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

[Nate Nagel]

All the filters on the market have about the same history for
catastrophic failures.

Bollocks, bollocks, and more bollocks.

Is a Chevy made to the same quality standards as a Porsche or Mercedes?

Someone has to be number one, and someone has to be number two. The
question is only how *much* better everyone else is than Fram.

It's common knowledge that Fram is the lowest quality "big name" filter
on the market. Is it *acceptable* is the only question that remains.

Or are you going to parrot "Mike Hunter" and then try to tell me that a
Chevy *is* in fact just as quality a product as everyone else's?

nate

 

[Nate Nagel]

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.

Or people who are on the skinny end of the bell curve, and have long
term relationships with their cars.

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.

Unless you happen to be the one unlucky bastard whose oil filter blows
apart on a cold morning, and/or you're expecting your engine to last
longer than 100K miles. I prefer to use "known good" filters to
minimize my risk.

nate

 

[clare]

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.


What about someone who doesn't have a Toyota?


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

Using a "known inferior" part and counting on the engine to last is
what takes faith - and mabee a supersized side order of stupid to go
with it.

 

[jim]

Or people who are on the skinny end of the bell curve, and have long
term relationships with their cars.

There is no evidence that what you are spouting is anything more than a
superstition. It is not supported by eveidence. There are millions of
engines that don't have the problems your superstitious beliefs say they
should be having.
The obvious common thread in the vast majority of the anecdotes about
Frams is that the problems occurred in engines that were already in
terminal condition. It appears to me that it is at this point when the
owner can no longer deal with the reality of a failing engine that one
is most likely to turn to superstition and folklore for the answers.


Take the guy who insists that Fram oil filters are no good because he
hooked up a drill to the engine he just rebuilt and blew up the oil
filter. This guy obviously has serious mechanical problems. The engine
that he was speaking of comes equipped with both a pressure regulator
and a filter bypass in the engine. But instead of looking for the real
cause of his problems he is more than happy just join the gang of Fram
bashers and forget about reality.

Unless you happen to be the one unlucky bastard whose oil filter blows
apart on a cold morning, and/or you're expecting your engine to last
longer than 100K miles. I prefer to use "known good" filters to
minimize my risk.

Well your not minimizing your risk by avoiding Fram. Nor would you be
increasing your risk by using Fram oil filters. An oil filter is not
that complicated. It is a product like soap or cornflakes and we could
argue the merits of those products endlessly also. But there really
isn't enough meat to those arguments to be interesting at all, unless
you start throwing in some super natural beliefs.

-jim

 

[C. E. White]

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.

"Honeywell testing of filter efficiency and capactiy of models
equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles >
20 microns."

From

"SO 4548-12 is derived from the ISO standard for Multi-pass filter
testing (ISO 16889) which is based upon testing of hydraulic filters.
This test requires filter manufacturers to determine the average
particle sizes which yield Beta ratios equal to 2, 10, 75, 100, 200,
and 1000, using the multi-pass test stand approach. The multi-pass
test bench must contain On-Line Liquid Automatic Optical Particle
Counters and calibrated using certified calibration fluid with a known
particle size distribution. Particle counts are taken upstream and
down-stream every minute of the test. The new standard gives a better
interpretation of a filter's overall performance...."

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.

I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, what I said was - "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."

This is not at all the same as saying - "you are the one who claimed
the extra filter efficiency was unnecessary"

Using which test protocol?

SAE J1858 Full Flow Lubricating Oil Filters Multipass Method for
Evaluating Filtration Performance, Standard

".....SAE J1858.....reviews the ability of a filter to remove
contaminants of a specific size from the fluid stream at a specific
moment in time. The test can be repeated to suggest efficiencies over
the life of the filter. Results are reported as a ratio between the
number of partials of a given size entering the filter and the number
of the same size particles exiting the filter. The difference between
the two is referred to as the BETA ratio."

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.

See above - "the standard FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard)." Wasn't that
clear enough?

There have been independent laboratories that run the various SAE
tests
and make apple to apples comparisons.

So where can I read one of the tests?

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.

Actually I agree with this statement. I certainly believe that regular
filter replacement is important and that replacing a Fram at every oil
change is better than leaving a better quality filter in place for two
or more changes.

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.

So what is your criteria for picking Fram? They are not the cheapest.
In my opinion, they don't appear to be well made. They don't claim
particular good filter efficiency. Is it the Orange paint?

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.

This is not the same situation as a gasket. There are no metal
surfaces clamping the paper end caps in place. There is a gap above
the end cap, and only glue holding it to the fitler element below. The
Fram "Extra Guard" construction invloves gluing the open ends of the
filter element to the end caps. 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, closing off the
top of the filter element. Fram just glues the open pleats to the
paper end cap. The only thing holding the end caps to the open ended
pleats is the glue. Try gluing a thing piece of paper perpendicular to
another slightly thicker piece of paper and tell me how well that
works. Most of the time the Fram filters have enough glue to securely
attach the peats to the end cap, but I've cut open used Frams where
the pleats were separated from the end caps. The only other filter
I've seen using a similar construction technique is a Delco.

All filters have a metal containment tube in the outlet.

Not true. Several use plastic (not Fram). For an example see
http://home.earthlink.net/~cewhite3nc/id7.html .

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?

Look at the Motorcraft picture I sent you in a link to earlier. The
filter element is potted into a >0.1" thick glue mass contained by the
metal end cap. You might tear the filter media, but you can't pull it
out of the end cap without tearing it (I've tried). I've cut open Fram
filters where the filter media had detached from the end cap - most
likely becasue the glue they used didn't seal the media to the end cap
properly. For good Fram filters, there is a thick bead of glue built
up on both sides of the media, securing it to the end cap. However, it
seems sometimes the bead is thin or mislocated and there is not a good
bond (my theory). This is far less likely to happen with the sort of
metal end caps used by most other filter manufacturers (again, my
opinion).

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.

Not ture. Again, go look at the Fram bypass valve and expalin how it
works given your claims.

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.

How do you know that? There is a filter test to test burt strenght of
the can. I don't have a copy of it, so I have no idea if it also
evaluates the whether the Fram end caps stay in place.

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 don't appreciate being called a liar. I think you are wrong about
the forces not being able to cause a separation. Go look at the
picture of the Fram filter and expalin to me how their bypass valve
works if you are right.

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

Well made filters with cardboard end caps are OK. This is not always
the case with the standard Fram Filters (the so called "Extra Guard").
I'll bet that your Chevy had relatively thick end caps that were
firmly attached to the end caps. I've had farm tractors that used
cartrigde type filters and never had a concern either. And if they
failed, at least I would have known it when I replaced the filter.
Hard to know what is happening inside the orange can if you don't cut
it open.

By the way - didn't your old cartridge filter include a metal
cannister on the outside and on the inside of the filter media? And
are you sure it did not have metal end caps? I looked up the P/N for
the old Chevrolet V8s I looked them up for several years), and even
Fram's picture of the cartridge shows an external metal can and metal
end caps.

Some just had plain metal end caps, see::

http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55348
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55345
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55349
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55346

I assume these got a separate gasket.

There were also versions that had meal end caps, with a paper gasket
on top. See:

http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55764
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55767

Or metal end caps and rubber gaskets, See:

http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51123
http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51143

Is that what you had?

I never could find a picture of a Chevy V8 filter with paper end cpas.
I have seen such filters, so I know they exist. My MF175 used
cartridge filters with a metal outer cylinder and paper (thick paper)
end caps. But that filter went in a can that had a spring loaded metal
plate on the bottom and a flat sealing surface on the top. The end
cpas were well suppoted - unlike the paper end caps in a standard Fram
fliter.

The reason to buy one is they work as well as the other brands
and....

You have no proof they work as well, you just think they do. Maybe
they are good enough, but in my opinion, they are not a good choice.
For my use, there are better constructed filters available for the
same money or less. I can't see why I would buy a Fram Filter when
most stores carry filters I like better on the same shelf.

....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

I think you should have said - "I find no particualr reason to listen
to people who don't agree with my beliefs <period>." As far as I can
tell, you don't have a sound scientific reason for preferring Fram
filters over other brands.You "believe" "they work as well as the
other brands," but don't actually have any proof of this and in fact I
am not even sure what you are including in your list of "other
brands." If I am wrong, enlighten me. Otherwise, how is our opinion
different from "people who believe in witchcraft."

Fram fiilters may be "good enough," but I can't see spending more to
get a barely adequate filter, when for less I can get better than
adequate. If a Motorcraft or Wix fitler cost significantly more than
the standard orange Fram filter, then I might reconsider and buy the
Fram. But, I can't see paying more or even a little less for a Fram
filter. Even if the end cap joint is 100% reliable, the standard
(Extra Gaurd) Fram filters still appears to have an inferior
anti-drain back valve (comapred to the equivalent Motorcraft) and an
inferior bypass valves (compared to almost any other filter). The
higher priced Fram filters do include the better silicone
antidrainback valve, but they cost far more than Motorcraft filters
that include this feature as standard.

Ed

 

[C. E. White]

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?

Define quality and how it is fairly measured and then I'll get back to
you. If an oil smoking car with faded paint, crumbling interior
plastic, and weekly trips to the local garage qualifies as quality,
then Toyota is number 1.

Just like GM, Toyota has built some real POS cars. Only the Toyota
wackco believe otherwise. I have no problems with people buying
Toyotas (heck, in my immedaite family, more than half the vehicles are
Toyotas!), I just think all these claim of supernatural Toyota quality
and reliability are a bunch of hooey. You guys have spent too much
time listening to Toyota ads and reading CR. I won't argue that Ford,
or GM, or... have not built some real junk - they all have, but so has
Toyota. For instance - at least four times a year I have go help one
of my elder neighbors with her Corolla...seems like there is always
something going wrong with it (besides the faded paint, oil smoke, and
crumbling plastic). This is not some high mileage ancient Toyopet.
This is a Corolla, less than 10 years old, with less than 80k miles.
She gets the oil changed every three months, even though she only
drives it about 500 miles a month. It is not abused, no teenagers have
ever driven it. It is even protected by RNC bumper stickers....

As for your question....I think a Chevrolet Silverado is a better
quality vehicle than a Toyota Tundra. In fact I don't even think it is
close.

Ed

 

[SMS]

drives it about 500 miles a month. It is not abused, no teenagers have
ever driven it. It is even protected by RNC bumper stickers....

G-d saw those stickers and put a curse on her Corolla.

 

[C. E. White]

G-d saw those stickers and put a curse on her Corolla.

Well that must explain why the SO's parents have such good luck with
their Toyotas - they are protected by the Oboma stickers.

Ed

 

[N8N]

There is no evidence that what you are spouting is anything more than a
superstition. It is not supported by eveidence. There are millions of
engines that don't have the problems your superstitious beliefs say they
should be having.
The obvious common thread in the vast majority of the anecdotes about
Frams is that the problems occurred in engines that were already in
terminal condition. It appears to me that it is at this point when the
owner can no longer deal with the reality of a failing engine that one
is most likely to turn to superstition and folklore for the answers.

To quote someone with whom you appear to have a lot in common,
"unsupported assertion."

Take the guy who insists that Fram oil filters are no good because he
hooked up a drill to the engine he just rebuilt and blew up the oil
filter. This guy obviously has serious mechanical problems. The engine
that he was speaking of comes equipped with both a pressure regulator
and a filter bypass in the engine. But instead of looking for the real
cause of his problems he is more than happy just join the gang of Fram
bashers and forget about reality.

You mean to say that a drill can spin an oil pump faster than a
running engine? What if the OPRV were found to be in good operating
condition? What if instead of a drill it was simply a cold start on a
cold day while the engine was filled with the factory-recommended
grade of motor oil? No, your mind is made up, no sense confusing you
with facts.

Well your not minimizing your risk by avoiding Fram. Nor would you be
increasing your risk by using Fram oil filters.

You have yet to demonstrate that to my satisfaction, while there's
plenty of evidence to the contrary.

An oil filter is not
that complicated. It is a product like soap or cornflakes and we could
argue the merits of those products endlessly also. But there really
isn't enough meat to those arguments to be interesting at all, unless
you start throwing in some super natural beliefs.

Or you simply make judgements based on construction materials and
techniques as well as in-service failure rates, in which case the Fram
comes out on the bottom of the pile.

nate

 

[Richard]

Care to document that?

the FTC and Slick 50

In 1997, three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. (the makers of Slick
50) settled Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker
State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated.
According to the FTC complaint, claims such as the following made in
Slick 50 ads falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines
generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and
commonly experience premature failure caused by wear:

"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection,
metal grinds against metal in your engine."

"With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at
cold start-up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's
unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for
50,000 miles."

"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an
advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially
activated PTFE to the metal in your engine."

In fact, the FTC said, "most automobile engines are adequately
protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended
in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to
experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been
treated with Slick 50 or not."

http://www.skepdic.com/slick50.html

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/07/slick.shtm

Guess you guys have been under a rock for the past 15 years or so?

 

[SMS]

In 1997, three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. (the makers of Slick
50) settled Federal Trade Commission charges that ads for Quaker
State's Slick 50 Engine Treatment were false and unsubstantiated.
According to the FTC complaint, claims such as the following made in
Slick 50 ads falsely represented that without Slick 50, auto engines
generally have little or no protection from wear at start-up and
commonly experience premature failure caused by wear:

Guess you guys have been under a rock for the past 15 years or so?

All true, but all that goes only to the fact that these additives do
nothing good for your engine. It doesn't address the harm it can do by
virtue of the the teflon particles.

Bottom line, avoid these additives at all costs. I was actually amazed
to see that they are still on the market at all after all the problems
they had with the FTC. I guess it proves the old adage, "it's morally
wrong to allow a sucker to keep his money."

 

[jim]

"Honeywell testing of filter efficiency and capactiy of models
equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles >
20 microns."

From

"SO 4548-12 is derived from the ISO standard for Multi-pass filter
testing (ISO 16889) which is based upon testing of hydraulic filters.
This test requires filter manufacturers to determine the average
particle sizes which yield Beta ratios equal to 2, 10, 75, 100, 200,
and 1000, using the multi-pass test stand approach. The multi-pass
test bench must contain On-Line Liquid Automatic Optical Particle
Counters and calibrated using certified calibration fluid with a known
particle size distribution. Particle counts are taken upstream and
down-stream every minute of the test. The new standard gives a better
interpretation of a filter's overall performance...."

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 NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, what I said was - "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."

This is not at all the same as saying - "you are the one who claimed
the extra filter efficiency was unnecessary"

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.

SAE J1858 Full Flow Lubricating Oil Filters Multipass Method for
Evaluating Filtration Performance, Standard

".....SAE J1858.....reviews the ability of a filter to remove
contaminants of a specific size from the fluid stream at a specific
moment in time. The test can be repeated to suggest efficiencies over
the life of the filter. Results are reported as a ratio between the
number of partials of a given size entering the filter and the number
of the same size particles exiting the filter. The difference between
the two is referred to as the BETA ratio."

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?

See above - "the standard FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard)." Wasn't that
clear enough?

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?

So where can I read one of the tests?

Your the one doing all the googling of SAE tests. You must have stumbled
across several by now.

Actually I agree with this statement. I certainly believe that regular
filter replacement is important and that replacing a Fram at every oil
change is better than leaving a better quality filter in place for two
or more changes.

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 what is your criteria for picking Fram? They are not the cheapest.
In my opinion, they don't appear to be well made. They don't claim
particular good filter efficiency. Is it the Orange paint?

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.

This is not the same situation as a gasket. There are no metal
surfaces clamping the paper end caps in place. There is a gap above
the end cap, and only glue holding it to the fitler element below.

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?

The
Fram "Extra Guard" construction invloves gluing the open ends of the
filter element to the end caps. 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, closing off the
top of the filter element.

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?

Fram just glues the open pleats to the
paper end cap. The only thing holding the end caps to the open ended
pleats is the glue.

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, "

Try gluing a thing piece of paper perpendicular to
another slightly thicker piece of paper and tell me how well that
works.

So obviously because you "know" this can't possibly work it is now
perfectly OK to now make up stories about engine failures - Right?

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.

Most of the time the Fram filters have enough glue to securely
attach the peats to the end cap, but I've cut open used Frams where
the pleats were separated from the end caps. The only other filter
I've seen using a similar construction technique is a Delco.

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. 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.

Not true. Several use plastic (not Fram). For an example see
http://home.earthlink.net/~cewhite3nc/id7.html .


Look at the Motorcraft picture I sent you in a link to earlier. The
filter element is potted into a >0.1" thick glue mass contained by the
metal end cap. You might tear the filter media, but you can't pull it
out of the end cap without tearing it (I've tried). I've cut open Fram
filters where the filter media had detached from the end cap - most
likely becasue the glue they used didn't seal the media to the end cap
properly. For good Fram filters, there is a thick bead of glue built
up on both sides of the media, securing it to the end cap. However, it
seems sometimes the bead is thin or mislocated and there is not a good
bond (my theory). This is far less likely to happen with the sort of
metal end caps used by most other filter manufacturers (again, my
opinion).

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.

Not ture. Again, go look at the Fram bypass valve and expalin how it
works given your claims.

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.

How do you know that? There is a filter test to test burt strenght of
the can. I don't have a copy of it, so I have no idea if it also
evaluates the whether the Fram end caps stay in place.

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.

I don't appreciate being called a liar. I think you are wrong about
the forces not being able to cause a separation. Go look at the
picture of the Fram filter and expalin to me how their bypass valve
works if you are right.


Well made filters with cardboard end caps are OK. This is not always
the case with the standard Fram Filters (the so called "Extra Guard").
I'll bet that your Chevy had relatively thick end caps that were
firmly attached to the end caps.

No actually the cardboard looks a little thinner. And as far as I ever
saw everybody made them pretty much the same.

I've had farm tractors that used
cartrigde type filters and never had a concern either. And if they
failed, at least I would have known it when I replaced the filter.
Hard to know what is happening inside the orange can if you don't cut
it open.

As I said if the center tube hasn't collapsed you can be sure the end
caps haven't gone anywhere.

By the way - didn't your old cartridge filter include a metal
cannister on the outside and on the inside of the filter media?

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.

And
are you sure it did not have metal end caps?

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.

I looked up the P/N for
the old Chevrolet V8s I looked them up for several years), and even
Fram's picture of the cartridge shows an external metal can and metal
end caps.

Some just had plain metal end caps, see::

http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55348
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55345
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55349
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55346

I assume these got a separate gasket.

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.

There were also versions that had meal end caps, with a paper gasket
on top. See:

http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55764
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=55767

Or metal end caps and rubber gaskets, See:

http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51123
http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51143

Is that what you had?

I never could find a picture of a Chevy V8 filter with paper end cpas.
I have seen such filters, so I know they exist. My MF175 used
cartridge filters with a metal outer cylinder and paper (thick paper)
end caps. But that filter went in a can that had a spring loaded metal
plate on the bottom and a flat sealing surface on the top. The end
cpas were well suppoted - unlike the paper end caps in a standard Fram
fliter.


You have no proof they work as well,

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.

you just think they do. Maybe
they are good enough, but in my opinion, they are not a good choice.
For my use, there are better constructed filters available for the
same money or less. I can't see why I would buy a Fram Filter when
most stores carry filters I like better on the same shelf.


I think you should have said - "I find no particualr reason to listen
to people who don't agree with my beliefs <period>."

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.

As far as I can
tell, you don't have a sound scientific reason for preferring Fram
filters over other brands.

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.

You "believe" "they work as well as the
other brands," but don't actually have any proof of this and in fact I
am not even sure what you are including in your list of "other
brands." If I am wrong, enlighten me. Otherwise, how is our opinion
different from "people who believe in witchcraft."

I don't know what your asking?

Fram fiilters may be "good enough," but I can't see spending more to
get a barely adequate filter, when for less I can get better than
adequate. If a Motorcraft or Wix fitler cost significantly more than
the standard orange Fram filter, then I might reconsider and buy the
Fram. But, I can't see paying more or even a little less for a Fram
filter. Even if the end cap joint is 100% reliable, the standard
(Extra Gaurd) Fram filters still appears to have an inferior
anti-drain back valve (comapred to the equivalent Motorcraft) and an
inferior bypass valves (compared to almost any other filter). The
higher priced Fram filters do include the better silicone
antidrainback valve, but they cost far more than Motorcraft filters
that include this feature as standard.

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.

-jim

 

[jim]

You mean to say that a drill can spin an oil pump faster than a
running engine? What if the OPRV were found to be in good operating
condition?

Oh the OPRV was probably working all right. But the after market filter
adapter the guy said he put on the engine was probably covering it up.

What if instead of a drill it was simply a cold start on a
cold day while the engine was filled with the factory-recommended
grade of motor oil? No, your mind is made up, no sense confusing you
with facts.

Hey this is not my story its just another clowns story. Why didn't you
challenge the guy who told the story early on the thread if you find
fault with it?

You have yet to demonstrate that to my satisfaction, while there's
plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Yeah your evidence is googling for stories from more clowns, geesh.

Or you simply make judgements based on construction materials and
techniques as well as in-service failure rates, in which case the Fram
comes out on the bottom of the pile.

And that is based on voodoo. Produce something besides clowns sitting
around the internet campfire passing on implausible folklore to support
your claim.

-jim

 

[Ashton Crusher]

Define quality and how it is fairly measured and then I'll get back to
you. If an oil smoking car with faded paint, crumbling interior
plastic, and weekly trips to the local garage qualifies as quality,
then Toyota is number 1.

Just like GM, Toyota has built some real POS cars. Only the Toyota
wackco believe otherwise. I have no problems with people buying
Toyotas (heck, in my immedaite family, more than half the vehicles are
Toyotas!), I just think all these claim of supernatural Toyota quality
and reliability are a bunch of hooey. You guys have spent too much
time listening to Toyota ads and reading CR. I won't argue that Ford,
or GM, or... have not built some real junk - they all have, but so has
Toyota. For instance - at least four times a year I have go help one
of my elder neighbors with her Corolla...seems like there is always
something going wrong with it (besides the faded paint, oil smoke, and
crumbling plastic). This is not some high mileage ancient Toyopet.
This is a Corolla, less than 10 years old, with less than 80k miles.
She gets the oil changed every three months, even though she only
drives it about 500 miles a month. It is not abused, no teenagers have
ever driven it. It is even protected by RNC bumper stickers....

As for your question....I think a Chevrolet Silverado is a better
quality vehicle than a Toyota Tundra. In fact I don't even think it is
close.

Ed

Everyone has anecdotes, here's mine... I've driven lots of domestics
HARD even when they had high miles (100K+) and never had an auto
transmission go bad from doing so. We inherited a Toyota Tercel with
right at 100K easy miles on it from the in-laws and after just a
couple of time when I insisted it actually do full throttle up shifts
the transmission no longer shifted properly. Not to mention it had a
blown head gasket that some sealer temporarily fixed. My sister in
law had a Datsun F-10 that turned into a piece of crap. A friend as a
Maxima with 125K on it and it needs $3500 in front and rear end
suspension work and motor mounts. Then there are the other friends
who wound up spending $500 two times to repair the electric windows in
their Honda Accord. I have to hand it to the imports, they did a heck
of a job brainwashing folks.

 

[Nate Nagel]

So if one scenario of filter failing doesn't support your superstition
you move on to another.

Exactly. There are multiple ways that a filter can fail, and most
(all?) are more likely with a Fram.

Please don't ever pay any attention to all the
cars that aren't having the problems you imagine they must be having.

Please do not let facts get in the way of your ranting, you're on a roll.

nate

 

[Nate Nagel]

And that is based on voodoo. Produce something besides clowns sitting
around the internet campfire passing on implausible folklore to support
your claim.

You're the one making claims contrary to common knowledege, YOU back
them up.

nate

 

[Heron McKeister]

You're the one making claims contrary to common knowledege, YOU back
them up.

nate

Sure, common knowledge, in the same manner as
John Glenn being the first man to land on the moon,
Napoleon being defeated at the Battle of.Gettysburg
and Tom Sawyer as the author of Huckleberry Finn.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/87/87acommon.phtml

 

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

Define quality and how it is fairly measured and then I'll get back to
you. If an oil smoking car with faded paint, crumbling interior plastic,
and weekly trips to the local garage qualifies as quality, then Toyota is
number 1.

That must have been one severely abused, mistreated car.

1985 Corolla, 260,000 miles, no smoke, mint interior, fresh looking paint,
1988 Supra, 210,000 miles, no smoke, mint interior, fresh looking paint
1980 Corolla, 240,000 miles, no smoke, mint interior, fresh looking paint.

One car? unusual.
2 cars? This guy's just lucky.
Three cars? I'd say the company makes good cars...

 

[Nate Nagel]

Sure, common knowledge, in the same manner as
John Glenn being the first man to land on the moon,
Napoleon being defeated at the Battle of.Gettysburg
and Tom Sawyer as the author of Huckleberry Finn.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/87/87acommon.phtml

No, not at all. It's clear by observation that Frams use thinner cans
than other brands, and almost as clear that the internals are made of
arguably inferior materials, hence "common knowledge." There's also a
wealth of anecdotal evidence of several different failure modes that
occur apparently more often with Frams than with other brands.

If one has an engine that develops unusually high oil pressures, has an
"upside down" filter, or one just wants to get the best engine
protection, there's compelling arguments for not using Fram.

nate

 

[clare]

Everyone has anecdotes, here's mine... I've driven lots of domestics
HARD even when they had high miles (100K+) and never had an auto
transmission go bad from doing so. We inherited a Toyota Tercel with
right at 100K easy miles on it from the in-laws and after just a
couple of time when I insisted it actually do full throttle up shifts
the transmission no longer shifted properly. Not to mention it had a
blown head gasket that some sealer temporarily fixed. My sister in
law had a Datsun F-10 that turned into a piece of crap. A friend as a
Maxima with 125K on it and it needs $3500 in front and rear end
suspension work and motor mounts. Then there are the other friends
who wound up spending $500 two times to repair the electric windows in
their Honda Accord. I have to hand it to the imports, they did a heck
of a job brainwashing folks.

Well, I've owned and worked on the whole gammut.
I sold my 1981 Tercell with something like 375,000 km on it. Can't
remember for sure. It had one set of drive axles reolaced on it in
that time,one clutch, and one timing belt. I replaced the clutch and
timing belt as "preventative maintenance" before a trip from Waterloo
Ontario toPrinceton University, Washington DC, and the Blueridge
mountains. No sighn of impending failure when removed, but I had it
apart, so I replaced them.
Four years after I sold it I talked to the guy I sold it to - he had
roughly doubled the mileage and only changed the points and condenser
and a few sets of brakes before finally scrapping it (I had patched
the rear fenders with fiberglass - and he redit that once - and
scrapped it when it needed doing again)

That's the highest mileage any of my cars has ever accumulated. My '69
Dodge Dart I sold with 240,000 plus miles on it in 1973. I had not a
single mechanical failure on that car.

My 1961 Austin Mini had 196,000 on it when I bought it, and between
then and when I sold it at 214,000 miles I rebuilt the engine. Brakes
and windsheild wiper transmissions were a constant battle on that
baby-buggy, but the rest of the car was so simple there was virtually
nothing to go wrong.

My 1988 New Yorker went 242,000 km before I sold it at 18 years of
age. The Japanese engine (3.0 Mitsu) was on it's third set of cyl
heads, and the differential bearings had gone so I replaced the (3
speed automatic) transmission at about 200,000 km. Otherwize a trouble
free car.

My 1989 Aerostar was virtually trouble free till I sold it at 115000
more or less KM, and remained trouble free except for body rust for
the friend who bought it from me untill somewhere around 245,000 when
he scrapped it. My 1990 Aerostar went to 245,000km. The engine was
replaced under warranty due to piston slap, the trans front seal went
out towing the trailer to BC, the main input quill shaft snapped at
about 200,000 km, and one of the accumulator covers on the trans
leaked somewhere around the same time. The transmission cooler line
and power steering lines both rusted through, as did the oil pan. The
body rust was not as severe as on the 1989.

The 1995 Trans Sport was an unmitigated disaster. (3.8 liter coudn't
pull the trailer the 3 liter aerostar just played with) Ball joints
and tie rod ends were constantly being replaced as well as front axle
bearings. The second engine blew at 275,000km (98,000km on the factory
rebuild-"crate" engine)

Wife's 1996 Mystique 2.5 V6 is a blast to drive, but I'm constantly
fixing stupid electrical problems. Power windows, brake light
circuit,horn, signals, etc etc. and I fought for quite some time with
a driveability broblem caused by a colapsed/split vacuum line hidden
down in the bowels of the engine compartment (after replacing
suspect/leaky intake manifold gaskets/seals did not solve the problem
- over-lean condition on bank #1) and it still "mooses" when it is
cold.

In my carreer as a motor mechanic, 12 years of it with Toyota, the
last 10 of those as service manager from '76 to '86, I can truthfully
say the amount of "repair" work we did was EXTREMELY low. I think in
those 10 years we had "mabee" 2 automatic transmission failures, and
replaced bearings in a dozen or so manual transmissions. Had a couple
noisy diffs. Back in 1972 (first stint with Toyota) we had a rash of
cracked (corolla 1600cc - 2TC) cyl heads replaced under warranty. The
early tercels had a suspension rust recall that was significant.
Electrically they were almost bullet-proof too. Some high resistance
starter circuit problems (woudn't crank hot) that were easily fixed -
and the old rotting brake rotor problem that every manufacturer was
faced with when asbestos pads were eliminated.

All in all I'd have to say the Toyotas, at least in those years, were
mechanically above average in quality and reliability. The bodies back
then were perhaps not quite up to standard - but EVERYBODY had rust
problems back then - mirrors falling out of 2 year old Ford Torinos,
etc.

MOST Toyotas today are more reliable than many Chevies - and their
resale value bears that out. People are willing to spend serious cash
on used Toyotas and Hondas (Not so much Mazdas, and certainly less for
Nissans), while used GM's, Mopars, and even Fords, do not retain very
much value after 5 years.

That's why I'm not driving Toyotas or Hondas right now. I buy 5 years
old, with 100,000km, for $5000.00 - Have not found a Toyota or Honda
that I can buy for that price in the last 12 years so I drive Mopars
and Fords (and that ONE crappy Poncho- which I bought for
SIgnificantly LESS than $5000 at 4 years of age) and would have been
overpriced at half that.


Just my observations (and I've also owned/driven Renault, VW, Peugot,
Vauxhaull, AMC, BMC,Chevy, Fiat and worked on Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch,
Honda, International, Jeep, Mazda, and countless other brands over the
years)

Buying a Toyota - even a new one, is no guarantee you won't encounter
problems, but your chances of having a reliable ride go WAY up.