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

Page 13 of 16  
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:


I see what I see. If you paid attention you might too.
The FTC for whatever reason seems to be intensely interested in claims manufacturer make about automobile related products. They seem to think it is extremely important to police the after market products for cars. However, there power is pretty much limited to determining if advertising claims are valid.
    It has been my observation that if anyone attempts to market a product in the USA that is related to the automobile you had better be prepared with a mountain of evidence to support any advertising claims that you make about that product. If Fram filters are not able to prove that their claim that they meet or exceed all the engine builders specifications for their filters those filters will soon be removed from the store shelves. Or at the very least they will be forced to stop making the claims. And if that were to happen you would have actual real world evidence that I would believe rather than just internet folk tales that I find unconvincing.
    File a complaint if you think there is a case to be made. This is not that complicated. It is not as if it takes a rocket scientist to hydrostatic test and determine the burst pressure of an oil filter.
    I think you could go down to your local Walmart and take every single one of the hundreds of Fram filters they have in stock and you wouldn't be able to find a single one that is out of compliance.
    The manufacturing sector in the USA may be in decline, but it is not yet as broken as your imagination has conceived it to be. This is just an oil filter we are talking about. It is not that complicated.
-jim

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

If it hasn't anything to do with automotive safety or emission controls, they are less "rabid" in their enforcement.

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

So you're saying that it's all hot air and no Fram filter has failed.
On what do you base that??

I don't think that I am ignorant I take it you have some medical qualifications to make that diagnosis. I am certainly not superstitious.

Some months ago I bought an espresso coffee machine. Top of the line model from a reputable manufacturer. An electronic component failed. The replacement (brand new straight out of the box) arrived friday. Setting it up today and it fails to produce any steam. Tomorrow it goes back. I don't think it would be ignorance or superstitious of me to tell friends and dissuade them from buying that brand.

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

You got the hot air part right. I have seen no evidence that Fram filters fail often enough to justify the hysteria you promote. If you buy a new car and use Fram filters on it and follow the car makers recommended service procedures, from the real evidence I have seen, you will have a statistically better chance of having your car run over by a bus than have it done in by the Fram filters.

You believe in what you think are facts without any real evidence to support them.
    And yes I have authentic certified license to spot internet quacks. I downloaded it from the official international web site for study and identification of internet folklore and fiction.
-jim

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
I'll tell you waht, Jim. You are free to believe as you like, and to use Fram filters on your vehicles. Nobody's forcing you to forgo your "orange" fix. The rest of us are free to use anything BUT Fram if we so wish. For you, it appears Fram Filters are either a religion or a political party (not that American politics much differentiates) and you have decided you don't want to hear the facts, your mind's already made up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yet another perfect, textbook example of a steaming pile of horseshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bugalugs wrote:

When it comes to consumer products, often anecdotal evidence from users of the product, and reviews from individuals that tear down and evaluate the build quality, are all you have to go by. For oil filters there's no independent testing agency that runs around testing every model of filter from every manufacturer on every different vehicle that the filter fits.
Based on the teardowns of Fram filters, and based on extensive anecdotal evidence, the logical thing to do would be to play it safer by going with an OEM filter rather than risk using a Fram filter. Maybe all the reports of Fram filter failures are fiction, but those reports, combined with so many different evaluations by those that disassemble filters, make it probable that where there's so much smoke that there's probably fire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS wrote:

No and that would not be very intelligent way to manage Quality Assurance. You don't need an 1980 air-cooled VW or a 1972 Dodge Dart and 30 below temperatures to hydrostatic test the burst pressure of a filter. Burst test are in fact done by independent laboratories.

Teardowns by whom? Are you talking about idiots on the internet cutting filters open? Or are you talking about the Quality Assurance department (that every engine manufacture has), which carefully examine all the engines that get replaced under warranty and sent back to the manufacturer?

In some cases the OEM filter is made by Fram. Did your internet sources for folklore fail to inform you of that?

Yes and that is exactly what an hysterical true believer would imagine. But where is there any believable evidence? The only thing I see evidence of is a phenomena I call folklore and mass hysteria.
    The fact is that millions of Fram filters are used on engines under warranty. Some of those engines do fail and manufacturers do replace those failed engines and all engine makers do post-mortems to determine what causes failures. So if there really was any smoke or fire it would show up somewhere at some time in that process. But that is not where the evidence is coming from. The so called evidence is always somebody with an old beater that has deluded himself and is now trying to convince others that a Fram filter is the bogeyman out to get his engine.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And all engines that get replaced are sent back to the manufacturer to be torn down???? NOT!!! Mabee one in 10, or one in 50, or every one that dies a particular death after they decide they just MIGHT have a quality problem. Certainly not anywhere close to every failure.

Name me a single OEM filter currently confirmed to be made by Fram and specify which of the numerous Fram models it actually is.

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

May be that is what Toyota does but the US auto makers insist on doing failure analysis.

Well I read it at the beginning of the thread and that was a long tome ago but from memory Honda, Subaru and Mack trucks have their filters made by Fram.

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

Ford didn't take my engine back for analysis when they changed it. It went into the scrap bucket after the"road man" verified it had, in fact, been replaced. A lot of Chrysler engines were scrapped before they decided they had a sludge/coking problem that needed to be addressed - after which they took several hundred back for inspection

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

You see the same kind of claims by corporations that are as clueless as Jim. Just look at the Amsoil warranty claims. Even though there are specific reasons why most Amsoil products cannot be API certified, and these reasons can have negative effects you get the song and dance about how no one has ever shown that a failure was related to the oil, as if that constitutes proof of anything.
Premature engine failure, of engines already out of warranty, are the key problem with using inferior quality filters. The engine fails at 150K miles rather than 300K miles because of a faulty anti-drainback valve and there's no teardown of the engine to figure out why it failed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SMS wrote:

Well I didn't know much about amsoil but something smelled very fishy in your story so a quick trip to their web site at amsoil.com and and look at their 5w30 oil and it claims to have API certification. It also has ILSAC 4 certification. Then i took a trip to the API webpage and sure enough Amsoil Inc. is listed in their licensee directory.
    So where are you getting your misinformation?

Except that is complete bullshit that you created by pulling it out of your clueless ass. I have tested the anti-drainback valves on Fram filters and they do not fail as the mythology claims they do. I have never heard of any of the internet story tellers who have actually ever tested the valve on a single filter. Not one person that is passing on this folklore has checked one single valve.
    I have checked them on filters after they were used using the dirty oil and have never found one that didn't work. The people who claim they are likely to leak don't have a clue. They are just idiots. If you cut the filter open, then the valve as well as the rest of the filter will no longer function properly. The very definition of a retard is someone who cuts a filter open to see if the anti drain back valve works.
If you want your engine to last 500K miles just buy the cheapest oil and filter and change the oil every 3000 miles. If you are really concerned about keeping dirt from harming your engine it makes very little sense to concoct an elaborate and expensive scheme for storing dirt inside your engines lubricating system. That is not a fail safe method of dealing with engine dirt. It makes much more sense to let your neighborhood recycling center take the dirt rather than trying to store it inside your engine. Removing the dirt from the engine is a completely safe way to prevent the dirt from harming your engine. Attempting to store the dirt in your oil and filter does not always work as effectively. By simply complicating the process you have increased the chance that it will fail.          That said there really is no need to try to make your engine last 500K miles. There are very few people willing to do what it takes to make the rest of the car last anywhere near that long. If you use any approved oil and filter and change at the recommended intervals there is very little chance that the engine will crap out due to a lubricant problem before the rest of the car is shot.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jim wrote:

That statement, read in conjunction with the first sentence of that paragraph says it all....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How are you checking them?
Here is what happened to me...
1997 Ford Expedition 5.4L V8. Cold morning (at least for NC). Started truck and got a horrible racket for a few seconds (seemed longer). Scared the crap out of me. I checked with a mechanic I trust and he told me that was a sign of a leakig anti-drain back valve. The Ford 5.4L engine uses oil pressure to tension the chains. If the anti-drain back valve leaks, the oil will leak back out of the system. On a cold morning this can extend the lenght of time it takes for oil pressure to build up and tension the chains. Loose chains rattle. The mechanic told me it was extremely important to use a filter with a silicone anti-drain back valve like the Motorcraft FL820S. I researched it further and it found that the commonly used nitrile anti-drain back valves do sometimes have problems with sealing. This is the type of anti-drain back valve in the Extra Guard Fram filter. Turns out in my case that was the type of filter on the truck when I had the problem. From then on I only used FL820S filters on that truck and never had the problem reoccur. To be fair, Fram does include silicone anti-drain back valves on their more expensive filters (like the Tough Guard).

If you cut open the filter carefully and the anti-drain back valve is hard and/or deformed I think you can decide it is a poor design. From what I have seen the only difference between the Extra Guard and Tough Guard anti-drain back valve is the material (design/dimensions are identical). If nitrile is just as good as silicone, why would Fram note that as a reason that the Tought Guard filter is better and cost twice as much? For some engines, the anti-drain back valve is not particularly important. For others, it can be very important.
Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:03:27 -0800 (PST), Ed White

You change the filter yourself? How's the filter set on the 5.4? Horizontal, or somewhat bottom down? Do you fill the new filter with oil? If so, how much is retained while putting the filter on? Do you get the clatter on the start up after an oil change? Think about it. You should. Every time. Unless that clatter had absolutely nothing to do with the filter.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:21:24 -0600, Vic Smith

You do and it does. That's why the RECOMMENDED method is to pull the ECU fuse and crank 'till you get oil pressure before starting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:39:29 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Looks like I wasn't clear, so let me say it a different way. You hear clatter (or whatever you deem oil-related bad sounds) when you start your car. You blame it on the filter anti-drainback not working right. Basically a dry filter. A simple test to prove that is to replicate the conditions with a dry filter when you do an oil change. If all else if equal - temperature and time shut down, you should hear the same sound. Personally, I always change my oil warm, and usually have it done and running again within 1/2 hour or so. If you only hear the clatter after the engine is shut down for say 12 hours, you would have to leave it shut down for 12 hours after the oil change to replicate that condition. Seems you would hear the same noise after the oil change. But it's not that simple. What if you don't hear the noise after changing in a dry filter? That might indicate the anti-drainback valve isn't the problem. Maybe the old filter was clogged and delayed pressure build-up at the parts being lubed. Maybe the old filter developed some sort of cavitation or airlock issue as it aged. Anyway, Mr White's case is just inconclusive. I've heard plenty of transitory "rackets" when starting engines that had nothing to do with oil. Not saying it wasn't the filter. Just inconclusive to me. Not taking a stand on the Frams because I don't use them. But it's not real hard to test filters yourself if you set down some test parameters on paper and follow them diligently. I never will, because I've not had lube issues on my cars. If I did, I'd probably just try a few different filters to see if that helped, as some here have done. And I never fool around soaking a filter or pulling the ECU fuse. Can you imagine the Jiffy Lube guys pulling ECU fuses? hehe. New can of worms there.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:38:02 -0600, Vic Smith

Except I know of cases where the problem STARTED with an oil and filter change. And cases where filters were changed immediately thereafter and the noise went away (with another Fram filter, even). They don't ALL leak - but in my experience too many did years back (I'm talking '70s and '80s) - and I never found a reason to go back to using them myself, or when I had any say what was going onto customer's vehicles. I believe Canadian Tire had Fram making some of their filters in '75/ '76 and we had issues with them over the couple months I worked there on my return from Africa. The lube guys would do an oil change, and a couple days later the car was in the shop with complaints of the oil light taking too long to go out, or valve noise on startup.
When I ran the service bays at the Shell station ( I was shop foreman - 6 bay garage) we didn't use Fram filters - Shell filters were Kralinator, I believe , and we'd get customers coming in complaining of oil light taking too long to go out, or valve noise on startup. Asked the customer when it started, and when they last had an oil change - could be the oil had broken down/gone thin / been fuel diluted etc. If the oil had been changed recently and the oil felt/smelt good we'd check the filter.
If the filter was orange we'd change it first.
USUALLY solved the problem.
At the Esso station I ran we used Atlas Filters - made IIRC by Purolator.
Then at Toyota we used the Toyota supplied filters (Purolator or WIX) and when we ran out Mopar/AutoPar filters which were also made at that time by Purolator. The Chrysler dealer up the road was pretty agressive with their wholesale pricing and we used their filters on all the non-Toyota vehicles we serviced.
I likely replaced a few non-Fram filters for the same problem - but definitely not very many and I could not tell you what brand or on what car. On Toyota 3K engines I remeber we had a lot of issues with lazy oil pressure lights - which were USUALLY caused by the infamous "Oil Pisser" switch. If the switch wasn't wet, the filter was the next thing we looked at (filter was base down) The 8R and 18R engines were the same. On the T engines the filter was horizontal and the filters were less critical. Same with the M series and the 20r and 22r engines. On these engines it was USUALLY the "oil pisser" switch when oil lights were slow going off. They all had solid lifters, so valve clatter was not an issue. On the 8 and 18R series, the hydraulic timing chain tensioners would complain very loudly on dry starts - lots of chain rattle and not infrequently broken chain guides. Funny, virtually NEVER had problems on vehicles we did all the service on The early F had a remote mounted filter, base up and didn't need an anti-drain valve. (the old "stovebolt" Chevy engine made under licence)

Back "in the day" we ALWAYS pulled the coil wire and cranked the engine 'till the oil light went out or the needle moved. it was POLICY. Then we got those darn integrated ignition units on the Toyota " A" series engines - no coil wire - so we soon had to back down on "policy" - but it was still recommended that the engine NOT be allowed to come up to speed before the light went out. Crank it, and if the engine started, shut it off and crank it again if the light didn't go out right away.

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

Your not keeping up with the folklore. Most of the Fram bashers I have read say that Fram made good filters back then. According to all the folklore I have read on the internet it was only after the companies ownership changed in the 90's that the filter became cheap and unreliable. Before that according to most folklorists they were good filters.
    You missed the point of the post you were responding to for the second time.

But all of this is ancient history and not particularly useful to most people today. It may interest you to know that in the period from 1950's to the 90's almost every multigrade dino oil on the market gave inadequate protection if the engine oil temp exceeded 240F. That means if your engine overheated you were basically screwed. And the affect of heat on the oil was not temporary in most cases it was permanent. that means if you didn't change the oil immediately following the overheating incident you were doubly screwed. The fact that you have horror stories that revolve around engine lubrication problems from 30 years ago is not at all surprising. But what does this ancient history have to do with today?

OK so you have been superstitious for a long time. I have never seen a filter of any type cause problems in a clean engine. I've never seen a dirty engine that wasn't in a death spiral. The fact that you were very good at treating the symptoms and ignoring the root causes of problems is not very impressive.

That's because you are superstitious. You see and remember what you want to see and remember don't see and remember what you don't want to see and remember. Take the guy with the motocraft filter that had missing threads. That story till now was mostly forgotten. Had that been a story about a Fram filter, you would by now be able to google and find that story on 50 web pages. All I see is evidence that you are not the only one. There more than just you that predisposed to selectively remembering things.

Yes and this means what? Again all i see is someone who is only interested in symptoms not root causes. Foe example, take the case of an engine with hydraulic lifters. If the engine and oil is kept clean then the check valve in each valve lifter should keep the lifter filled while the oil is being changed. In a properly working engine you really shouldn't be getting valve clatter when you start the engine after the oil change. It is only in dirty and/or worn engines that lifters will bleed down wile you are doing an oil change.

Well that is mostly just superstition. There are plenty of engines that use cheap oil and filter and they get changed and started up after the oil change without any special procedure and the engine ends up lasting longer than the rest of the car. There is no evidence that your precautions would make any difference to the life of the engine.
-jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

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