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."

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

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

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

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.

?Part=51123>

?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

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

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.

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

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

nate

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

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...

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

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.

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

(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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.