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

the FTC and Slick 50

In 1997, three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. (the makers of Slick

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

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

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

50,000 miles."

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

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

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

Reply to
Richard
Loading thread data ...

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

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

Reply to
SMS

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.

formatting link
?Part=51123>

formatting link
?Part=51143>

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

Reply to
jim

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

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

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

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

-jim

Reply to
jim

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

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

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

Reply to
Nate Nagel

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

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

Sure, common knowledge, in the same manner as John Glenn being the first man to land on the moon, Napoleon being defeated at the Battle of.Gettysburg and Tom Sawyer as the author of Huckleberry Finn.

formatting link

Reply to
Heron McKeister

That must have been one severely abused, mistreated car.

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

One car? unusual.

2 cars? This guy's just lucky. Three cars? I'd say the company makes good cars...
Reply to
Hachiroku

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

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

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- over-lean condition on bank #1) and it still "mooses" when it is cold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply to
clare

And better than the Mopars and Fords that you buy, according to what you state below. That's your opinion and experience I guess. Mine is I get perfect reliability out my used Chevys. Which means to me they never worry me or strand me. If I toss on a $100 alternator once in a while or a $20 water pump every 60k miles, or a starter, that's small change. All I've replaced on Chevys gave me fair warning. The only exception was a bad ignition switch on my '90 Corsica, which required a tow to a shop. But even that doesn't change my mind. Better than paying extra thousands and feeling like a sucker. There's perception and there's reality. I measure reality in cash.

There's no reason to buy a lemon nowadays unless you're not doing your homework. I suspect the Pontiac was long ago, or you didn't do your homework.

--Vic

Reply to
Vic Smith

(for those who've forgotten posts from weeks past.. I blew up an Orange Fram when priming (w/electric drill) a rebuilt early chev 283 with an aftermarket "spin-on adapter")

I'm "the guy". I forget the brand of the adapter, but it was a respected name brand item. I'd used the same exact ones before with no problem.

After blowing up the Fram filter, I put on a Hastings filter and topped the oil back up.

The Hastings *didn't* blow up.

I'd say "Jim" is the clown. I'm still trying to decide if he works for Fram or one of their distributors; or if he's just an argumentative Fram fanboi.

Reply to
nobody >

I had a '74 3KC, 1200cc engine Corolla. I had another one in '78, but a Mustang saw fit to end it's life at 51,000 miles. Then I got a "Trueno",

1980 Corolla coupe with a 1.8. First year model, too. 240,000 miles later I bought the "Hachiroku" '85 Corolla GTS (Trueno) that I drove until 2001, and then rarely for three more years. Slowly returning to the Elements in the back yard, alas getting too rusty to fix.

But I can get one of these down the street for $600...

formatting link
Body is in very good condition, and the 4A-GE will bolt right in, along with some other parts from the GT-S. Even the wheels will fit.

This could get interesting...

BTW, my '74 Corolla blew a rear end at 14,000 miles, which Toyota replaced no problem, and then went on to 210,000 miles even though while I was away at school my father ran it for a few MONTHS without the cap on the oil fill...

A few years ago someone gave me an '83 Tercel AWD wagon, 5-speed with an EL gear you could only get to in AWD; I used to plow through the drifts with it. I repaired the body once, ran it for two winters, and when it started rusting again I gave it up. Thing was an absoulte tank. Had

210,000 miles on it when I got it, and I only used it in the winter.

One of the absolute best winter cars we ever had was a '72 Corona my Mom bought new. It didn't even need snow tires. However, the '80 Corolla was unbearable, and the 85 GT-S was immovable when it snowed. I never drove it in the winter, anyway.

Reply to
Hachiroku

They rarely do. Funny how a lot of people that do long-haul truck maintenance insist on Hastings....

Reply to
Hachiroku

If you were really interested in having a strong filter container on that engine you would have stayed with the one that was designed for and came with the engine.

Here is the problem I have with the common folklore that some people are pretending is common knowledge. The folklore got its beginning with people cutting open filters and analyzing the contents - something similar to reading tea leaves in a cup. If you look at the big picture the number of people who share this common set of beliefs about Fram filters being junk is pretty small compared to the number of engines that are using Fram oil filters without any incident. That is there are a large number of people out in the world at large that apparently do not buy into the so called common knowledge about Fram filters. The group that does nurture this common folklore is small and the number of Fram filters that this group uses is even smaller since many of them claim to have used only one Fram filter in their whole life. Yet this small group produces a rather astonishingly large number of all the stories about Fram filters being the bogeyman. Of course the folklore includes a ready explanation for this. This group is knowledgeable and all the others are ignorant.

The Fram folklore stories seem to run along lines like this:

I modified the lubricating system on my engine and the filter blew up I'm sure the fault was due to the Fram bogeyman.

I bought an old beater for $500 that has 250K miles. It has low oil pressure. This must be the Fram bogeyman.

My engine has low oil pressure. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the slick 50 i have been putting in it. it must be the Fram bogey man again.

And so on and so on.

I'm sorry but i don't buy that these are stories from knowledgeable people. IMO these are stories from superstitious people.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Ths conversation was suppose to be on oil filters and now we are talking quality of vehicles. From my 46 years of ownership with automobiles, I have never seen any problem with any engine from oil filters from any manufacture.

My area does not have to deal with cold temperature starts; we luck if we even get down to low 30's in the winter.

As far as car quality of cars, I have owned Fords, Toyotas, Pontiac, Chevys, Mazada, and Dodge. Every vehicle I owned was driven for over 150,000 miles before I sold it or traded it in except for one Ford that had 3 miles over

70K when I traded it and promised never to own another Ford. That vehicle had two transmissions replaced under warranty and when it went out with 70K plus 1 mile and Ford refuse to replace it because it was one mile out of warranty, I put a new tarnsmission in it and drove it to the Pontiac dealership and traded it in. I knew people are going to agree with Ford it was out of warranty but my arguement was the vehicle was repaired twice for the same problem (once an 29K and once at 55K) and it went out again. There was an issue with the transmission and they would not acknowledge the problem. Interesting, 6 months after I got rid of the car, one of the Ford mechanics told me that Ford issued a service bulletined stating what was causing premature transmission failures in theses cars.

So my belief is that all make good quality cars and they all make crap at times. I do believe it is how you maintain your vehicles will determine how long they last.

My present vehicles are all Dodges and no issues with any of them but they are all serviced by the dealership my wife works at. They have caught some potential problems and took corrective action to fix before any major repairs. By the way, I only let one of the dealers mechanic work on our vehicles.

Reply to
Licker

I use premium filters, not Fram, and change oil at 3500 miles. I dont consider it throwing away money, and you have no proof that it IS...just an opinion.

Reply to
hls

LOL, YOU'RE the one changing the oil far more often than every expert mechanic, and every vehicle manufacturer says is necessary for maximum engine life. It's you that has to provide the proof that there's an advantage, not everyone else that has to disprove it.

Reply to
SMS

"jim" wrote in message news:3tCdnaZoQMcFkoXWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@bright.net...

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
formatting link
. 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?

formatting link
?Part=51123>>

formatting link
?Part=51143>>

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

Reply to
C. E. White

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.