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

Page 15 of 16  
---

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott wrote:

Yup good example of the very foolish logic that is behind the internet folklore.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have watched this thread for a while and opinions are being based on hearsay, wife's tails and rumor. In the end your questions can only be answered with investigation and the associated tests. I personally do this from time to time. Once is not enough, as the filter market continually evolves. So let me offer the results of my testing.
There is a huge difference from one filter to another. Those differences are particulate size that the filter traps, the amount of internal resistance of the filtration process in pressure drop across the filter and lastly, particulate trapping capacity. In all these cases, size matters. The larger the better. Please notice that I did not mention a valve, because very few have them at all. If they do, it is a band aid in engine design, as is the use of these small filters. Filter size is primarily driven by available space. Today, in almost all cases, the filter is of the full flow variety, as opposed to the older bypass variety. The oil pump will have an overpressure valve that will lift when the spring pressure behind the bleed ball in exceeded. All full flow filter installations also have a similar valve parallel to the filter. That valve will allow oil to flow around the filter when the differential pressure across the filter exceeds the design value ensuring adequate oil flow when the filter is full of particulate or the viscosity of the oil is too high. Please note there is no warning light that your engine is no longer being protected by the filter. Please be aware of the fact that automotive oil has additives that keep any particulate in suspension in order to allow the filter to remove them. Please consider in that light how important pressure drop as a consideration it in filter choice. Now the wife's tail, drainback is unavoidable. Every customer of the oil galleries will drain the galleries in the absence of resupply. 90% of all engine wear occurs during startup due to the lag from pump start to delivery at the customer interface. Just because you observe oil pressure doesn't mean there is full lubrication. This is especially evident in cold weather when the viscosity of the oil raises observed oil pressure, but with sometimes drastically reduced flow. The next time you see an industrial engine (100% duty cycle) look at the oil filter. You will very often see as many as 4 huge units. There is a reason. A pressure gauge or a light only tells two things, the pump is running and there is resistance to flow. Everything else must be assumed. Large expensive engines use electric pre-lube pumps to address this issue. The larger the engine, the longer this lag is.
So as an average user, how do we use this new found knowledge. 1) Use the largest filter you can fit rated for, at the most, 20 micron. 2) Use the lowest possible viscosity oil allowed by the manufacturer regardless of startup engine noise. Remember it's all about flow, not pressure. 3) Never disable the thermostat, oil temperature 200 degree F or 90 C is critical in vaporizing internal engine condensation. Water will combine with residual sulfur creating Sulfuric Acid, which corrodes the oil creating sludge. 4) Change the oil frequently. More so in the winter. High tech synthetics do NOT reduce this requirement. This is especially true with small filters, cold temperatures and short trips. Remember oil filters filter. They do not recondition the oil. The additive package is consumed over time and acid buildup is unavoidable. 5) Always allow the engine to run at least 2 minutes before applying load. Steve
---
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am sure "wive's tails" have settled many a discussion, but in this case, I think "old wive's tales" would be more appropriate ;>)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Lusardi wrote:

No this is not accurate. Modern oils have additives that keep particles that are *too small* for the oil filter to remove in suspension. Those tiny particles are mostly soot (carbon compounds from combustion). IF those oil additives become depleted that is when bad things start to happen to engines due to lubrication failure. When the additives are used up the fine particles that usually do no harm to the engine start to get sticky. They stick to each other and they stick to engine parts. When they stick to themselves they become larger particles that plug up the oil filter. And oil analysis won't help much when this happens. Oil analysis does not typically reveal depleted additives. And since the dirt is precipitating out of the oil and is no longer in the oil to be analyzed, the oil analysis does not reveal how dirty your engine has become.     This is really the only scenario that any motor vehicle owner might run into a problem that will cause a modern engine to fail due to lubrication inadequacy. Everything else that people consider important to know about oil and filters is pretty much irrelevant, because for most modern engines it matters very little whether the engine will last for 200-700K miles beyond the point where the rest of the car is junk.

If you are running a racing engine you might want to be concerned with pressure drop. If you are driving a typical motor vehicle then use the engine manufactures specifications for oil and filter and that will take care of everything related to pressure drop. Of course if the filter gets plugged then pressure drop does become a real issue. But if you are following the recommended maintenance the oil filter should come no where close to being plugged. Just because the guy who started this thread had a plugged filter doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Drain back of the oil contained in the filter is definitely avoidable. And in many engines allowing air to flow back into the filter can also eventually get air into the oil pump. However on a well maintained engine it is extremely unlikely this will ever be a problem. If you use a filter that meets OEM specs and keep the engine in good working order the engine will outlast the rest of the car.     About the only thing that causes any valve in the lubricating system to fail is dirt. These valves are not complicated parts that are difficult to produce. Manufacturing defects are extremely remote causes of failure. If there is a failure with the drain back valve or pressure regulator or by-pass valve you can be quite sure the problem originates with the engine and not the filter. If there is a problem with the drain back valve anyone who immediately leaps to the conclusion that the oil filter is at fault is nuts.     Dirt can cause valves in the lubricating system to stick open or stick closed or fail to seat properly. Valves that prevent back flow will hold oil from flowing back to the pan for months in an engine if the oil isn't over-loaded with dirt. And if the engine is maintained so that it isn't overloaded with dirt you won't need to worry about how much wear occurs at start up - the engine will be lasting much longer than the rest of the car anyway.

The reason is economics. there is no good economic reason to make a car engine last as long as it would if it were used as a stationary power plant. I knew a guy who ran a sawmill using a GMC truck 409 engine as a power plant. He used the same engine for 25 years until he retired around 1990. That engine probably had the equivalent of 1.5 million miles on it. And yes he had added a monstrous oil pan and a monstrous by-pass filter as well as the stock full flow filter. It held about 4 gallons of oil. But what would be the point in doing something like that on a passenger car? Do you know what lengths you would need to go to make the rest of your car last 1.5 million miles?

To address what issue? There is no issue with regard to lubrication to be addressed with the typical modern automobile.

What new found knowledge?

That is horrible advice. If your car has a warranty and you decide to use a filter that does not meet the manufacturers specs it will void your warranty.
    If the car is out of warranty you are still better off using a filter that meets OEM specs. The possible unintended consequences of trying to out-guess the design engineers are numerous. There are a few well known examples where you can substitute a larger more heavier duty version of a filter. But still that strategy is just another example of internet folklore type foolishness.     It is foolish to attempt to store dirt inside your engine. Bigger and more expensive filters and more expensive oil and oil analysis are usually just extravagant procedures for storing more dirt for a longer period inside the engine crankcase. Using the cheapest filter and oil and leaving the dirt at your local recycling center at the recommended intervals instead of attempting long term storage strategies inside the crankcase is a far more foolproof way of addressing the problem of engine dirt. If what you want is some extra peace of mind then use the manufacturers "severe duty" recommendations.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

ACTUALLY
And heat, and certain chemicals (such as acid buildup or incompatible fuel or oil additives)

Except several manufacturers, ford included, have, on certain engines, stipulated that filters with silicone rubber drainback valves are REQUIRED. Nitrile and other formulations of "rubber" can and do fail to provide an adequate seal in some applications.

So why did Ford see fit to use a six quart oil capacity on the 2.5 liter Duratec engine? When a lot of larger engines get by on 4 liters???

More accurately, what is the issue with startup lubrication on an engine with 100% duty cycle? They NEVER shut down - oil is changed "on the run" and there is no such thing as a dry start.
However, EVERY TIME an auto engine is started, the POSSIBILITY of a dry start exists.

There ARE oversized filters, however, that DO meet the manufacturer's specs, and the extra (up to a liter of) oil helps reduce operating temperatures as well.

WHich the vast majority of operation actually DOES fall into.
My recommendation over the last 40 some years has been somewhere between. Don't waste money on "the best oil mony can buy" and don't penny pinch by leaving said oil in the engine too long. Use GOOD oil and change it just a little oftener than you would say is NECESSARY. And use a decent filter. On some engine designs, the quality of the filter is more important than on others, and if two filters have been spec'd/supplied for a given engine (and they sell for the same price, which is very common) install the larger of them that fits.
If there seams to be evidence pointing to a certain filter possibly being of inferior quality, it only makes sense to avoid the use of that filter if possible, particularly when the quality filter is readily available at substantially the same price.
I never buy the cheapest or the most expensive of ANYTHING if there are 3 or more choices.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote: .

Right I should have said in a properly working engine about the only thing that causes any valve in the lubricating system to fail is dirt.
    there are many ways to make an engine not work properly the will cause the oil to be contaminated or degraded.

AFAIK ford has never offered any evidence that supports this claim. In the USA Ford cannot deny a warranty claim based on a superstitious belief that a particular material fails to meet performance specs. If you or Ford motors have any evidence that supports that claim I would like to see it.

Probably because they were concerned that customers might not keep the oil sufficiently clean if it held a smaller amount.

So where is your evidence that this is an issue that shortens the life of an engine? You just keep tossing in more babbling superstitious beliefs that are not supported by any evidence. Cold starts are an issue in the frozen North. But there is no evidence they shorten engine life. What eventually shortens the life of most cars in the north is road salt.     Many people refer to the SAE studies where they concluded that most of the wear occurs on engine start-up. Is there any place where the SAE said the evidence of wear they identified will make any difference to the life span of the average auto engine? The study did not conclude that the ADBV valve or brand of filter or brand of oil plays any role at all in causing wear or shortening the life of an engine. Those conclusions did not come from the SAE, but have been arrived at only wild leaps of faith made by the superstitious.

maybe so. It depends on who, what and where the car is driven.

That is fine. I personally don't much like cooked carrots. It is one thing to state personal preferences and it's another to claim (without any evidence at all to support it) that following your preference is going to make any difference.
-jim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Or at least that is what the superstitious believed. If an engine that has been hammering a rod for 100000 miles because the timing was set too advanced and it finally lets loose one cold morning that doesn't mean there was a problem with lack of lubrication. Only the superstitious would think of it that way.

Does no one do any "start and stop driving" any more?
Urban

Are you talking about the 1930's? Yes a few engines did wear out extremely fast back years ago but what has changed is not the way "granny" drives. She still starts the car once or twice a week and drives a mile ot two at the most. What has changed significantly is the amount of raw fuel she dumps into her cylinders during those short trips. Engines warm up much faster today in part because the engine is actually efficiently burning almost all the fuel even at start up with very cold temps. And if your interested in SAE tests take a look at the tests that show how much relatively small changes in ignition timing and air fuel ratio will contribute to engine wear.

Your living in the past. Your completely wrong about the same destructive forces being still at work. Today engines are run with precise ignition timing and precise fuel delivery and that has reduced the destructive forces to the point where ring and bearing wear is no longer much of an issue in the life span of passenger car engines. Even people who change their oil very infrequently don't end up with the mosquito fogger that a lot of cars turned into years ago. Back 40-50 years ago many engines had more ring, cylinder and bearing wear after 10,000 miles than almost any modern engine has after 100,000. And the people who think oil and metallurgy explains that are badly mistaken. You can take a modern engine and change the engine management system so that spark and fuel delivery matches the same level of inaccuracy that cars had back then (back then it was particularly inaccurate on a cold starting engine) and guess what the engines will wear out just like they did back then. Modern metallurgy and modern oil won't save an engine from the destructive forces that result from imprecise fuel and spark management.

     My eyes are brown and you are putting your faith in tests that were done 50 years ago. Nobody in the SAE is even anymore interested in those early engine wear tests that were done on carbureted engines. Those studies have become irrelevant today. Most of the the modern testing revolves around how to minimize the amount of lubricant needed over the life of an engine. Even with many cold starts included in the test protocol it has been shown that engines can go 10-15k without showing any significant increase in wear or shortening of engine life.     That is not to say there aren't people who neglect their engine and are capable of engine failure related to lubrication failures. It is still possible to get to the point where an engine's oil filter gets so completely stuffed full that no oil can get through - not even through the by-pass. And then typically the center tube will collapse and all that tightly packed in crud and probably some filter parts too get suddenly pushed into the engine oil galley. And of course, anyone who has done this to their engine will tell you the cause of the catastrophic failure was incorrect filter selection.

And this story was presented in order to prove what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is NOT superstition. It is PROVEN FACT

Yes they do, but the design of today's engines, and the quality of the oils, make it somewhat less serious a problem than it used to be.

No, I'm talking in particular the '70s and into the early '80s. Fuel injection has made a difference, for sure, because the oil stays good longer in short trip use than it used to with a carb.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:11:43 +0100, "Steve Lusardi"

Show me a currently available (in north america) engine that has the filter bypass (parallel to the filter) implemented IN the engine instead of in the filter. If you can find one, it is the exception rather than the rule.

Electric pre-lube is still reserved for very expensive mission critical applications, on the whole. The ideal would be for EVERY engine to have either an accumualtor or electric pre-lube system.
And I'll still dissagree about using the lowest viscosity oil possible. You want an oil with a low enough "pour point" and viscosity to allow the oil to flow adequately at the lowest commonly occuring pressure, but there is still such a thing as "too thin"

Before applying FULL load, for sure - but 15 seconds after startup it is completely safe to put the vehicle in gear and pull away in a "normal" manner.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Changing oil and filter at 3000 mile intervals addresses the dirt and oil quality problems, but does NOT address the dry-start / noisy valves on startup issues that faulty anti-drainback valves can cause.
Might not make the engine fail within the normal lifespan of the vehicle, but nobody who really cares about their car wants it rattling and clattering every time it starts up or they'd all drive deisels.
And vehicles with timing chains and hydraulic tensioners - particularly those with LONG chains like the old 2.6 Mitsubishi, eat timing chains and tensioners early in their life if they don't get adequate oil pressure very quickly on startup - EVERY TIME.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Well yes it actually does. In my experience just about the only thing that will ever cause a filter to fail to work properly in any way is excessive dirt in the engine. Excessive grit and dirt in the oil will cause things like anti-drain back valves and bypass valves to fail to seal properly. Gum and varnish will cause valves like the pressure regulator or bypass valve to stick. When those valves fail then you have oil pressure problems. And of course a very dirty engine can plug the filter media.          An excessively dirty engine can be the cause of a malfunction for any brand oil filter. I'm not particularly interested in which filter fails first under those conditions. Instead of fretting over that question it is a much more intelligent strategy to just keep the engine in a condition so that no filter can fail.

Yeah that is definitely correct - nobody wants a rattling and clattering when the engine starts. Fram is the #1 selling filter. Fram oil filters are on more engines than any other oil filter brand. One thing that tells me is that people are using them because they are not having the problems you say they will.
-jim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:
<snip>

LOL, as does changing them at 5000 miles. All the experts agree that there is absolutely zero benefit to 3000 mile oil changes versus 5000 mile oil changes. There's been extensive studies done with oil analysis at different mileages, and even engine teardowns to measure wear. No benefit to 3000 mile changes--zilch. It's throwing money away to do too frequent oil changes. It's called "recreational oil changing" and it's done by newbies that lack any understanding about engines and oil.

That's why so many engines went to belts. A short timing chain works well and lasts a long time. A long chain is less reliable than a long belt that's changed periodically. The problem is that you don't change a chain and tensioner as part of routine maintenance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS wrote:

Zero benefit doesn't mean zero effect. Your engine will last just as long if you change at 5000, but it won't be as clean on the inside when it goes to the bone yard. And yes there probably is no benefit to delivering a clean engine to the wrecking yard.

If you weren't so retarded you would remember that you were the one that was worried about engine damage due to inadequate lubrication. I'm not the one who is worried. The smartest thing to do to alleviate your worries is to change the oil more often.
    The fact is if you use the cheapest oil and cheapest filter and follow the engine makers recommendations for change intervals your chances of having the engine die due to inadequate lubrication before the rest of the car dies is close to zero.
    Most of the stories I have read from Internet Fram bashers indicate to me that these idiots have either too much dirt in their engines or they have a mechanical problem (like a weak oil pump, or that the equipment that controls oil pressure is malfunctioning, or they have an air leak between the oil pump and the oil sump, or some other mechanical problem).
    These people usually resort to Voodoo to solve their problems. Bashing an oil filter is not going to fix your car. And if the problem is an overload of dirt in the engine, then buying expensive oil and filter that advertises that it does a better job of storing the dirt inside the engine is a really extremely dumb solution. A much safer and more reliable solution is to get rid of the dirt.
-jim     

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're an idiot. Please stop subjecting us to your idiocy.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I believe they now have at least one line of oil that carries the API certification, but up 'till about 2 years ago NONE of their oils met the standard, or at least nione were certified. In the past, their oils did NOT meet spec, and today most still do not.

Now you are tha great test engineer. WOW!!!! I've been a mechanic since 1969, licenced since 1971, and have experienced obvious anti-drainback valve failure on numerous customer's vehicles. Many, although not all were Fram. I don't need to cut a filter apart or test it off the vehicle to know when one has failed (although I've likely changed many defective filters that I did NOT know were defective).
When an engine comes in clattering on startup and goes out quiet after an oil filter change, it's OBVIOUS the drainback balve is leaking.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote: I don't need to

I never needed to check a valve. I only did it in recent years because I was hearing so many liars claiming they didn't work. I haven't found one that doesn't. I don't get any start up clatter with a fram filter even when the car sits for weeks without running.
The only reason the drain back valve will fail is if excessive amount of dirt is holding it open. If the car has had good care that won't ever happen.

That would seem obvious only to the superstitious person. If the engine has a purolator filter and clatters on cold starts and you change the oil and put on a Fram filter - that would have fix the problem too. Getting the dirty oil out of the engine is what fixed the problem. Your superstitious beliefs have blinded you.     
    

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably because your car has a base-up filter.

Or if it's a Fram filter, then it *NEVER* works.

Except the ADBVs on Purolators usually don't fail, and the ones on Fram filters usually *do.*
How is it "superstitious" to switch from using a defective product to using a good product?
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
N8N wrote:

You are ignorant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are wrong. And ignorant, arrogant, and an asshole. Please fuck off.
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.