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

Page 8 of 16  
wrote:


They were all the same pump, regardless if it used the long or short filter.The standpipe was long untill 1972 so the older engine could not use the PH43 - only the PH8A (or equivalent) (Long filter)
The FL1A Motorcraft filter is a direct fit replacement for the PH8A and has a VERY superior construction. The Napa Gold filter is almost as good and around heare costs more. I believe the FL1A used to be called the FL30001 - and it had a double sealed drainback valve .

There is no valve in the standpipe - or al least there wasn't in the 63 170, the 65 225 or the 69 225. (long standpipe) and I never had problems using the long non-fram filters on ANY of my Mopars.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:02:09 -0500, clare wrote:

<SNIP>
Oh, yeah. I forgot. You guys already had your Thanksgiving...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

Indeed.
Had a CAnadian supplier call me yesterday. I guess it was "thursday" to him.
nate
(pecan pie for breakfast! woo hoo!)
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Yes, but you have no way of knowing what part was on the car in question. The guy who owned the car doesn't know what it had.

Well your missing valve would explain why you were having problems.
    But I suspect you were just unaware that the valve was there and quite likely if you had problems with the oil draining back then the valve was not functioning properly. Again this is something ore likely to happen in an old dirty engine. I was not aware there was a check valve in the outlet, but I never encountered the problem so there would be no reason to be looking for a cause. It does make sense that this type of design would need a valve in the outlet.
I found 2 sources that describe the part as "oil filter standpipe w/valve".
And another popular mechanics article describing what what happens if the valve sticks in the closed position:
http://tinyurl.com/yakqhxz
-jim

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

Can you cite a source for this, Nate?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe that the ad copy for any good preoiler has this information, but I don't have time to find an example at the moment. maybe on CM's web site?
nate
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

I believe that the ad copy for any good preoiler has this information, but I don't have time to find an example at the moment. maybe on CM's web site?
nate
******* I dont know. I can look, but I have never seen any hard data on this.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:03:30 -0600, jim wrote:

Oil pump is in fine condition. I took it off and tested it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They might filter the fine stuff when they stay together, but when the paper end comes off the filter media, it dilters NOTHING. And they DO come off. Not every one, but WAY too many.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who's tests have shown that? I've read everything FRAM calims, and they don't claim to be better than WIX. I can't find numbers for Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters, but I'll bet they are.
And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not important. What is important is removing as many as possible of particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't filtering anything.
Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end caps often come loose.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"C. E. White" wrote:

The SAE formulates tests that manufacturers must pass to meet engine manufacturer requirements. Among those test are several that determine the filters efficiency at keeping the oil clean by removing particles of various sizes.
http://books.sae.org/book-hs-806/2009

Could well be. I haven't read anywhere close to all the literature Fram has published.

That sounds like your every day typical Fram superstition . You probably don't even think you need a definition of "better" to make a statement like that.

The smallest particles do cause wear just not as much wear or as fast. So it is purely a question of how long you intend to make the engine last. It makes no sense to a new car buyer that doesn't intend to keep the car past 100k miles to go to the expense and trouble to do maintenance with the goal of making the engine last 500k miles. That is a complete waste of their time and money. But if someone does happen to want to make it last that long then they will need to do something about keeping the engine clean. And that means doing something to keep the small particles from accumulating.

The procedure to prevent that is called an oil and filter change.
    But your analysis is correct. If the filter removes finest particles efficiently and you have an engine that is loaded up with years of accumulation of fine particles then yes the filter will be more likely to plug up. So yes if you put a higher efficiency filter on an old dirty engine you should be aware that it could load up sooner than a filter that is not as efficient at removing the smallest particles.

HA HA HA. So another fool who thinks all he needs is a hack saw and he becomes an expert at oil filter manufacture and design. FYI the end caps are trapped inside the filter. The only way they can move even if there was no glue holding them is if you cut the filter apart. There is no place for the end caps to go. Its absolutely ludicrous that you would you think the heavy reinforced fiber material on the ends is going to be the weak point of filter when every filter on the market have all this fiber material that is much lighter and not as well supported. Your claim that the end caps often come loose is typical of the Fram bashers mythology. What exactly is the failure mode for these end caps. Describe exactly what happens with these end caps when they come loose. And I should warn you if you make something up out of thin air its going sound like an obvious lie, because there is really no failure mode for these filters at all that involves the end caps.
-jim

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

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

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

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.

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?     

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Do you have any idea what the test actually requires? Pointing at an abstract is a waste of time. Fram actually provides a brief but interesting description of these tests at http://www.fram.com/carcare/faq.php#q9 .

I should not have said everything...my mistake. An accurate statement would be that I have read all of the literature I could easily obtain from FRAM.
You might want to read http://www.fram.com/carcare/faq.php
From http://www.fram.com/carcare/faq.php#q4 :
"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....
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?
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?PartQ372 . I am more inclined to trust a company that provided more and better quality information, instead of vauge advertising copy.

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  . Still, I feel confident a Motorcraft Filter is at least as good as a standard Fram at removing contaminants.
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.

Have you ever looked at the insides of a standard FRAM filter. If not, go to http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id10.html . 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 .
The Fram filter cost $3.77, the Motorcraft $3.28 (2006 prices). Which would you think was better?
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"C. E. White" wrote:

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

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.

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

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

More arguing with yourself?

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?

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

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.

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.

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 2/20/25 - 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Using which test protocol?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

"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...."

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"

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."

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

So where can I read one of the tests?

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.

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?

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.

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).

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

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.

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. 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?pkU348 http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pkU345 http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pkU349 http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pkU346
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?pkU764 http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pkU767
Or metal end caps and rubber gaskets, See:
http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?PartQ123 http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?PartQ143
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, 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>." 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"C. E. White" wrote:

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

It's better than leaving a Fram in place for longer than the auto makers recommendations. The assumption you are changing filters at least as often as the recommended maintenance schedules.

So you think the choice of filter must always be based on some kind of superstition belief? I didn't state a criteria for picking Fram. I simply stated your criteria for avoiding Fram was primarily superstition. And it is obvious the superstitious beliefs started after cutting open a filter.
     As far as I can tell the price available to you is the only criteria you have for selecting a brand that is based on anything real.

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?

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?

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, "

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.

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.

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.

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.

No need to google. I'll concede that point. When the outer shell blows off, the end cap and everything else inside the can is going to fall out on to the ground. But don't you have any curiosity as to what would cause a can to burst.

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

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

Not the ones for the 283. All brands have the inner support tube. How they are made probably depends on what the specs are for a particular application are.

Nope I still have one and i cut open a used Fram extra gard to compare . The modern spin on has thicker cardboard end caps and more glue on the ends of the pleats. Other than that and the size there doesn't seem to be much difference in design. The filter I have is a hardware store brand so it may or may not be made by Fram. But IIRC they all pretty much looked the same on the shelf in a store where you had a choice.

The first picture looks like the stock filter for the 283. The endcaps are made of cardboard and what you are calling a metal can is just glossy paper wrapped around the filter media. The purpose of the paper is probably to keep the mechanics greasy fingers off the filter media. That paper looks like what you would find in a typical glossy magazine with a bunch of holes punched in it.
    The other bypass filters in your pictures must be some after market product for an auxiliary add-on filter. Couldn't tell you what those filters are made of.

http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?PartQ123
http://info.rockauto.com/WIX/DetailWIX.htm?www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?PartQ143
What about the millions of engine applications where the filters do not fail as you have imagined they are going to? You're the one claiming they are not any good and have a high probability of failure. I myself wouldn't have typed a single word about Fram filters if I had not seen others typing so much misinformation. It is just plain irksome to listen to all these obviously unsupported allegations.

I could have said that. Until i see some believable facts to change my mind I will be sticking to my own beliefs - thank you very much.

Not really no. But then I can't recall making a statement about my filter preference. I have never personally had a problem when I used a Fram. I have never met any one else who had a problem and all told that represents quite a lot of filters that haven't failed. I never even thought about it until I started reading some of the obviously bogus claims by the Fram bashers. The typical Fram basher has used only one Fram filter in his whole life (and he usually won't even admit to buying that one) and he will tell you about the numerous defects that one filter exhibited. Well I'm sorry that is just way too implausible and improbable to be believed.

I don't know what your asking?

So if one scenario of filter failing doesn't support your superstition you move on to another. Please don't ever pay any attention to all the cars that aren't having the problems you imagine they must be having.
-jim
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.