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

Page 9 of 16  
jim wrote:

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

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

I was jsut trying to help you out. You made some really dramatic claims for Fram filters (like "tests have shown they [Fram] do remove smaller particles than wix or purolator." I thought if I posted what Honewell actually claims and what the test involves, you might quit making claims that exceed what the manufacturer claims.

Again, you are making up stuff and trying to twist what I said. I never said Frams are too agressive at removing small paricles. You are taking stuff out of context and trying to interpert it to imply I said things that I never said. Go back and read the original statement in context. It was a broad general statement, that even you agree is true - removing very small "NON-HARMFUL" particles is not a good thing., I never said Fram filters did this (in fact I am sure they don't). I certainly never said anything like - "Frams are bad because they are too aggressive at removing the smallest particles." It seem you arguement technique is to deliberately misinterpert what someone saids and then attack a your twisted version of the position, while pretending not to notice what they actually said.
For reference, here are the original paragraphs in context (forgive me for reposting something) -
***Begin Repost***
[You said]

[I previously said]

[You said:]

[I said]
Who's tests have shown that? I've read everything FRAM calims, and they don't claim to be better than WIX. I can't find numbers for Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters, but I'll bet they are.
And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not important. What is important is removing as many as possible of particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't filtering anything.
Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end caps often come loose.
****End Repost****
You are now claiming that I implied Fram filter could lead to problems becasue they filter too fine particles. This was actually your claim ("If you have an old beater that is loaded up with an accumulation of those fines plus a worn out oil pump from many years of pumping those small particles putting a Fram filter on the engine can lead to trouble").Clearly I never said Fram filter were particlularly good at removing fine particles. In fact, I repeatedly questioned your unsupported claims that "tests have shown they [Fram] do remove smaller particles than wix or purolator." I was sure this was BS then and I still do. There are no tests that I have seen that show this. My comments about the dark side of removing very small particles was in direct response to yourr BS claims about Fram removing smaller particles than Wix or Purolator. I was not claiming that Fram filters were bad becasue they removed very small particles, I was responding to your BS about how Fram could remove very small particles. No filter manufacturer (not even Fram) would create a filter that removes particles that were to small to be harmful. This would increase filter cost for no reason and actually make it less useful.

Go back and read what Honeywell actually claims - they are claiming an efficency based on a multi-pass test, just like Wix. Honeywell is using the newer ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test, Wix is referencig the older SAE J1858 multi-pass test. Wix actually provides the Beta Ratio from the test. Honeywell just quotes one number for 20 micron particles. For the Extra Guard they claim 95% for particles 20 microns are greater. As I pointed out, the Beta ratios provided by Wix imply a 96% efficiency at removing particles 20 microns or greater. The two companies are using different multi-pass test standards, but I think it is reasonable to assume the results for a given particle size should be comparable. BTW, Purolator claims the PureOne removes 99.9% of all particles 20 microns or larger when tested according to ISO 4548-12 (same test Fram is using in claiming 95% efficiency see http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx ) . A PureOne cost with a few cents the same as a Fram ExtraGuard, yet it includes a silicone anti-drain back valve, is better made (my opinion) and filters much better (at least if you believe each companies advertising copy). Tell me again why you prefer Fram filters.

Actually I think the more expensive Fram fitlers are a horrible choice. The Tough Guard uses basically the same construction techniques as the Extra Guard, but with supposedly better filter medais (99% efficient at removing particles >20 microns) and a silicone anti-drain back valve (like the standard Motorcraft filter). The Xtended Guard is really a weird one - it costs even more, yet it has a lower filtering efficiency than the Tough Guard (97% for >20 microns). It's main claim to fame for it is the addition of a metal screen around the media. The High Mileage Fram filter claims to add some sort of sanke oil to "balance oil PH and maintain viscosity." They are definitely moving into Slick 50 territory with that one.
If the Extra Guard is so great, why offer all these other choices?

I tried, but I cannot find a single one that shows a Fram filter is better than a Wix or Purolator filter. Can you point me towards one?

Again, you are trying to argue against stuff I never said. Here is what I beleive (I'll try to be as clear as possible):
Of the "popular natonwide brands" (Motorcraft, Wix, Purolator), I think Fram filters use the poorest construction techniques. Fram does not claim to have better filtering efficiencies that filters from Motorcraft, Wix, or Purolator. They only claim to be better than unspecified "economy filters." I am not sure which filters these are. The standard Fram Filters (Extra Guard) are not particularly cheap. They usually cost around the same as brands that appear to me to be better made (Motorcraft, Wix, Purolator, and some others). Given that I feel they are not as well made as some others, and that Fram doesn't claim the Extra Guard filters have better filtering efficiency than other brands available on the same shelf in the store (usually Purolator and Motorcraft), and that Extra Guard filters often cost as much or more than other filters I like better (Wix, Purolator, Motorcraft), why would I buy a Fram filter?

OK, again, look at the picture and tell me how the Fram relief valve works. And then tell me why the same forces cannot affect the end caps.

They are not glued together in the manner I was trying to describe. The Fram pleats are open up to the end cap. They are closed off solely by the end cap. The other technigue involves bonding the individual pleats together along the top edge. It gives the top and bottom edges of the element a sucked in look becasue the pleats are bunched tightly together at the ends - sort of like an old wodden barrel instead of a uniform cylinder. The "end caps" are not glued to the filter element at all, they just act like retainers. The Fram end caps are the sealing surface.

NO, see above - completely different techniques.

It can work, but it is not as reliable as other methods. I've never made up any stories about engine failures. QUit trying to dismiss my comments based on things I have never said. I've seen the filter element detached at the glue joint, not torn. I understand that the Fram methods usually woks OK, but I have seen the joint fail as well. I have never personally had any sort of engine failure related to a bad oil filter. I am only saying that compared to other fitlers that are in the same price range, Fram filters use an inferior constrcution technique. Their technique can work, but, in my opinion, it is more likely to fail than other techniques. The results of the failure may be unimportant most of the time, but why would I spend as much or more for a filter that is at best no better than filters from other suppliers?

Explain why this would be the case. I have a purpose designed device for cutting open filters. I always cut them open at the base end. The element always come out whole. The only filter I've ever cut open with detached pleats was a Fram filter (although the I am amazed that some of the Delco filters don't fail as well).

I've never had this problem. I've never claimed to have even seen this happen. In fact, I can't see how it would happen unless you had a filter that was almost completely plugged. The pressure differential across the filter media is usually much less than 10 psi (more like 2). Anyperson with a collasped filter core likely used oil that was to viscous and didn't change the filter for ages. I have heard of people blowing filter cans open, but this is a whole different problem. The pressure diffferential accross the filter wasn't the problem, it was the internal pressure in the oil system (as with a stuck pressure relief valve). I suppose a blown case might damage the fitler core, but it might not as well. The pressure inside and outside the filter core is still limited by the bypass valve. SO as long as the bypass valve functions properly, the differential force that might crush the filter element is relatively low.

Which end cap theory is that? I've been consistent in not liking the Fram construction techniques. The paper end caps are not particualry rigid. FIlter media retention is dependent on the glue joint from one non-rigid body to another non rigid body perpendicular to the first. They only apply a thin bead on both sides of the filter media and the inside of the central core. Any gaps or misplacement of the bead can lead to failure of the joint and leakage past the filter media. Most other filters use metal end caps and the filter media is completely encapsulated in glue (or potting compond). The Motor craft filter media (and central core) are potted into the end caps which are filled with the glue (or whatever you want to call it). There is little chance that the media and core won't be firmly attached to a relatively stiff metal end cap (which includes flanges that make them much more rigid than the paper end cap used by Fram).

The filter on just about every engine goes into bypass mode at one time or another. The bypass opens at something like 8 to 16 psi pressure differential cross the media (varies by application). With warm oil at an idle, the pressure differential accross the filter probably never exceeds a few psi. But on a cold morning, when you race an engine, I'll bet it will and therefore lift the bypass valve.
And you still didn't answer my question about how the Fram bypass valve works. Saying you don't want it to work is not answering. The reason I ask you to explain its working is simple. You keep implying there are no forces which might deform the paper end caps. I suspect the Fram bypass valve works very poorly. It seems to offer less flow area than the bypass valves for many other brands. I think it is possoible this will lead to higher pressure differential across the element than will be seen by these other brands. Higher forces pressure differential across the element combined with an inferior media to endcap bond design has to increase the chances of that bond failing. Maybe it is still only a minor concern, but again, why pay the same or more for an inferior design?

Care to point out some of these stories? I Googled Fram failures and I do see a lot of people unhappy with Fram filters and some stories that claim engine failure related to Fram filters, but there are not that many out there. I am not basing my preference for filters other than Fram on these sorts of stories. I just don't like the way they are made. You made claims (or at least I thought you made claims) that Fram filters did a better job of removing stuff from the oil than other comparable brands. I don't believe this to be true for the standard Fram filter (the Extra Guard). At best they claim to be about the same as Wix filters (I am being charitabkle to Fram here). I've never seen any "official" independent tests that compared the various filter brands based solely on filtering performance. I have personaly cut open many different oil filters and see no reason to believe Fram filters are better than competitive filters from other manufacturers (like Purolator, Wix, Motorcraft). It is true you cannot devine filtering efficiency by looking at the media, but I would argue that media of the same thickness, densisty, and appearance are likely to have similar filtering performance - particualy since when the manufactuers claim similar efficiency. Fram does claim greatly superior efficiency compared to some unnamed "economy filter." I've never seen them try to compare thier Extra Guard filters to filters avaialble at similar prices from the other major filter suppliers (Wix, Purolator, Motorcraft). It is pretty easy to claim you are great compared to some theoretical bad filter. Maybe Fram should match claims with Purolator (Purolator claims the PureOne Filter removes 99.9% of particle 20 microns or larger when tested according to ISO 4548-12).

What has superstition got to do with anything? It seem to me you are the one making faith based decisions. As best I can determine you buy Fram fitlers becasue you you assume past performance guarantees future performance and you believe the Fram advertising copy.
Which senario am I moving from / to? I think I have been pretty consistent in saying I don't like Fram filters becasue of the way they are made. I've never said I don't like Fram filters becasue they fail and destroy engines. I have persoanlly seen a Fram filter with the pleats detached from the end caps, but the engine didn't fail (in fact it seems to be doing just fine). I don't buy Fram filters because I think there are better made filters available for the same or even a lower price. When I was younger I used Fram filters all the time. I've never had an engine fail. In fact, I've only ever worn one engine out - a Ford 800 Tractor engine. And, this engine used Fram filters as long as I can remember. It originally had a cartridge filter, but my Father converted it to a Fram spin on around 1960. That's all we ever used on it after that (we used it another 35 years with Fram filters). BTW - it still ran the day we sold it.
Just for the record, here is my filter preference for the different vehicles I maintain:
Toyota 1) Toyota OE Japan made filter 2) Wix or Napa Gold 3) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 4) Toyota aftermarker filter (Thailand made) 5) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch) 6) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to investigate) 7) Fram
Ford 1) Motorcraft (not sure what will happen - Purolator was making them, but last OE filter was different) 2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 3) Wix or Napa Gold (same filter) 4) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch) 5) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to investigate) 6) Fram
Nissan 1) Nissan OE (Japan or China) 2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 3) Wix 4) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch) 5) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to investigate) 6) Fram
Honda 1) Honda OE - except I can't seem to find them these days, the Honda aftermarket filters appear to be Fram 2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 3) Wix 4) Fram
Mazda 1) Mazda 2) Motorcraft 3) Wix 4) Purolator Pure One 5) Fram
New Holland (farm tractors) 1) New Holland (nothing else)
Kubota (fram tractor) 1) Kubota (nothing else)
I am not particularly rigid on this. Sometimes the local Autozone runs a special where you get a Mobil 1 Filter and 5 quarts of Mobil 1 for a low price. When they do this I always take the deal and use the Mobil 1 Filter. And occasioanly I can't get my preferred brand of filter, so I pick something else. I've even used a Fram on Hondas several times (heck I believe the Honda dealer sells repainted Frams as Honda filters). When I am at my farm, I usually go by a local garage and pick up filters. The garage carries Motorcraft, Delco, and Wix Fitlers, so I use which ever of those he has for my application (BTW, the garage owner doesn't use Fram filters wither - if he can avoid them - I guess he has been reading the Internet stories, well except he doesn't have an Internet conenction). I am also using Toyota aftermarket filters on the SO's Toyota. I bought a case of filters from a distributor thinking I was getting the OE style Toyota filter (which is a really unique filter) but got the aftermarket ones made in Thailand instead. I don't like them as well as most other filters available for the application, but I am not throwing them away becasue of "like" or "dislike."
In my opinion one of the best filters you can buy is actually an Amsoil EA Oil Filter (made by Donaldson I think). I am often offended by Amsoil claims, but the filters are really quite nice, BUT, they are very pricey and I don't see then being worth it. Likewise Donaldson and Fleetguard have some very well made oil filters, but they are also pricey and not worth it in my opinion for my particular usage. Donaldson makes an especially nice filter for Ford FL820 applications, but since I do regular oil changes (5000 miles max) I don't think I need them for my Fords (i did try a couple though). I've never actually worn a Ford car or truck engine out, and some of them used Fram filters for years.
If I am going to over spend on filters, it will be on air filters, not oil filters. Oil filters can only remove what is already in the engiens. Air filters keep bad stuff out.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"C. E. White" wrote:

Well your not helping me out by quoting advertising. I didn't make any dramatic claims I said independent studies have shown that Fram did better on some of the tests that indicated it removed more of the smaller particles. I didn't say whether that was good or bad. According to SAE standards they all remove the amount of dirt needed to keep the engine running. It's been 30 years since I have seen an engine that was maintained on the manufacturers schedule that has died due to a lubrication related failure. If you want to worry about extending the life of a car worry about how to keep the upholstery or the

No you have failed to understand what I agreed was true. I agreed that overloading the oil filter is always a bad thing no matter how it happens. And i agreed that it may be possible that if person switches filter brands to one that is more aggressive after many many years of using one that is not aggressive that could make it more likely to overload the filter.
    The point that you can't seem to wrap your head around is that brand new cars do not come with an accumulation of small particles in the engine crankcase. Whether or not you believe fine particles are harmful if the filter is not removing them from the oil then over many years and miles some of those those fine particles will accumulate. That is why when you wipe your finger on the inside of some old engines your finger looks like it is covered with black paint.     Old cars sometimes do come with an accumulation of fine particles and that certainly makes it more likely that a filter that is more aggressive will become overloaded.

Well that's what it sounded like. You made your statement in direct response to the claim that studies have shown Fram to be more aggressive at removing the smallest particles. You then went on to quote pages of advertising copy that you seem to think was either proving or refuting the point depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time.

I quoted what you actually said. You quoted what you actually said. If what you actually said was meaningless and completely irrelevant to the discussion (as you seem to be claiming now) why did you say it?

You don't seem to get it - there is nothing particularly useful in regurgitating advertising copy. I pay no attention to what Fram says about Fram filters or what Wix says about Wix filters. When you say you are quoting somebody's advertising I usually skip to the next paragraph. i can see no point in trying to compare ad copy. Its even dumber than cutting filters open.

That is what you claimed. At least that was your direct response to the claim that independent studies have shown they do remove the finest particles.

You said:      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.
So what are you saying
1) this statement was complete fiction it never happens to any filter. 2) This is what happens to other filters never to Fram filters 3) This is what happens to Fram filters.

It's not my BS several studies have shown that Fram is better at removing smaller particles then some of the others. IMO It doesn't make much difference. Which brand removes the smallest particles is a moot point - its not worth even knowing. It's been 30 years since I have seen an engine that was maintained properly that had a lubrication related problem that led to its demise. Cars that have the prescribed maintenance die from just about anything else nowadays and it doesn't make a bit of difference if you used a fram or purolator or wix or whatever. If something else sends the car to the crusher anyway why worry about it?          But if you are going to worry about it look at the studies that the truck engine manufacturers have done. The have good evidence that removing particles down to 2 microns will make a significant difference in ring and bearing wear.

Nope sorry I'm ot even in the least interested.

http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/pureoneoilfilters.aspx )
Tell me why you are no longer beating your wife.

Well if Cadillacs are so great why offer a chevy. the cheapest filter you can find will do an adequate job.

Somebody pointed to consumer reports test. I would have to believe that it made a difference to be motivated to do your work for you.

Whether any of that is true or not makes no real difference. Even if "Fram filters use the poorest construction techniques blah blah blah" were true. It wouldn't make any difference. There is practically zero chance that using Fram filters for the entire life of an engine will shorten the life of the engine. So all this dissecting of filter parts and analyzing advertizing c claims is a massive waste of time.

You tell me how the relief valve works. The relief valve itself does not contact the cardboard end caps so I don't get what you are getting at. The endcaps are not in the same place so obviously they don't see the same forces. If you replace the relief valve with cardboard that cardboard would be affected by pressure.
    And all of this is absurd anyway since if you have such a cruddy engine that you are threatening to blow the by pass valve the brand of filter is the least of your worries.

the glue not only attaches the end cap it glues the pleats together.

So?

Is that like a distinction without a difference?

I told you I have seen a lot of filters with that construction both before and after they were used. It looks like it works very well to me.

Based on your superstition.

I agree you have said you never had an engine failure and i do find that to be refreshingly honest. I didn't mean to imply you had made up anything. What I meant is the vast number of Fram basher stories I believe are made up. The think just like you do that "this cant possibly work" and so they feel compelled to create a story as a cautionary tale to others.

I have seen a lot of filter elements and none have torn. but i can imagine if they are overloaded the paper pleats will collapse inward and tear from the ends. But that would happen if the were glued to metal also.

So now your introducing the idea that fram uses more fragile paper for the pleats. All the filters i have seen the glue and endcaps are atleast 10 times stronger than the paper.

Well it does happen i've seen pictures. For one thing not all filters have the bypass valve. Some applications have the valve in the engine. So one way it happens is using the wrong filter.

Actually they aren't any more rigid.

I know the filter on the car i now drive never goes into by pass mode. It doesn't have one. And what do you think the pressure regulator does?

It's my answer.
<The

I'm doubt the area of the valve opening is less than the oil galley leaving the filter. Do you seriously think all these imagined failures are really going to happen. Do you believe that all the quality control departments that have look at these filters are so much dumber than you are? Any large retail chain that is selling the filters or any lube service center chain is going to have gone over all this much more thoroughly than you have, because they aren't interested in antagonizing customers.

I claimed that both your study of the advertisements and the study of filter guts are irrelevant. Putting a filter that is better than or worse than Fram on your car is not going to make a difference. All the people that i have seen that claim engine damage from fram are blowing smoke. They already had or would have had engine damage anyway and that is assuming you believe the story.

It is superstition when you think taking some action will have an effect and it won't .

OK you are a strange person then. Why do care if they don't do any harm. I must admit you have been the only Fram basher that comes across as being honest. I personally never thought much about filter brands until i observed the hysteria of others. As far as i can tell the way the manufacturers have got the bases covered it makes as much sense as worrying about the brand of gasoline you use. Sure there are differences. but it isn't really worth the effort to decipher them.

It likely didn't even allow much oil to go unfiltered. The force of the oil would tend to close in on any tears. It is the opposite of the forces of a balloon that pops.

OK I'm not going to go through all that. It's like reading your choices for brands of toilet paper. Its not like you are going to use these things over and over again. They don't need to be made like a swiss watch.
-jim

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

The standard for the single pass test is quite lax. Something like 80% of the 40 micron particles.
The 96% is I believe 10 micron particles removed in one pass.

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

I never said removing the finest particles was important so I'm not interested in arguing whatever position you want to pin on me. That argument is like arguing what is the best way to wash your hands and how often should you do it.
    I did say that the analysis was correct that a filter that does a better job of removing small particles will be more likely to get plugged up if it is put on an engine that is loaded with fine particles.

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

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

Your talking about serious problem due to neglecting proper maintenance, but nevertheless the end cap isn't going to go anywhere.
Every brand of filter has a steel cylinder that you can see if you look in the center hole. Every filter manufacturer will tell you that if that steel support cylinder collapses that is an indication something is very wrong with the engine and the maintenance it is getting. If you remove a filter from a car and see the center support cylinder has not collapsed then you can be perfectly sure the end caps inside the filter haven't gone anywhere.
     Now if the filter media itself tears or pulls away from the end caps - what has that got to do with cardboard? Why would you think the paper can't rip away from a metal endcap? In fact I have read that the cardboard is a better engineering choice for the very reason that the filter paper bond to cardboard is better than it is to metal. Don't know if that is true but it sounds more plausible than anything you have said. At any rate the end caps don't come loose like you originally said they did and you still haven't explained how the use of cardboard contributes to any failure.
     I can tell you this if your oil filters are going into bypass mode and the filter paper is collapsing due to high pressure differentials then it is clear the filter is clogged with dirt and you should have changed the oil long before it got to that point. If you are finding collapsed filters on your vehicles you are correct in thinking this should be telling you something.

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

I would buy a Fram because the world doesn't work the way the Fram bashers imagination works. These filters are all tested for the faults you imagine exist. I don't prefer Fram over others but if I can get a deal on the price I don't have any qualms about buying one.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With no disrespect, can you cite a source for this statement?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:hf0tf1

Doesn't this seem self evident? I didn't specify a particualr "certain" size, so the statement could be interperted to mean particles somewhere between the size of an individual atoms and the size of the earth. Don't you agree that there are particles so small that they won't damage your engine? And if there are such particles, wouldn't it be a bad idea to trap these particles in the filter, since they would tend to clog up the fitler element and restrict oil flow?
Most engineering decisions are a compromise. In the case of an oil filter, removing a lot of very small relatively harmless particles reduces the life of an oil filter without any substantial compensating benefit. The actual size of the these non-harful particles will be dependent on the engine design (bearing clearances, materials, design life, etc.). I am sure there is always a size of particle that could be considerd harmless (or at least does so little harm that it is insignificant).
It seems to me that most light vehicle (i.e., passenger car) oil filters target particles larger than 10 to 20 microns. 20 microns seems to the most common target for decent filters. Some filters claim to remove particles as small as 10 microns (but at a reduced efficiency). For most car owners, I think a filter that removes 96% of particles 20 microns or larger in one pass is sufficient. Removing smaller particles might reduce wear but I doubt the difference would be significant or cost effective. If you change your oil per the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations (not Jiffy Lube's!) and use a decent quality fitler, internal engine wear is not likely to be a significant problem area. For large trucks and industrial equipment, a more robust filter system may be appropriate. For these applications there are special oil filtration systems available to remove very samll particles. I don't think these are cost effective for typical car owners.
Ed Ed
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:hf0tf1

I have no idea, Ed. These statements have been made as fact by others than you, but the apparent obvious will come back to bite you in the ass. I want to see some data....scientific significant data.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hls wrote:

You could start dropping hints that this is what you want for Xmas:
http://www.gmn-gmbh.net/GMN_Hatzfeld/Englisch/MultiPass.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, my sweetie would love to put that under our tree ;>)
There are some good engine test labs here in Texas, and I have gone onto some of their sites, also SAE, but in most cases when there appears to be data, there is first a $$ charge.
I posted earlier that I just changed my Solara oil and filter today, total expense $19.63. If I paid $20.00 for an oil analysis, that would be money rather poorly spent, woundnt it.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hls wrote:

My prejudice against Fram is not based on that, but on other factors.
1) Back in around 1996/1997 or so, I bought a '67 Dart. One thing I did not like about the car was that when I'd start it first thing in the morning, it would rattle and clank and the oil light would take a long time to go out. (it'd quiet down and run silky smooth as soon as the oil light went out, so it was obviously an oil pressure issue.) The first time I changed the oil, I just went to the corner FLAPS and bought whatever they offered - turned out to be a Wix filter. The filter I took off was a Fram. Ever after, whenever I started it, it'd knock once or twice and immediately run quiet, and the oil pressure light would go out almost immediately. After asking online I found that this was not uncommon. Subsequently my then-girlfriend bought a '69 Valiant with the same engine and it exhibited the same symptoms and responded to the same fix.
2) Lots of anecdotal reports of Frams failing at the crimp between the base and can on a cold start on watercooled VW engines (which use heavy oil - recommended xW40 or xW50 - and can develop 100 PSI or more on a cold start, I've seen this myself on cars equipped with an oil pressure gauge) I never experienced this myself, as by the time I got my first VW I was already soured on Fram by my slant six experiences. In fact, I ran a Canton/Mecca filter on my Scirocco because I thought I was going to keep that car forever (and in retrospect, I should have.)
nate
--
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

I understand your personal feelings about Fram. I dont use them either anymore, but have never had one fail on me. (I prefer not to swim upstream on matters like this). I am talking strictly about hard data, and there is little or none available on filters in general. I am sure the data exists, but extracting it is like pulling teeth.

Yeah, Ive heard this sort of anecdotal story before, but I have never experienced it, nor do I know anyone who has. It could be true....or not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Funny thing, a slant six has mechanical lifters, so low oil pressure does not cause the light clatter that say, a Chevy six, or a 318 exhibits. Rod knock on startup IS SERIOUS.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:33:53 -0600, hls wrote:

LOL! Not really! Lowered oil pressure in three cars with Fram filters got this thread started!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fram plant (allied signal) in Canada was about 35 miles from here and an aquaintance several years back used to work there.
He jumped ship to Kralinator IIRC, have lost contact with him since
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:16:16 -0500, clare wrote:

Oh, yeah. You're Canadian eh. Did you once say you're near Kitchener?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Home of the Blackberry. Stratford is just down the road - home of Fram/Allied Signal Canadian operations (and Kralinator too) Right next to Cambridge, home of the Corolla and a hop skip and a jump from Ingersol's CAMI plant and Woodstock's RAV4 and Hino plants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:43:54 -0500, clare wrote:

I knew Cambridge was the home of the Corolla (and Matrix and Pontiac Vibe), but i didn't know there was a Hino plant! How long has that been there?
When I was married to my wife, we used to go stay at her sister's house in Oshawa...with an upstairs balcony view of the Oshawa Assembly plant. There is a lot of the automotive industry, both the big guns, and the supplers in Ontario. At least there was until Bush 1 signed the Fair Trade Agreement. Then all the suppliers that had Canadian plants closed them up, since they didn't have to meet the Canadian 1/3 content laws anymore...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No Vibes out of Cambridge as far as I know, and the Hino plant has been there 2 or 3 years.

Kitchener has lost the vast majority of it's automotive parts manufacturing, and BOTH tire plants. Kitchener Frame, formerly Budd Automotive, just closed for good last year. Almost lost lear seating this year.. Lost most of the tool and die businresses too.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:06:13 -0500, clare wrote:

The Vibe was being built on the same line as the Matrix. We used to see them on the trucks with the..um...Matrices (?) being delivered!

Both my Sister in law and her husband lost real good jobs when the Fair Trade Agreement came on line. I don't know what...er, was it Mulroney at the time? was thinking...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

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.