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

That's what makes you so incredibly stupid. There have been MANY tests of oil filters. The Fram crap legend comes from people tearing them apart and finding them to be crap compared to other makes a few dozen times.

And your other comment about tests being "meaningless" unless compared to the mfg "recommended filter" is doubly stupid simply because Mopar. Autolite, Delco, etc, etc do not make filters, they buy them, and they buy them from different makers constantly.

Reply to
Tony D.
Loading thread data ...

Yes, so does that mean they are really crap or just that dozens of people have all come to the same erroneous conclusions? I mean, none of these people have any expertise in the manufacture and design of filters or lubricating systems. And of course when someone questions whether one can tell anything about how well a filter works by looking at it, some of these dozens of people get insulted that there judgment has been called into doubt and so they make up a story that they think proves they weren't wrong.

Yes. How clever of you to notice that.

Here's the comment I made:

"The test will only be meaningful and valid if you go to the dealer and get the manufacturers recommended filter"

That remark was intended to be doubly stupid. This is because the "test" itself to which I was referring was already doubly (or more) stupid. The car in question was a Subaru and if the guy performing the test had taken my advice and gone to the Subaru dealer for a filter, then the filter he put on the car would have been manufactured by Fram and the results of his test would have been no different than if the "test" was done with any other brand.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Who's tests have shown that? I've read everything FRAM calims, and they don't claim to be better than WIX. I can't find numbers for Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters, but I'll bet they are.

And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not important. What is important is removing as many as possible of particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't filtering anything.

Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end caps often come loose.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

The SAE formulates tests that manufacturers must pass to meet engine manufacturer requirements. Among those test are several that determine the filters efficiency at keeping the oil clean by removing particles of various sizes.

formatting link

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

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

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

The procedure to prevent that is called an oil and filter change.

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

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

-jim

Reply to
jim

Let's revise that. Not only has the clattering gone away, but there has been a noticable rise in oil pressure, esp at higher revs. Oil pressure goes much higher than it did before, and does not bottom to 0 on the gauge...

Reply to
Hachiroku

Just for completeness' sake, I ASSume the same brand/weight oil both times 'round? Or did you only top up and not change the oil?

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

I definitely agree with your comment.

In my opinion, a good quality air filter is much more important to the life of your engine than the oil filter. The air filter can keep contaminants out of the engine and oil system. An oil filter can only remove what is already circulating in the engine.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

The large particles cause the fastest and most severe wear to the most parts of the engine. Small amounts of very fine particles wear areas with tight tolerances - things like hydraulic lifters.

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

Some research done by GM in recent years shows ta "Typical low cost oil filter" will remove about 40% of particles in 8 to 10 micron range Typical OEM oil filter will remove about 72% of particles in 8 to 10 micron range . The best full flow filters tested catch 99% of 10 micron particles and up to 95% of 5 micron particles.

Many "particles" in the oil are less than 5 microns - some even sub-micron - and these cause very little wear, if any. HOWEVER, submicrom iron particles act as a type of catalyst in relation to oil oxidayion - and there is some evidence that removing these fine particles magnetically CAN extend the life of engine oil, as well as automatic transmission fluids. This is one reason magnets in transmission pans, on drain plugs, and even in some filters, can be beneficial.

The drainback valve is VERY IMPORTANT on applications that do not mount with ehe "hole" up. A leaky drainback valve will allow the crud captured in the case of the filter to return, with the oil, into the crank-case. Not good. This is over and above the problem with possible dry starts due to filter drainage.

Bypass valves are important too - not necessarilly that they need to work - with the right oil weight anf timely changes the bypass should never come into play - but they MUST SEAL - otherwize unfiltered oil goes through the engine.

The big problem I see with "paper" end caps on the element is it is hard to assure a good, positive, repeatable seal at the bypass valve.

Reply to
clare

I have been using QS Hi-Mileage oil with Slick 50 for the past 3 oil changes, 10W30 or 10W40, depending on when it was changed.

Some say Slick 50 isn't good all the time, so this time it got Mobil Clean

5000, and since winter is coming, 10W30.
Reply to
Hachiroku

Do you have any idea what the test actually requires? Pointing at an abstract is a waste of time. Fram actually provides a brief but interesting description of these tests at

formatting link
.

I should not have said everything...my mistake. An accurate statement would be that I have read all of the literature I could easily obtain from FRAM.

You might want to read

formatting link
From
formatting link
: "FRAM® Extra Guard® Oil Filter for the average motorist who commutes regularly to work, the local store and occasionally embarks on a long road trip. FRAM® Extra Guard® offers 96% single pass efficiency....."

96% is not particualrly good....

From

formatting link
"SAE J806 tests prove that WIX oil filters hold 45% more dirt than the leading national brand -...." We all know that the leading national brand is FRAM... I suppose Wix might lie...but why would you suppose they are more likely to lie than FRAM?

While you are rading FRAM literature, you might also read

formatting link
and/or
formatting link
This rating scheme is designed primarily for hydraulic filters, but it can apply to lube oil filters as well. Too bad they don't provide this rating information for their fitlers. WIX does - for example, see
formatting link
. I am more inclined to trust a company that provided more and better quality information, instead of vauge advertising copy.

Better would be - better filtering efficiency, better capaicty, better construction, etc. Motorcraft doesn't make the sort of statements that WIX does about being x% better than FRAM. They only say "Efficient Filter Media; Re-engineered media increases Motorcraft® filters' dirt-collecting capability, allowing them to capture more engine-harming particles than ever before." This is just advertising copy from

formatting link
. Still, I feel confident a Motorcraft Filter is at least as good as a standard Fram at removing contaminants.
formatting link
is a long paper detailing the potential advantages of installing bypass type filters on larger vehicles (truck and buses) and extending oil change intervals for all vehicles. As part of the study they compared FRAM X2 filters (the really expensive ones that claim to be super good) to standard Car Quest Filters. Here is what they found: "No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance."

Most likely the Car Quest Filters were private label WIX filters. So at least as far as this study was concerned, high priced, "premium" FRAM filters (which Fram claims are superior to their standard filters) are no better than a private branded version of a WIX filter. Here is FRAM's advertising claims for the X2 fitlers:

"The new FRAM® X2T Extended GuardT has all the single pass efficiency of a FRAM® Extra Guard® oil filter but with TWICE THE CAPACITY! FRAM® X2T is the very first premium oil filter to offer an amazing 7,000 miles plus performance! Combined with Triad Technology, the FRAM® X2T filter also features the new FRAM® X2000 high-synthetic blend (70%) media. It's thicker and denser for efficiency and extra capacity, and backed by a rugged, metal screen design that helps achieve uniform pleating, maintaining optimum oil flow, and greatly extended service."

Net: FRAM's best is no better than a bottom of the barrel Car Quest filter....

I have a hard time deciding what the right number is for non-harmful components. I've read some information that indicates particles smaller than 10 microns can lead to significant wear and others that say they are not so harmful. It seems that most filter manufacturers never rate anything below 10 microns, and mostly they are targeting the 20 micron size.

Have you ever looked at the insides of a standard FRAM filter. If not, go to

formatting link
.There is plenty of room for the top end cap (if you can call a piece of paper an end cap) to detach and pull away from the filter element. Compare that to
formatting link
. The Fram filter cost $3.77, the Motorcraft $3.28 (2006 prices). Which would you think was better?

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

I think when my daughter had her old Nissan, her mechanic put some shims behind the spring in the oil pressure relief valve and increased her oil pressure somewhat. Dunno how practical that trick would be for you - just a thought.

Carl

Reply to
1 Lucky Texan

I can't imagine why this would be useful unless there was a problem with the oil pressure relief valve.

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

Small particles cause pretty much the same wear as large - just not as much. And an oil pump will wear out faster pumping dirty oil than clean oil.

That's just marketing BS. There are tradeoffs in engineering a product like this. For instance, after you have stuffed the can full of filter media - how much room have you left for the dirt to accumulate? That would be the question I would ask the toilet paper filter people if I ever met one. Another consideration is how durable is the design - will it fall apart in the field? There are laboratory tests and real world testing that answer these questions. The results of those tests do not agree with the assessments of the amateurs cutting filters open. So who are you going to believe?

All filters remove some particles at even 1 micron. But that fact is more irrelevant BS.

As I said the question of whether you need to go beyond the manufacturers recommendations is simply a question of extra ordinary circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances, anyone can use any filter and any brand oil and follow the car makers regimen and the engine will outlast the rest of the car. Now if for some reason you decide you intend to make the rest of the car last 50 years and 500k miles then it makes sense to start thinking about how to improve on the basic maintenance regimen. But if that extra ordinary circumstance isn't your goal - if you are aware of the fact that the rest of the car is going to be shot at 150K, 200K or 250K (depending on what "shot" means to you) then there is no point in going to the extra effort and expense.

There are SAE designed tests to determine if filter manufacturers valves work to industry standards. But if you are using a filter and it goes into by-pass mode there is something wrong with your maintenance regimen or something wrong with your engine. That is not normal and shouldn't be regarded as normal occurrence.

What does the by pass valve have to do with the end cap? There are engine applications where the engine is equipped with the valve to bypass a plugged filter and its not in the filter.

-jim

Reply to
jim

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

Now you have got your apples and oranges confused. Holding more dirt and removing more dirt from the oil is not really the same thing. But I can assure you that both filters are well above all the minimum industry test standards.

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

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

More arguing with yourself?

Finally after much arguing with yourself, we get to what i asked you about. Yeah those are better than average pictures of cut open filters. And So?

And what would cause it to do that? Are you saying if you turn the engine upside down and run it reverse rotation it is not going to work? Well probably so. The oil pressure is all pushing it in the direction to hold it in place. It can't go anywhere even if they didn't use glue to hold it in place. And you still haven't explained why you think that heavier fiber is the weak link and not the lighter filter media. And by what mechanism this failure of the cardboard end cap occurs. Sure if you open any filter you can tear the paper parts to pieces with your bare hands - but so what?

So that's it? So why did you need to cut filters open and argue all the marketing BS with yourself if all it comes down to is the price on the box? If you had said that in the first place I would have said Yeah grab the cheaper one.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Where did I claim "filtering small particles is not needed?" What I actually said was - "And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not important. What is important is removing as many as possible of particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is plugging up the filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't filtering anything."

I am all for filtering small particles that are potentially harmful. I pointing out that having a filter that filtered out particles that were very samll was not necessarily a good thing.

How do you know that? All we know is that FRAM tested per a particualr SAE standard and that FRAM® Extra Guard® offers 96% single pass efficiency....." What is the minimum industry test standard? What does a particualr vehicle manufacturer require.

Well the WIX link is fact filled, unlike the typical FRAM ad. You should at least look. The FRAM links are not actually marketing literature, they are discussions of proper fitler rating methods I though you might find it interesting.

The WIX filter has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=12/25 - which implies a 91.7% efficiency of removing 2 micron particles and a 96% efficiency at removing 20 micron particles. The Fram literature at

formatting link
claims the standard FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard) is 95% efficient at removing 20 micron and greater particles. We have no idea how good it is for smaller particles. And even at 20 microns, it is inferior to the WIX filters.

Well I am sorry if it came out that way. I don't see where I said "small particle removal was unimportant." See comments above.

Not really. I don't actaully know the right answer. I was just pointing out that claiming high filtering efficiency for small particles is not an unmixed blessing. You need to trade off micron size, filtering efficiency, and filter capacity. I was wrong about other manufacturer's not rating below 10 microns, the WIX information actually included the filtering efficiency for 2 micron particles.

Surely you can't be that dense.What causes the bypass valve to open.....the same forces that open the bypass valve can separate the filter media from those paper end caps. In some samples they are barely glued on.

Here is what happens - high pressure on the outside of the media, low pressure on the inside of the media - pressure deforms folds in filter media, filter media separates from end caps at poorly glued joints, oil bypasses filter media, unfiltered oil circulates through engine....not a good thing.

I've cut open used FRAM filters and found them separated. For years I swallowed the FRAM advertising copy. Only after I started cutting open used fitlers did I realize how crummy they are.

Even if the Motorcraft filter cost a $1 more, I'd prefer it over the FRAM. My pouint would be that FRAM is selling a low quality product for more than higher quality items from other suppliers. I can't say a Motorcraft filter is the best filter for the money, but I can say I'd be willing to pay a lot more for one than I would for the standard quality FRAM filter.

What would your reason be for buying FRAM's standard filters? The only possible reason I can see is low cost - and they aren't even particularly cheap!

Ed

Reply to
C. E. White

That would be practical only when it increases the oil pressure. If the reason an engine has low oil pressure is a weak spring in the oil pressure relief valve that is certainly something that should be addressed. Fixing a mechanical problem will always get you farther than resorting to superstitious beliefs.

Typically if the oil pressure is low in an old engine changing the spring isn't going to help because if the engine can't develop enough pressure to open the regulator valve then increasing the spring tension isn't going to affect the oil pressure.

-jim

Reply to
jim

Typical minimum requirements for a automotive application were something like removing 80% of the 40 micron particle in a single pass. The 96% rating Fram advertises I beleive is for a particular test which may be single pass at 20 microns (I've seen it but don't remember). Any filter is well above the minimum requirement. But the single pass test is a fairly old test. there have been other tests that are more commonly used since then.

As I said you are the one who claimed the extra filter efficiency was unnecessary so don't expect me to now defend your previous position.

Using which test protocol?

Which filters are you comparing. Fram has 4 different lines that are designed to perform differently under various different test protocols so that the customer has a choice depending on what they might to consider important.

There have been independent laboratories that run the various SAE tests and make apple to apples comparisons. All the advertising literature is going to highlight the tests where they perform best and not mention where they don't perform as well. And they all perform well above the minimum required and any differences are simply not likely to show up during the life of the engine if you follow the car maker's maintenance schedule during the ordinary life of an ordinary car.

The filtering efficiency at different sized particle are all part of test procedures. As I said any advertising is going to cherry pick whatever they happen to think makes them look good. It really doesn't say anything about how two brands compare when you pick the results of one test from one brand and compare it to the results of another test from another brand.

No it can't. Cardboard is used as gasket material all the time particularly for things that need to seal in oil. . When you torque something down tight onto such a gasket you put a lot more force on the cardboard than the oil does but it doesn't damage it or cause it to move anywhere.

All filters have a metal containment tube in the outlet. If you look inside the outlet hole of a Fram you will see the STEEL containment cylinder. Look up what all the filter manufactures say about damage to or collapse of that center supporting steel tube. They all agree that if that center support tube becomes damaged or collapsed there is something drastically wrong with the engine or the maintenance that the engine receives. They all agree that damage to that tube never happens on an engine that is working properly and is properly maintained. This is not unique to fram. If the filter media collapses and pulls away from the end caps why do you think having metal end caps is going to be beneficial?

If the center support tube that you can see when you look down the center hole isn't damaged there is no way the cardboard on the ends can come loose or migrate into the oil flow. It is not designed so that there is any force to pull it apart. If the filter media itself becomes damaged or torn or collapsed then that is that on any brand filter. The filtering media can colapse and pull away from the metal end cap just as easily (or maybe even more easily). There are tests that are performed to measure the strength and the ability to withstand dynamic flexing. And all the filters are made to meet these specifications.

Well either you are lying or they only were separated due to the fact that you cut them open. Either way its not very interesting. There is no way the forces inside an operating filter can cause them to separate even if they were assembled without any glue( if you left them alone and didn't cut them open). SWome filter manufactures that have metal ends don't use any glue so how well do you think that seals the ends of the filter. But still the ends themselves don't come apart simply because all the forces when in operation are working to hold them together.

I had a chevy 283 that took a replacement cartridge filter. For 30 years every oil change, I took out a paper cartridge that had cardboard on both ends and put in another with cardboard on both ends. This is a proven reliable design. There is absolutely no reason to panic because you see cardboard

The reason to buy one is they work as well as the other brands and I find no particular reason to listen to people who offer advice based on their belief in imaginary scenarios of what might happen. I might as well take advice from people who believe in witchcraft

-jim.

Reply to
jim

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

Reply to
jim

Meh?

I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the Slick 50. Never used it; but it seems awful hokey.

nate

Reply to
Nate Nagel

I took my old Nissan Van to the metal recycler a week ago. That thing lasted me well for 20 years and 200,000 miles. Last I saw, it was laying on its side next to a 40 foot high pile of scrap. Kind of sad.

Reply to
Bob F

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.