of particles in 8 to 10
micron range .
The best full flow filters tested catch 99% of 10 micron particles
and up to 95% of 5 micron particles.

Many "particles" in the oil are less than 5 microns - some even
sub-micron - and these cause very little wear, if any. HOWEVER,
submicrom iron particles act as a type of catalyst in relation to oil
oxidayion - and there is some evidence that removing these fine
particles magnetically CAN extend the life of engine oil, as well as
automatic transmission fluids. This is one reason magnets in
transmission pans, on drain plugs, and even in some filters, can be
beneficial.

All filters remove some particles at even 1 micron. But that fact is
more irrelevant BS.

As I said the question of whether you need to go beyond the
manufacturers recommendations is simply a question of extra ordinary
circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances, anyone can use any filter
and any brand oil and follow the car makers regimen and the engine will
outlast the rest of the car. Now if for some reason you decide you
intend to make the rest of the car last 50 years and 500k miles then it
makes sense to start thinking about how to improve on the basic
maintenance regimen. But if that extra ordinary circumstance isn't your
goal - if you are aware of the fact that the rest of the car is going to
be shot at 150K, 200K or 250K (depending on what "shot" means to you)
then there is no point in going to the extra effort and expense.

The drainback valve is VERY IMPORTANT on applications that do not
mount with ehe "hole" up. A leaky drainback valve will allow the crud
captured in the case of the filter to return, with the oil, into the
crank-case. Not good. This is over and above the problem with possible
dry starts due to filter drainage.

Bypass valves are important too - not necessarilly that they need to
work - with the right oil weight anf timely changes the bypass should
never come into play - but they MUST SEAL - otherwize unfiltered oil
goes through the engine.

There are SAE designed tests to determine if filter manufacturers valves
work to industry standards. But if you are using a filter and it goes
into by-pass mode there is something wrong with your maintenance regimen
or something wrong with your engine. That is not normal and shouldn't be
regarded as normal occurrence.

The big problem I see with "paper" end caps on the element is it is
hard to assure a good, positive, repeatable seal at the bypass valve.

What does the by pass valve have to do with the end cap? There are
engine applications where the engine is equipped with the valve to
bypass a plugged filter and its not in the filter.

-jim

 

[jim]

"FRAM® Extra Guard® Oil Filter for the average motorist who commutes
regularly to work, the local store and occasionally embarks on a long
road trip. FRAM® Extra Guard® offers 96% single pass efficiency....."

96% is not particualrly good....

You were the one claiming filtering small particles is not needed - now
you argue against yourself.

From http://www.wixfilters.com/productinformation/gff_oilfilters.html

"SAE J806 tests prove that WIX oil filters hold 45% more dirt than the
leading national brand -...." We all know that the leading national
brand is FRAM... I suppose Wix might lie...but why would you suppose
they are more likely to lie than FRAM?

Now you have got your apples and oranges confused. Holding more dirt and
removing more dirt from the oil is not really the same thing. But I can
assure you that both filters are well above all the minimum industry
test standards.

While you are rading FRAM literature, you might also read
http://www.fram.com/pdf/FluidFilterRating.pdf and/or
http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-5R3.html. This rating
scheme is designed primarily for hydraulic filters, but it can apply
to lube oil filters as well. Too bad they don't provide this rating
information for their fitlers. WIX does - for example, see
http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51372 . I
am more inclined to trust a company that provided more and better
quality information, instead of vauge advertising copy.

I have little interest in wading through anybody's marketing literature.

Better would be - better filtering efficiency, better capaicty, better
construction, etc. Motorcraft doesn't make the sort of statements that
WIX does about being x% better than FRAM. They only say "Efficient
Filter Media; Re-engineered media increases Motorcraft® filters'
dirt-collecting capability, allowing them to capture more
engine-harming particles than ever before." This is just advertising
copy from http://www.motorcraft.com/products.do?item=13 . Still, I
feel confident a Motorcraft Filter is at least as good as a standard
Fram at removing contaminants.

You were the one claiming all this small particle removal was
unimportant. Don't drag me into your personal arguments with yourself.

http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/ofa/FAMS/evaloilfilters.pdf is a long
paper detailing the potential advantages of installing bypass type
filters on larger vehicles (truck and buses) and extending oil change
intervals for all vehicles. As part of the study they compared FRAM X2
filters (the really expensive ones that claim to be super good) to
standard Car Quest Filters. Here is what they found:

"No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the
standard Car Quest filters performance."

Most likely the Car Quest Filters were private label WIX filters. So
at least as far as this study was concerned, high priced, "premium"
FRAM filters (which Fram claims are superior to their standard
filters) are no better than a private branded version of a WIX filter.
Here is FRAM's advertising claims for the X2 fitlers:

"The new FRAM® X2T Extended GuardT has all the single pass efficiency
of a FRAM® Extra Guard® oil filter but with TWICE THE CAPACITY! FRAM®
X2T is the very first premium oil filter to offer an amazing 7,000
miles plus performance! Combined with Triad Technology, the FRAM® X2T
filter also features the new FRAM® X2000 high-synthetic blend (70%)
media. It's thicker and denser for efficiency and extra capacity, and
backed by a rugged, metal screen design that helps achieve uniform
pleating, maintaining optimum oil flow, and greatly extended service."

Net: FRAM's best is no better than a bottom of the barrel Car Quest
filter....


I have a hard time deciding what the right number is for non-harmful
components. I've read some information that indicates particles
smaller than 10 microns can lead to significant wear and others that
say they are not so harmful. It seems that most filter manufacturers
never rate anything below 10 microns, and mostly they are targeting
the 20 micron size.

More arguing with yourself?

Have you ever looked at the insides of a standard FRAM filter. If not,
go to http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id10.html .

Finally after much arguing with yourself, we get to what i asked you
about. Yeah those are better than average pictures of cut open filters.
And So?

There is plenty of room for the top end cap (if you can call a piece
of paper an end cap) to detach and pull away from the filter element.
Compare that to http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id9.html .

And what would cause it to do that? Are you saying if you turn the
engine upside down and run it reverse rotation it is not going to work?
Well probably so. The oil pressure is all pushing it in the direction
to hold it in place. It can't go anywhere even if they didn't use glue
to hold it in place. And you still haven't explained why you think that
heavier fiber is the weak link and not the lighter filter media. And by
what mechanism this failure of the cardboard end cap occurs. Sure if you
open any filter you can tear the paper parts to pieces with your bare
hands - but so what?

The Fram filter cost $3.77, the Motorcraft $3.28 (2006 prices). Which
would you think was better?

So that's it? So why did you need to cut filters open and argue all the
marketing BS with yourself if all it comes down to is the price on the
box? If you had said that in the first place I would have said Yeah grab
the cheaper one.

-jim

 

[C. E. White]

You were the one claiming filtering small particles is not needed -
now
you argue against yourself.

Where did I claim "filtering small particles is not needed?" What I
actually said was - "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 plugging 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."

I am all for filtering small particles that are potentially harmful. I
pointing out that having a filter that filtered out particles that
were very samll was not necessarily a good thing.

Now you have got your apples and oranges confused. Holding more dirt
and
removing more dirt from the oil is not really the same thing. But I
can
assure you that both filters are well above all the minimum industry
test standards.

How do you know that? All we know is that FRAM tested per a particualr
SAE standard and that FRAM® Extra Guard® offers 96% single pass
efficiency....." What is the minimum industry test standard? What does
a particualr vehicle manufacturer require.

I have little interest in wading through anybody's marketing
literature.

Well the WIX link is fact filled, unlike the typical FRAM ad. You
should at least look. The FRAM links are not actually marketing
literature, they are discussions of proper fitler rating methods I
though you might find it interesting.

The WIX filter has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=12/25 - which implies a 91.7%
efficiency of removing 2 micron particles and a 96% efficiency at
removing 20 micron particles. The Fram literature at
http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/extra-guard.php claims the standard
FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard) is 95% efficient at removing 20 micron
and greater particles. We have no idea how good it is for smaller
particles. And even at 20 microns, it is inferior to the WIX filters.

You were the one claiming all this small particle removal was
unimportant. Don't drag me into your personal arguments with
yourself.

Well I am sorry if it came out that way. I don't see where I said
"small particle removal was unimportant." See comments above.

More arguing with yourself?

Not really. I don't actaully know the right answer. I was just
pointing out that claiming high filtering efficiency for small
particles is not an unmixed blessing. You need to trade off micron
size, filtering efficiency, and filter capacity. I was wrong about
other manufacturer's not rating below 10 microns, the WIX information
actually included the filtering efficiency for 2 micron particles.

Finally after much arguing with yourself, we get to what i asked you
about. Yeah those are better than average pictures of cut open
filters.
And So?



And what would cause it to do that? Are you saying if you turn the
engine upside down and run it reverse rotation it is not going to
work?
Well probably so. The oil pressure is all pushing it in the
direction
to hold it in place. It can't go anywhere even if they didn't use
glue
to hold it in place. And you still haven't explained why you think
that
heavier fiber is the weak link and not the lighter filter media. And
by
what mechanism this failure of the cardboard end cap occurs. Sure if
you
open any filter you can tear the paper parts to pieces with your
bare
hands - but so what?

Surely you can't be that dense.What causes the bypass valve to
open.....the same forces that open the bypass valve can separate the
filter media from those paper end caps. In some samples they are
barely glued on.

Here is what happens - high pressure on the outside of the media, low
pressure on the inside of the media - pressure deforms folds in filter
media, filter media separates from end caps at poorly glued joints,
oil bypasses filter media, unfiltered oil circulates through
engine....not a good thing.

I've cut open used FRAM filters and found them separated. For years I
swallowed the FRAM advertising copy. Only after I started cutting open
used fitlers did I realize how crummy they are.

So that's it? So why did you need to cut filters open and argue all
the
marketing BS with yourself if all it comes down to is the price on
the
box? If you had said that in the first place I would have said Yeah
grab
the cheaper one.

Even if the Motorcraft filter cost a $1 more, I'd prefer it over the
FRAM. My pouint would be that FRAM is selling a low quality product
for more than higher quality items from other suppliers. I can't say a
Motorcraft filter is the best filter for the money, but I can say I'd
be willing to pay a lot more for one than I would for the standard
quality FRAM filter.

What would your reason be for buying FRAM's standard filters? The only
possible reason I can see is low cost - and they aren't even
particularly cheap!

Ed

 

[jim]

I think when my daughter had her old Nissan, her mechanic put some
shims behind the spring in the oil pressure relief valve and increased
her oil pressure somewhat. Dunno how practical that trick would be for
you - just a thought.

That would be practical only when it increases the oil pressure. If the
reason an engine has low oil pressure is a weak spring in the oil
pressure relief valve that is certainly something that should be
addressed. Fixing a mechanical problem will always get you farther than
resorting to superstitious beliefs.

Typically if the oil pressure is low in an old engine changing the
spring isn't going to help because if the engine can't develop enough
pressure to open the regulator valve then increasing the spring tension
isn't going to affect the oil pressure.

-jim

 

[jim]

How do you know that? All we know is that FRAM tested per a particualr
SAE standard and that FRAM® Extra Guard® offers 96% single pass
efficiency....." What is the minimum industry test standard? What does
a particualr vehicle manufacturer require.

Typical minimum requirements for a automotive application were something
like removing 80% of the 40 micron particle in a single pass. The 96%
rating Fram advertises I beleive is for a particular test which may be
single pass at 20 microns (I've seen it but don't remember). Any filter
is well above the minimum requirement. But the single pass test is a
fairly old test. there have been other tests that are more commonly used
since then.

As I said you are the one who claimed the extra filter efficiency was
unnecessary so don't expect me to now defend your previous position.

Well the WIX link is fact filled, unlike the typical FRAM ad. You
should at least look. The FRAM links are not actually marketing
literature, they are discussions of proper fitler rating methods I
though you might find it interesting.

The WIX filter has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=12/25 - which implies a 91.7%
efficiency of removing 2 micron particles and a 96% efficiency at
removing 20 micron particles.

Using which test protocol?

The Fram literature at
http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/extra-guard.php claims the standard
FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard) is 95% efficient at removing 20 micron
and greater particles. We have no idea how good it is for smaller
particles. And even at 20 microns, it is inferior to the WIX filters.

Which filters are you comparing. Fram has 4 different lines that are
designed to perform differently under various different test protocols
so that the customer has a choice depending on what they might to
consider important.

There have been independent laboratories that run the various SAE tests
and make apple to apples comparisons. All the advertising literature is
going to highlight the tests where they perform best and not mention
where they don't perform as well.
And they all perform well above the minimum required and any
differences are simply not likely to show up during the life of the
engine if you follow the car maker's maintenance schedule during the
ordinary life of an ordinary car.

Not really. I don't actaully know the right answer. I was just
pointing out that claiming high filtering efficiency for small
particles is not an unmixed blessing. You need to trade off micron
size, filtering efficiency, and filter capacity. I was wrong about
other manufacturer's not rating below 10 microns, the WIX information
actually included the filtering efficiency for 2 micron particles.

The filtering efficiency at different sized particle are all part of
test procedures. As I said any advertising is going to cherry pick
whatever they happen to think makes them look good. It really doesn't
say anything about how two brands compare when you pick the results of
one test from one brand and compare it to the results of another test
from another brand.

Surely you can't be that dense.What causes the bypass valve to
open.....the same forces that open the bypass valve can separate the
filter media from those paper end caps. In some samples they are
barely glued on.

No it can't. Cardboard is used as gasket material all the time
particularly for things that need to seal in oil. . When you torque
something down tight onto such a gasket you put a lot more force on the
cardboard than the oil does but it doesn't damage it or cause it to move
anywhere.

Here is what happens - high pressure on the outside of the media, low
pressure on the inside of the media - pressure deforms folds in filter
media, filter media separates from end caps at poorly glued joints,
oil bypasses filter media, unfiltered oil circulates through
engine....not a good thing.

All filters have a metal containment tube in the outlet. If you
look inside the outlet hole of a Fram you will see the STEEL containment
cylinder. Look up what all the filter manufactures say about damage to
or collapse of that center supporting steel tube. They all agree that if
that center support tube becomes damaged or collapsed there is something
drastically wrong with the engine or the maintenance that the engine
receives. They all agree that damage to that tube never happens on an
engine that is working properly and is properly maintained. This is not
unique to fram. If the filter media collapses and pulls away from the
end caps why do you think having metal end caps is going to be
beneficial?

If the center support tube that you can see when you look down the
center hole isn't damaged there is no way the cardboard on the ends can
come loose or migrate into the oil flow. It is not designed so that
there is any force to pull it apart. If the filter media itself becomes
damaged or torn or collapsed then that is that on any brand filter. The
filtering media can colapse and pull away from the metal end cap just as
easily (or maybe even more easily).
There are tests that are performed to measure the strength and the
ability to withstand dynamic flexing. And all the filters are made to
meet these specifications.

I've cut open used FRAM filters and found them separated. For years I
swallowed the FRAM advertising copy. Only after I started cutting open
used fitlers did I realize how crummy they are.

Well either you are lying or they only were separated due to the fact
that you cut them open. Either way its not very interesting. There is no
way the forces inside an operating filter can cause them to separate
even if they were assembled without any glue( if you left them alone and
didn't cut them open). SWome filter manufactures that have metal ends
don't use any glue so how well do you think that seals the ends of the
filter. But still the ends themselves don't come apart simply because
all the forces when in operation are working to hold them together.

I had a chevy 283 that took a replacement cartridge filter. For 30
years every oil change, I took out a paper cartridge that had cardboard
on both ends and put in another with cardboard on both ends. This is a
proven reliable design. There is absolutely no reason to panic because
you see cardboard

Even if the Motorcraft filter cost a $1 more, I'd prefer it over the
FRAM. My pouint would be that FRAM is selling a low quality product
for more than higher quality items from other suppliers. I can't say a
Motorcraft filter is the best filter for the money, but I can say I'd
be willing to pay a lot more for one than I would for the standard
quality FRAM filter.

What would your reason be for buying FRAM's standard filters? The only
possible reason I can see is low cost - and they aren't even
particularly cheap!

The reason to buy one is they work as well as the other brands and I
find no particular reason to listen to people who offer advice based on
their belief in imaginary scenarios of what might happen. I might as
well take advice from people who believe in witchcraft

-jim.

 

[jim]

How do you know that? All we know is that FRAM tested per a particualr
SAE standard and that FRAM® Extra Guard® offers 96% single pass
efficiency....." What is the minimum industry test standard? What does
a particualr vehicle manufacturer require.

The standard for the single pass test is quite lax. Something like 80%
of the 40 micron particles.

The 96% is I believe 10 micron particles removed in one pass.

Well the WIX link is fact filled, unlike the typical FRAM ad. You
should at least look. The FRAM links are not actually marketing
literature, they are discussions of proper fitler rating methods I
though you might find it interesting.

The WIX filter has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=12/25 - which implies a 91.7%
efficiency of removing 2 micron particles and a 96% efficiency at
removing 20 micron particles. The Fram literature at
http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/extra-guard.php claims the standard
FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard) is 95% efficient at removing 20 micron
and greater particles. We have no idea how good it is for smaller
particles. And even at 20 microns, it is inferior to the WIX filters.

So what specific test are you talking about. Comparing how one filter
does on one test compared to how another does on a different test
doesn't mean much. The problem with advertising literature is they only
give you the data that they think will cast themselves in the best
light.

Well I am sorry if it came out that way. I don't see where I said
"small particle removal was unimportant." See comments above.

I never said removing the finest particles was important so I'm not
interested in arguing whatever position you want to pin on me. That
argument is like arguing what is the best way to wash your hands and how
often should you do it.

I did say that the analysis was correct that a filter that does a
better job of removing small particles will be more likely to get
plugged up if it is put on an engine that is loaded with fine particles.

Surely you can't be that dense.What causes the bypass valve to
open.....

Bad maintenance or poor combustion leads to dirty oil. dirty oil plugs
the filter. Likely to only happen on a badly worn engine. What do you
think causes it?

the same forces that open the bypass valve can separate the
filter media from those paper end caps. In some samples they are
barely glued on.

No because the force is in the direction that the cap will stay put even
without the glue.

Here is what happens - high pressure on the outside of the media, low
pressure on the inside of the media - pressure deforms folds in filter
media, filter media separates from end caps at poorly glued joints,
oil bypasses filter media, unfiltered oil circulates through
engine....not a good thing.

Your talking about serious problem due to neglecting proper maintenance,
but nevertheless the end cap isn't going to go anywhere.

Every brand of filter has a steel cylinder that you can see if you look
in the center hole. Every filter manufacturer will tell you that if that
steel support cylinder collapses that is an indication something is very
wrong with the engine and the maintenance it is getting. If you remove a
filter from a car and see the center support cylinder has not collapsed
then you can be perfectly sure the end caps inside the filter haven't
gone anywhere.

Now if the filter media itself tears or pulls away from the end caps -
what has that got to do with cardboard? Why would you think the paper
can't rip away from a metal endcap? In fact I have read that the
cardboard is a better engineering choice for the very reason that the
filter paper bond to cardboard is better than it is to metal. Don't know
if that is true but it sounds more plausible than anything you have
said. At any rate the end caps don't come loose like you originally said
they did and you still haven't explained how the use of cardboard
contributes to any failure.

I can tell you this if your oil filters are going into bypass mode and
the filter paper is collapsing due to high pressure differentials then
it is clear the filter is clogged with dirt and you should have changed
the oil long before it got to that point. If you are finding collapsed
filters on your vehicles you are correct in thinking this should be
telling you something.

I've cut open used FRAM filters and found them separated. For years I
swallowed the FRAM advertising copy. Only after I started cutting open
used fitlers did I realize how crummy they are.

Well dirty oil isn't always pretty and the more worn out the engine the
uglier things look.

Even if the Motorcraft filter cost a $1 more, I'd prefer it over the
FRAM. My pouint would be that FRAM is selling a low quality product
for more than higher quality items from other suppliers. I can't say a
Motorcraft filter is the best filter for the money, but I can say I'd
be willing to pay a lot more for one than I would for the standard
quality FRAM filter.

What would your reason be for buying FRAM's standard filters? The only
possible reason I can see is low cost - and they aren't even
particularly cheap!

I would buy a Fram because the world doesn't work the way the Fram
bashers imagination works. These filters are all tested for the faults
you imagine exist. I don't prefer Fram over others but if I can get a
deal on the price I don't have any qualms about buying one.

-jim

 

[Nate Nagel]

I have been using QS Hi-Mileage oil with Slick 50 for the past 3 oil
changes, 10W30 or 10W40, depending on when it was changed.

Some say Slick 50 isn't good all the time, so this time it got Mobil Clean
5000, and since winter is coming, 10W30.

Meh?

I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the Slick 50. Never used it; but it
seems awful hokey.

nate

 

[Bob F]

When I do the oil change, probably sooner than the 3,000 miles I
usually do, because winter is creeping up, I'm trying a different
filter. If the oil p comes back up, good! If not...did I mention the
shredder is about 2 miles away?

I took my old Nissan Van to the metal recycler a week ago. That thing lasted me
well for 20 years and 200,000 miles. Last I saw, it was laying on its side next
to a 40 foot high pile of scrap. Kind of sad.

 

[clare]

I think when my daughter had her old Nissan, her mechanic put some
shims behind the spring in the oil pressure relief valve and increased
her oil pressure somewhat. Dunno how practical that trick would be for
you - just a thought.

Carl

That works if the reason the oil pressure is low is that the pressure
regulator is opening too soon. On some engines this is a very real
problem - particularly engines with "oversized" oil pumps and/or
engines run most of the time at high revs. If the pressure regulator
is "in use" most of the time, the spring flexes a lot and eventually
looses tension - thereby causing a lowered "maximum" pressure.

If an engine is low in pressure at low speeds, but comes up to
pressure at speed, this GENERALLY will not work. The exception would
be a pressure regulator that is so week or defective that it stays
partly open at all times, where tightening the spring MIGHT help close
the pressure bypass at idle.

I've seen sticky pressure relief valves, due to engine varnish, that
would stick open on occaision - the symptoms? - low oil pressure and
clattering valves at idle after high RPM running.

I've seen them fixed with Rislone, MMO, and once with a combination of
an engine flush and, believe it or not, Ford Friction Modifier for
differentials. That stuff gets sticky automatic transmission valves
moving very well too.

The engine was NOT going to be rebuilt - so it was worth a crack.
Flushing the engine with either Rislone or Bardahl 1(cann't remember
which any more) cleaned the engine out pretty good, but once in a
while the OP light would come on at idle and the valves would get
noisy. Had some friction modifier left from another job and put it in
the engine oil. After a few miles of driving the valve noise at idle
went away and the oil pressure stabilised.
230 cubic inch Chevy Nova

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

farther than resorting to
superstitious beliefs.

One company making a better oil filter than another is not a
'superstitious belief'. Gonna tell me Chevys are as high quality as
Toyotas now?

 

[Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B]

Meh?

I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the Slick 50. Never used it; but it
seems awful hokey.

Hey! It's got PTFE, the 'slipperiest substance known to man'. That's gotta
be worth something.

I tried Slick 50 a couple times, but I usually don't add it more than once
every 4th or 5th oil change, on cars with old engines. Won't put it in my
Scion for at least 15 years!

Here's how I got started. I have an '89 Mazda 626 with Hydraulic Lash
Adjusters. After I had the car for a few months, it started making this
horrible clacking noise. That's when I found out about the HLAs and found
a web site describing how to replace them. I had tried Castrol GTX, the
oil I have been using for 30 years, and tried Marvel Mystery oil, hoping
to free it up and 'fill' it with a lighter grade oil, both to no avail. I
was due for an oil change, so I went to AutoZone, they had the HLAs in
stock, $55 for four. The engine takes 12. I'll look for the collapsed one
and replace it. Then I saw the QS with Slick 50, so I picked up 4 quarts.
Can't hurt.

I changed the oil, disconnected the coil (I like cars with a single coil
just for this reason...), cranked the starter a few times until the OIL
light went off, connected the coil, fired it up and...NO MORE CLACKING!

I held onto the HLAs for a few more days and then returned them, and
haven't thought about replacing them since....they just don't clack any
more!

 

[clare]

Small particles cause pretty much the same wear as large - just not as
much. And an oil pump will wear out faster pumping dirty oil than clean
oil.

No, particles 20 microns in size (aprox 0.001 inches) will cause wear
ANYWHERE the clearances are close to 0.001 inches - they will contact
both surfaces ans scratch at least one. Particles only 1/4 that size
can flow through between parts without contacting them at all,
therefore causing no scratches/wear.
Not too many engine clearances down around tha 0,00025 inch range.

That's just marketing BS. There are tradeoffs in engineering a product
like this. For instance, after you have stuffed the can full of filter
media - how much room have you left for the dirt to accumulate?

Who mentioned toilet paper filters? Sure not me. The "average" full
flow filter, regardless of filter media, can hold up to 1/4 cup of
"crap" and still flow oil - There is space between the filter media
and the can, as well as space between the pleats. When the space
between the pleats fills up, the filter can no longer flow oil - but
the crud that gets caught by the filter and then settles out, just
fills the "cup" of the filter. This DOES work best with a "hanging"
filter setup where the filter base is UP.

That
would be the question I would ask the toilet paper filter people if I
ever met one. Another consideration is how durable is the design - will
it fall apart in the field? There are laboratory
tests and real world testing that answer these questions. The results of
those tests do not agree with the assessments of the amateurs cutting
filters open. So who are you going to believe?


All filters remove some particles at even 1 micron. But that fact is
more irrelevant BS.

As I said the question of whether you need to go beyond the
manufacturers recommendations is simply a question of extra ordinary
circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances, anyone can use any filter
and any brand oil and follow the car makers regimen and the engine will
outlast the rest of the car. Now if for some reason you decide you
intend to make the rest of the car last 50 years and 500k miles then it
makes sense to start thinking about how to improve on the basic
maintenance regimen. But if that extra ordinary circumstance isn't your
goal - if you are aware of the fact that the rest of the car is going to
be shot at 150K, 200K or 250K (depending on what "shot" means to you)
then there is no point in going to the extra effort and expense.

If a dollar more per change (or even often a dollar LESS to use a
filter that isn't orange) will provide better filtration and
lubrication, reducing the chance that I'll have to dissassemble the
engine in my car before I throw it away at 200,000 plus, I'm sure
going to use the better filter.

I sold my last car at 18 years of age with a decent body and good
running engine and transmission for 1/4 what I paid for it 12 or 13
years earlier.

Wasn't so lucky with my last van, which had a rebuilt engine of
questionable quality installed when I got it (ac delco crate 3.8) that
only went 98,000 km in 8 years.

There are SAE designed tests to determine if filter manufacturers valves
work to industry standards. But if you are using a filter and it goes
into by-pass mode there is something wrong with your maintenance regimen
or something wrong with your engine. That is not normal and shouldn't be
regarded as normal occurrence.

It should not - but MANY FRAM filters DO leak past the bypass valve.
Take one apart and the question won't be how or why, but how can they
NOT.

What does the by pass valve have to do with the end cap? There are
engine applications where the engine is equipped with the valve to
bypass a plugged filter and its not in the filter.

There are a VERY few that have the filter bypass built into the
engine. The 1969 Corvair is the last I am familiar with that had it.
That engine had a filter bypass, a cooler bypass, and a pressure
regulator, all built into the engine.

The VAST majority of engines today require the filter to have a
built-in bypass valve.

 

[clare]

That would be practical only when it increases the oil pressure. If the
reason an engine has low oil pressure is a weak spring in the oil
pressure relief valve that is certainly something that should be
addressed. Fixing a mechanical problem will always get you farther than
resorting to superstitious beliefs.

Typically if the oil pressure is low in an old engine changing the
spring isn't going to help because if the engine can't develop enough
pressure to open the regulator valve then increasing the spring tension
isn't going to affect the oil pressure.

-jim

But if it DOES, you know engine clearances or a worn out pump are NOT
the issue.

 

[SMS]

Nate Nagel wrote:

I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the Slick 50. Never used it; but it
seems awful hokey.

Avoid Slick 50 at all costs. It's very bad for your engine.

 

[clare]

Meh?

I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the Slick 50. Never used it; but it
seems awful hokey.

nate

My uncle used it in his Kenworth grain hauler and reported engine
temperatures dropped 15 degrees or something like that and idle speed
increased something like 25 percent - indicating reduced engine
friction.

I tried it in one of my vehicles and found absolutely no improvement
in operation - no reduction in (minimal) oil consumption, no reduction
in fuel consumption, no reduction in operating temperatures (but it
was a 3.0 liter Aerostar - even with a good thermostat it needed a
"winter cover" to get any heat in the winter).

DuPont says do NOT put teflon (they are the manufacturer) into an
engine - and there have been reports of it (the teflon) being caught
in oil filters, restricting oil flow, so I choose not to ever use it
again.

 

[Bob F]

Nate Nagel wrote:



Avoid Slick 50 at all costs. It's very bad for your engine.

Care to document that?

 

[1 Lucky Texan]

That works if the reason the oil pressure is low is that the pressure
regulator is opening too soon. On some engines this is a very real
problem - particularly engines with "oversized" oil pumps and/or
engines run most of the time at high revs. If the pressure regulator
is "in use" most of the time, the spring flexes a lot and eventually
looses tension - thereby causing a lowered "maximum" pressure.

If an engine is low in pressure at low speeds, but comes up to
pressure at speed, this GENERALLY will not work. The exception would
be a pressure regulator that is so week or defective that it stays
partly open at all times, where tightening the spring MIGHT help close
the pressure bypass at idle.

I've seen sticky pressure relief valves, due to engine varnish, that
would stick open on occaision - the symptoms? - low oil pressure and
clattering valves at idle after high RPM running.

I've seen them fixed with Rislone, MMO, and once with a combination of
an engine flush and, believe it or not, Ford Friction Modifier for
differentials.  That stuff gets sticky automatic transmission valves
moving very well too.

 The engine was NOT going to be rebuilt - so it was worth a crack.
Flushing the engine with either Rislone or Bardahl 1(cann't remember
which any more) cleaned the engine out pretty good, but once in a
while the OP light would come on at idle and the valves would get
noisy. Had some friction modifier left from another job and put it in
the engine oil. After a few miles of driving the valve noise at idle
went away and the oil pressure stabilised.
230 cubic inch Chevy Nova

I had the pan off a '78 Civic for some time while doing major repairs
once. After I put it back together and started it, it blew out the oil
filter gasket and sprayed oil on the front of my garage door! The OPRV
was stuck closed. I took it off and freeed it up and cleaned.
Everything good after that.

Carl

 

[jim]

One company making a better oil filter than another is not a
'superstitious belief'.

If you use any brand oil filter and follow the maintenance
recommendations of the engine manufacturer it is extremely unlikely that
the engine will fail in any way before you reach that point where you
are no longer willing to keep the rest of the car running. So the
question of whether one filter may be better than another is completely
moot except to idiots who hold superstitious beliefs.

In the long run insisting on one brand filter over another is going to
have just as much effect as performing ritualistic dances and mumbling
voodoo incantations in an attempt to extend the life of an engine.

-jim

 

[SMS]

If you use any brand oil filter and follow the maintenance
recommendations of the engine manufacturer it is extremely unlikely that
the engine will fail in any way before you reach that point where you
are no longer willing to keep the rest of the car running.

It's best to avoid brands of filters that are known to be so poorly
constructed that they have a history of failing catastrophically. It
really doesn't cost more than a trifling amount of money to use a decent
filter, especially if you plan ahead. I.e. I stock up on Toyota filters
when there's a $3.99 coupon from the dealer (which includes a drain plug
gasket as part of the deal, bringing the net cost of the filter to $2.99
since a drain plug gasket usually sells for $1 (must be the highest
margin part sold by dealers and auto parts stores).

Sure the odds are that even with a poor quality filter you'll get lucky
and not be one of the ones who has one fall apart, but why take the
chance when there's no real monetary savings in doing so?

 

[jim]

It's best to avoid brands of filters that are known to be so poorly
constructed that they have a history of failing catastrophically.

All the filters on the market have about the same history for
catastrophic failures. One brand may have a large number people who
share a belief in imagined failures. Look up what the American
Psychiatric Association has to say about "mass hysteria". I believe that
organization is also peddling medications that they say will provide a
cure for this condition.

It
really doesn't cost more than a trifling amount of money to use a decent
filter, especially if you plan ahead. I.e. I stock up on Toyota filters
when there's a $3.99 coupon from the dealer (which includes a drain plug
gasket as part of the deal, bringing the net cost of the filter to $2.99
since a drain plug gasket usually sells for $1 (must be the highest
margin part sold by dealers and auto parts stores).

What about someone who doesn't have a Toyota?

Sure the odds are that even with a poor quality filter you'll get lucky
and not be one of the ones who has one fall apart

Is it a matter of faith? If you believe then the filter won't fall
apart? Or maybe voodoo witch doctors cast bad spells on some engines if
one doesn't follow the true believers.

-jim