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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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) -
[I previously 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
Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end
caps often come loose.
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
. 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
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
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
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
Explain why this would be the case. I have a purpose designed device
for cutting open filters. I always cut them open at the base end. The
element always come out whole. The only filter I've ever cut open with
detached pleats was a Fram filter (although the I am amazed that some
of the Delco filters don't fail as well).
I've never had this problem. I've never claimed to have even seen this
happen. In fact, I can't see how it would happen unless you had a
filter that was almost completely plugged. The pressure differential
across the filter media is usually much less than 10 psi (more like
2). Anyperson with a collasped filter core likely used oil that was to
viscous and didn't change the filter for ages. I have heard of people
blowing filter cans open, but this is a whole different problem. The
pressure diffferential accross the filter wasn't the problem, it was
the internal pressure in the oil system (as with a stuck pressure
relief valve). I suppose a blown case might damage the fitler core,
but it might not as well. The pressure inside and outside the filter
core is still limited by the bypass valve. SO as long as the bypass
valve functions properly, the differential force that might crush the
filter element is relatively low.
Which end cap theory is that? I've been consistent in not liking the
Fram construction techniques. The paper end caps are not particualry
rigid. FIlter media retention is dependent on the glue joint from one
non-rigid body to another non rigid body perpendicular to the first.
They only apply a thin bead on both sides of the filter media and the
inside of the central core. Any gaps or misplacement of the bead can
lead to failure of the joint and leakage past the filter media. Most
other filters use metal end caps and the filter media is completely
encapsulated in glue (or potting compond). The Motor craft filter
media (and central core) are potted into the end caps which are filled
with the glue (or whatever you want to call it). There is little
chance that the media and core won't be firmly attached to a
relatively stiff metal end cap (which includes flanges that make them
much more rigid than the paper end cap used by Fram).
The filter on just about every engine goes into bypass mode at one
time or another. The bypass opens at something like 8 to 16 psi
pressure differential cross the media (varies by application). With
warm oil at an idle, the pressure differential accross the filter
probably never exceeds a few psi. But on a cold morning, when you race
an engine, I'll bet it will and therefore lift the bypass valve.
And you still didn't answer my question about how the Fram bypass
valve works. Saying you don't want it to work is not answering. The
reason I ask you to explain its working is simple. You keep implying
there are no forces which might deform the paper end caps. I suspect
the Fram bypass valve works very poorly. It seems to offer less flow
area than the bypass valves for many other brands. I think it is
possoible this will lead to higher pressure differential across the
element than will be seen by these other brands. Higher forces
pressure differential across the element combined with an inferior
media to endcap bond design has to increase the chances of that bond
failing. Maybe it is still only a minor concern, but again, why pay
the same or more for an inferior design?
Care to point out some of these stories? I Googled Fram failures and I
do see a lot of people unhappy with Fram filters and some stories that
claim engine failure related to Fram filters, but there are not that
many out there. I am not basing my preference for filters other than
Fram on these sorts of stories. I just don't like the way they are
made. You made claims (or at least I thought you made claims) that
Fram filters did a better job of removing stuff from the oil than
other comparable brands. I don't believe this to be true for the
standard Fram filter (the Extra Guard). At best they claim to be about
the same as Wix filters (I am being charitabkle to Fram here). I've
never seen any "official" independent tests that compared the various
filter brands based solely on filtering performance. I have personaly
cut open many different oil filters and see no reason to believe Fram
filters are better than competitive filters from other manufacturers
(like Purolator, Wix, Motorcraft). It is true you cannot devine
filtering efficiency by looking at the media, but I would argue that
media of the same thickness, densisty, and appearance are likely to
have similar filtering performance - particualy since when the
manufactuers claim similar efficiency. Fram does claim greatly
superior efficiency compared to some unnamed "economy filter." I've
never seen them try to compare thier Extra Guard filters to filters
avaialble at similar prices from the other major filter suppliers
(Wix, Purolator, Motorcraft). It is pretty easy to claim you are great
compared to some theoretical bad filter. Maybe Fram should match
claims with Purolator (Purolator claims the PureOne Filter removes
99.9% of particle 20 microns or larger when tested according to ISO
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:
1) Toyota OE Japan made filter
2) Wix or Napa Gold
3) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch
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
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
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
1) Nissan OE (Japan or China)
2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch
4) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch)
5) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to
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
4) Purolator Pure One
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.
Well your not helping me out by quoting advertising.
I didn't make any dramatic claims I said independent studies have shown
that Fram did better on some of the tests that indicated it removed more
of the smaller particles. I didn't say whether that was good or bad.
According to SAE standards they all remove the amount of dirt needed to
keep the engine running. It's been 30 years since I have seen an engine
that was maintained on the manufacturers schedule that has died due to a
lubrication related failure. If you want to worry about extending the
life of a car worry about how to keep the upholstery or the
No you have failed to understand what I agreed was true. I agreed that
overloading the oil filter is always a bad thing no matter how it
happens. And i agreed that it may be possible that if person switches
filter brands to one that is more aggressive after many many years of
using one that is not aggressive that could make it more likely to
overload the filter.
The point that you can't seem to wrap your head around is that brand
new cars do not come with an accumulation of small particles in the
engine crankcase. Whether or not you believe fine particles are harmful
if the filter is not removing them from the oil then over many years and
miles some of those those fine particles will accumulate. That is why
when you wipe your finger on the inside of some old engines your finger
looks like it is covered with black paint.
Old cars sometimes do come with an accumulation of fine particles and
that certainly makes it more likely that a filter that is more
aggressive will become overloaded.
Well that's what it sounded like. You made your statement in direct
response to the claim that studies have shown Fram to be more aggressive
at removing the smallest particles. You then went on to quote pages of
advertising copy that you seem to think was either proving or refuting
the point depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time.
I quoted what you actually said. You quoted what you actually said. If
what you actually said was meaningless and completely irrelevant to the
discussion (as you seem to be claiming now) why did you say it?
You don't seem to get it - there is nothing particularly useful in
regurgitating advertising copy. I pay no attention to what Fram says
about Fram filters or what Wix says about Wix filters. When you say you
are quoting somebody's advertising I usually skip to the next paragraph.
i can see no point in trying to compare ad copy. Its even dumber than
cutting filters open.
That is what you claimed. At least that was your direct response to the
claim that independent studies have shown they do remove the finest
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
So what are you saying
1) this statement was complete fiction it never happens to any filter.
2) This is what happens to other filters never to Fram filters
3) This is what happens to Fram filters.
It's not my BS several studies have shown that Fram is better at
removing smaller particles then some of the others. IMO It doesn't make
much difference. Which brand removes the smallest particles is a moot
point - its not worth even knowing. It's been 30 years since I have seen
an engine that was maintained properly that had a lubrication related
problem that led to its demise. Cars that have the prescribed
maintenance die from just about anything else nowadays and it doesn't
make a bit of difference if you used a fram or purolator or wix or
whatever. If something else sends the car to the crusher anyway why
worry about it?
But if you are going to worry about it look at the studies that the
truck engine manufacturers have done. The have good evidence that
removing particles down to 2 microns will make a significant difference
in ring and bearing wear.
Nope sorry I'm ot even in the least interested.
Tell me why you are no longer beating your wife.
Well if Cadillacs are so great why offer a chevy. the cheapest filter
you can find will do an adequate job.
Somebody pointed to consumer reports test. I would have to believe that
it made a difference to be motivated to do your work for you.
Whether any of that is true or not makes no real difference. Even if
"Fram filters use the poorest construction techniques blah blah blah"
were true. It wouldn't make any difference. There is practically zero
chance that using Fram filters for the entire life of an engine will
shorten the life of the engine. So all this dissecting of filter parts
and analyzing advertizing c claims is a massive waste of time.
You tell me how the relief valve works. The relief valve itself does not
contact the cardboard end caps so I don't get what you are getting at.
The endcaps are not in the same place so obviously they don't see the
same forces. If you replace the relief valve with cardboard that
cardboard would be affected by pressure.
And all of this is absurd anyway since if you have such a cruddy engine
that you are threatening to blow the by pass valve the brand of filter
is the least of your worries.
the glue not only attaches the end cap it glues the pleats together.
Is that like a distinction without a difference?
I told you I have seen a lot of filters with that construction both
before and after they were used. It looks like it works very well to me.
Based on your superstition.
I agree you have said you never had an engine failure and i do find that
to be refreshingly honest. I didn't mean to imply you had made up
anything. What I meant is the vast number of Fram basher stories I
believe are made up. The think just like you do that "this cant possibly
work" and so they feel compelled to create a story as a cautionary tale
I have seen a lot of filter elements and none have torn. but i can
imagine if they are overloaded the paper pleats will collapse inward and
tear from the ends. But that would happen if the were glued to metal
So now your introducing the idea that fram uses more fragile paper for
the pleats. All the filters i have seen the glue and endcaps are atleast
10 times stronger than the paper.
Well it does happen i've seen pictures. For one thing not all filters
have the bypass valve. Some applications have the valve in the engine.
So one way it happens is using the wrong filter.
Actually they aren't any more rigid.
I know the filter on the car i now drive never goes into by pass mode.
It doesn't have one. And what do you think the pressure regulator does?
It's my answer.
I'm doubt the area of the valve opening is less than the oil galley
leaving the filter. Do you seriously think all these imagined failures
are really going to happen. Do you believe that all the quality control
departments that have look at these filters are so much dumber than you
are? Any large retail chain that is selling the filters or any lube
service center chain is going to have gone over all this much more
thoroughly than you have, because they aren't interested in antagonizing
I claimed that both your study of the advertisements and the study of
filter guts are irrelevant. Putting a filter that is better than or
worse than Fram on your car is not going to make a difference. All the
people that i have seen that claim engine damage from fram are blowing
smoke. They already had or would have had engine damage anyway and that
is assuming you believe the story.
It is superstition when you think taking some action will have an effect
and it won't .
OK you are a strange person then. Why do care if they don't do any harm.
I must admit you have been the only Fram basher that comes across as
being honest. I personally never thought much about filter brands until
i observed the hysteria of others. As far as i can tell the way the
manufacturers have got the bases covered it makes as much sense as
worrying about the brand of gasoline you use. Sure there are
differences. but it isn't really worth the effort to decipher them.
It likely didn't even allow much oil to go unfiltered. The force of the
oil would tend to close in on any tears. It is the opposite of the
forces of a balloon that pops.
OK I'm not going to go through all that. It's like reading your choices
for brands of toilet paper. Its not like you are going to use these
things over and over again. They don't need to be made like a swiss
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
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
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.
Doesn't this seem self evident? I didn't specify a particualr
"certain" size, so the statement could be interperted to mean
particles somewhere between the size of an individual atoms and the
size of the earth. Don't you agree that there are particles so small
that they won't damage your engine? And if there are such particles,
wouldn't it be a bad idea to trap these particles in the filter, since
they would tend to clog up the fitler element and restrict oil flow?
Most engineering decisions are a compromise. In the case of an oil
filter, removing a lot of very small relatively harmless particles
reduces the life of an oil filter without any substantial compensating
benefit. The actual size of the these non-harful particles will be
dependent on the engine design (bearing clearances, materials, design
life, etc.). I am sure there is always a size of particle that could
be considerd harmless (or at least does so little harm that it is
It seems to me that most light vehicle (i.e., passenger car) oil
filters target particles larger than 10 to 20 microns. 20 microns
seems to the most common target for decent filters. Some filters claim
to remove particles as small as 10 microns (but at a reduced
efficiency). For most car owners, I think a filter that removes 96% of
particles 20 microns or larger in one pass is sufficient. Removing
smaller particles might reduce wear but I doubt the difference would
be significant or cost effective. If you change your oil per the
vehicle manufacturer's recommendations (not Jiffy Lube's!) and use a
decent quality fitler, internal engine wear is not likely to be a
significant problem area. For large trucks and industrial equipment, a
more robust filter system may be appropriate. For these applications
there are special oil filtration systems available to remove very
samll particles. I don't think these are cost effective for typical
Yeah, my sweetie would love to put that under our tree ;>)
There are some good engine test labs here in Texas, and I have gone onto
some of their sites, also SAE, but in most cases when there appears to be
data, there is first a $$ charge.
I posted earlier that I just changed my Solara oil and filter today, total
expense $19.63. If I paid $20.00 for an oil analysis, that
would be money rather poorly spent, woundnt it.....
My prejudice against Fram is not based on that, but on other factors.
1) Back in around 1996/1997 or so, I bought a '67 Dart. One thing I did
not like about the car was that when I'd start it first thing in the
morning, it would rattle and clank and the oil light would take a long
time to go out. (it'd quiet down and run silky smooth as soon as the
oil light went out, so it was obviously an oil pressure issue.) The
first time I changed the oil, I just went to the corner FLAPS and bought
whatever they offered - turned out to be a Wix filter. The filter I
took off was a Fram. Ever after, whenever I started it, it'd knock once
or twice and immediately run quiet, and the oil pressure light would go
out almost immediately. After asking online I found that this was not
uncommon. Subsequently my then-girlfriend bought a '69 Valiant with the
same engine and it exhibited the same symptoms and responded to the same
2) Lots of anecdotal reports of Frams failing at the crimp between the
base and can on a cold start on watercooled VW engines (which use heavy
oil - recommended xW40 or xW50 - and can develop 100 PSI or more on a
cold start, I've seen this myself on cars equipped with an oil pressure
gauge) I never experienced this myself, as by the time I got my first
VW I was already soured on Fram by my slant six experiences. In fact, I
ran a Canton/Mecca filter on my Scirocco because I thought I was going
to keep that car forever (and in retrospect, I should have.)
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
I understand your personal feelings about Fram. I dont use them either
but have never had one fail on me. (I prefer not to swim upstream on
matters like this).
I am talking strictly about hard data, and there is little or none available
in general. I am sure the data exists, but extracting it is like pulling
Yeah, Ive heard this sort of anecdotal story before, but I have never
it, nor do I know anyone who has. It could be true....or not.
Been a lot more than one "bad run", both before and after 1994.
Fram plant (allied signal) in Canada was about 35 miles from here and
an aquaintance several years back used to work there.
He jumped ship to Kralinator IIRC, have lost contact with him since
In Waterloo actually - can't tell the difference driving through.
Home of the Blackberry. Stratford is just down the road - home of
Fram/Allied Signal Canadian operations (and Kralinator too)
Right next to Cambridge, home of the Corolla and a hop skip and a jump
from Ingersol's CAMI plant and Woodstock's RAV4 and Hino plants.
I knew Cambridge was the home of the Corolla (and Matrix and Pontiac
Vibe), but i didn't know there was a Hino plant! How long has that been
When I was married to my wife, we used to go stay at her sister's house
in Oshawa...with an upstairs balcony view of the Oshawa Assembly plant.
There is a lot of the automotive industry, both the big guns, and the
supplers in Ontario. At least there was until Bush 1 signed the Fair Trade
Agreement. Then all the suppliers that had Canadian plants closed them up,
since they didn't have to meet the Canadian 1/3 content laws anymore...
No Vibes out of Cambridge as far as I know, and the Hino plant has
been there 2 or 3 years.
Kitchener has lost the vast majority of it's automotive parts
manufacturing, and BOTH tire plants. Kitchener Frame, formerly Budd
Automotive, just closed for good last year. Almost lost lear seating
this year.. Lost most of the tool and die businresses too.
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.