"jim" wrote in message news:3tCdnaZoQMcFkoXWnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@bright.net...
I was jsut trying to help you out. You made some really dramatic claims for Fram filters (like "tests have shown they [Fram] do remove smaller particles than wix or purolator." I thought if I posted what Honewell actually claims and what the test involves, you might quit making claims that exceed what the manufacturer claims.
Again, you are making up stuff and trying to twist what I said. I never said Frams are too agressive at removing small paricles. You are taking stuff out of context and trying to interpert it to imply I said things that I never said. Go back and read the original statement in context. It was a broad general statement, that even you agree is true - removing very small "NON-HARMFUL" particles is not a good thing., I never said Fram filters did this (in fact I am sure they don't). I certainly never said anything like - "Frams are bad because they are too aggressive at removing the smallest particles." It seem you arguement technique is to deliberately misinterpert what someone saids and then attack a your twisted version of the position, while pretending not to notice what they actually said.
For reference, here are the original paragraphs in context (forgive me for reposting something) -
***Begin Repost*** [You said][I previously said] [You said:]
[I said]
Who's tests have shown that? I've read everything FRAM calims, and they don't claim to be better than WIX. I can't find numbers for Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters, but I'll bet they are.
And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not important. What is important is removing as many as possible of particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't filtering anything.
Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end caps often come loose.
****End Repost****You are now claiming that I implied Fram filter could lead to problems becasue they filter too fine particles. This was actually your claim ("If you have an old beater that is loaded up with an accumulation of those fines plus a worn out oil pump from many years of pumping those small particles putting a Fram filter on the engine can lead to trouble").Clearly I never said Fram filter were particlularly good at removing fine particles. In fact, I repeatedly questioned your unsupported claims that "tests have shown they [Fram] do remove smaller particles than wix or purolator." I was sure this was BS then and I still do. There are no tests that I have seen that show this. My comments about the dark side of removing very small particles was in direct response to yourr BS claims about Fram removing smaller particles than Wix or Purolator. I was not claiming that Fram filters were bad becasue they removed very small particles, I was responding to your BS about how Fram could remove very small particles. No filter manufacturer (not even Fram) would create a filter that removes particles that were to small to be harmful. This would increase filter cost for no reason and actually make it less useful.
Go back and read what Honeywell actually claims - they are claiming an efficency based on a multi-pass test, just like Wix. Honeywell is using the newer ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test, Wix is referencig the older SAE J1858 multi-pass test. Wix actually provides the Beta Ratio from the test. Honeywell just quotes one number for 20 micron particles. For the Extra Guard they claim 95% for particles 20 microns are greater. As I pointed out, the Beta ratios provided by Wix imply a
96% efficiency at removing particles 20 microns or greater. The two companies are using different multi-pass test standards, but I think it is reasonable to assume the results for a given particle size should be comparable. BTW, Purolator claims the PureOne removes 99.9% of all particles 20 microns or larger when tested according to ISO 4548-12 (same test Fram is using in claiming 95% efficiency seeActually I think the more expensive Fram fitlers are a horrible choice. The Tough Guard uses basically the same construction techniques as the Extra Guard, but with supposedly better filter medais (99% efficient at removing particles >20 microns) and a silicone anti-drain back valve (like the standard Motorcraft filter). The Xtended Guard is really a weird one - it costs even more, yet it has a lower filtering efficiency than the Tough Guard (97% for >20 microns). It's main claim to fame for it is the addition of a metal screen around the media. The High Mileage Fram filter claims to add some sort of sanke oil to "balance oil PH and maintain viscosity." They are definitely moving into Slick 50 territory with that one.
If the Extra Guard is so great, why offer all these other choices?
I tried, but I cannot find a single one that shows a Fram filter is better than a Wix or Purolator filter. Can you point me towards one?
Again, you are trying to argue against stuff I never said. Here is what I beleive (I'll try to be as clear as possible):
Of the "popular natonwide brands" (Motorcraft, Wix, Purolator), I think Fram filters use the poorest construction techniques. Fram does not claim to have better filtering efficiencies that filters from Motorcraft, Wix, or Purolator. They only claim to be better than unspecified "economy filters." I am not sure which filters these are. The standard Fram Filters (Extra Guard) are not particularly cheap. They usually cost around the same as brands that appear to me to be better made (Motorcraft, Wix, Purolator, and some others). Given that I feel they are not as well made as some others, and that Fram doesn't claim the Extra Guard filters have better filtering efficiency than other brands available on the same shelf in the store (usually Purolator and Motorcraft), and that Extra Guard filters often cost as much or more than other filters I like better (Wix, Purolator, Motorcraft), why would I buy a Fram filter?
OK, again, look at the picture and tell me how the Fram relief valve works. And then tell me why the same forces cannot affect the end caps.
They are not glued together in the manner I was trying to describe. The Fram pleats are open up to the end cap. They are closed off solely by the end cap. The other technigue involves bonding the individual pleats together along the top edge. It gives the top and bottom edges of the element a sucked in look becasue the pleats are bunched tightly together at the ends - sort of like an old wodden barrel instead of a uniform cylinder. The "end caps" are not glued to the filter element at all, they just act like retainers. The Fram end caps are the sealing surface.
NO, see above - completely different techniques.
It can work, but it is not as reliable as other methods. I've never made up any stories about engine failures. QUit trying to dismiss my comments based on things I have never said. I've seen the filter element detached at the glue joint, not torn. I understand that the Fram methods usually woks OK, but I have seen the joint fail as well. I have never personally had any sort of engine failure related to a bad oil filter. I am only saying that compared to other fitlers that are in the same price range, Fram filters use an inferior constrcution technique. Their technique can work, but, in my opinion, it is more likely to fail than other techniques. The results of the failure may be unimportant most of the time, but why would I spend as much or more for a filter that is at best no better than filters from other suppliers?
Explain why this would be the case. I have a purpose designed device for cutting open filters. I always cut them open at the base end. The element always come out whole. The only filter I've ever cut open with detached pleats was a Fram filter (although the I am amazed that some of the Delco filters don't fail as well).
I've never had this problem. I've never claimed to have even seen this happen. In fact, I can't see how it would happen unless you had a filter that was almost completely plugged. The pressure differential across the filter media is usually much less than 10 psi (more like
2). Anyperson with a collasped filter core likely used oil that was to viscous and didn't change the filter for ages. I have heard of people blowing filter cans open, but this is a whole different problem. The pressure diffferential accross the filter wasn't the problem, it was the internal pressure in the oil system (as with a stuck pressure relief valve). I suppose a blown case might damage the fitler core, but it might not as well. The pressure inside and outside the filter core is still limited by the bypass valve. SO as long as the bypass valve functions properly, the differential force that might crush the filter element is relatively low.Which end cap theory is that? I've been consistent in not liking the Fram construction techniques. The paper end caps are not particualry rigid. FIlter media retention is dependent on the glue joint from one non-rigid body to another non rigid body perpendicular to the first. They only apply a thin bead on both sides of the filter media and the inside of the central core. Any gaps or misplacement of the bead can lead to failure of the joint and leakage past the filter media. Most other filters use metal end caps and the filter media is completely encapsulated in glue (or potting compond). The Motor craft filter media (and central core) are potted into the end caps which are filled with the glue (or whatever you want to call it). There is little chance that the media and core won't be firmly attached to a relatively stiff metal end cap (which includes flanges that make them much more rigid than the paper end cap used by Fram).
The filter on just about every engine goes into bypass mode at one time or another. The bypass opens at something like 8 to 16 psi pressure differential cross the media (varies by application). With warm oil at an idle, the pressure differential accross the filter probably never exceeds a few psi. But on a cold morning, when you race an engine, I'll bet it will and therefore lift the bypass valve.
And you still didn't answer my question about how the Fram bypass valve works. Saying you don't want it to work is not answering. The reason I ask you to explain its working is simple. You keep implying there are no forces which might deform the paper end caps. I suspect the Fram bypass valve works very poorly. It seems to offer less flow area than the bypass valves for many other brands. I think it is possoible this will lead to higher pressure differential across the element than will be seen by these other brands. Higher forces pressure differential across the element combined with an inferior media to endcap bond design has to increase the chances of that bond failing. Maybe it is still only a minor concern, but again, why pay the same or more for an inferior design?
Care to point out some of these stories? I Googled Fram failures and I do see a lot of people unhappy with Fram filters and some stories that claim engine failure related to Fram filters, but there are not that many out there. I am not basing my preference for filters other than Fram on these sorts of stories. I just don't like the way they are made. You made claims (or at least I thought you made claims) that Fram filters did a better job of removing stuff from the oil than other comparable brands. I don't believe this to be true for the standard Fram filter (the Extra Guard). At best they claim to be about the same as Wix filters (I am being charitabkle to Fram here). I've never seen any "official" independent tests that compared the various filter brands based solely on filtering performance. I have personaly cut open many different oil filters and see no reason to believe Fram filters are better than competitive filters from other manufacturers (like Purolator, Wix, Motorcraft). It is true you cannot devine filtering efficiency by looking at the media, but I would argue that media of the same thickness, densisty, and appearance are likely to have similar filtering performance - particualy since when the manufactuers claim similar efficiency. Fram does claim greatly superior efficiency compared to some unnamed "economy filter." I've never seen them try to compare thier Extra Guard filters to filters avaialble at similar prices from the other major filter suppliers (Wix, Purolator, Motorcraft). It is pretty easy to claim you are great compared to some theoretical bad filter. Maybe Fram should match claims with Purolator (Purolator claims the PureOne Filter removes
99.9% of particle 20 microns or larger when tested according to ISO 4548-12).
What has superstition got to do with anything? It seem to me you are the one making faith based decisions. As best I can determine you buy Fram fitlers becasue you you assume past performance guarantees future performance and you believe the Fram advertising copy.
Which senario am I moving from / to? I think I have been pretty consistent in saying I don't like Fram filters becasue of the way they are made. I've never said I don't like Fram filters becasue they fail and destroy engines. I have persoanlly seen a Fram filter with the pleats detached from the end caps, but the engine didn't fail (in fact it seems to be doing just fine). I don't buy Fram filters because I think there are better made filters available for the same or even a lower price. When I was younger I used Fram filters all the time. I've never had an engine fail. In fact, I've only ever worn one engine out - a Ford 800 Tractor engine. And, this engine used Fram filters as long as I can remember. It originally had a cartridge filter, but my Father converted it to a Fram spin on around 1960. That's all we ever used on it after that (we used it another 35 years with Fram filters). BTW - it still ran the day we sold it.
Just for the record, here is my filter preference for the different vehicles I maintain:
Toyota
1) Toyota OE Japan made filter 2) Wix or Napa Gold 3) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 4) Toyota aftermarker filter (Thailand made) 5) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch) 6) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to investigate) 7) FramFord
1) Motorcraft (not sure what will happen - Purolator was making them, but last OE filter was different) 2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 3) Wix or Napa Gold (same filter) 4) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch) 5) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to investigate) 6) FramNissan
1) Nissan OE (Japan or China) 2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 3) Wix 4) Mobil 1 (almost same as Bosch) 5) Bosch (it is confusing now since Bosch now owns Purolator - need to investigate) 6) FramHonda
1) Honda OE - except I can't seem to find them these days, the Honda aftermarket filters appear to be Fram 2) Purolator Pure One (at least until they change them now that Bosch owns Purolator) 3) Wix 4) FramMazda
1) Mazda 2) Motorcraft 3) Wix 4) Purolator Pure One 5) FramNew Holland (farm tractors)
1) New Holland (nothing else)Kubota (fram tractor)
1) Kubota (nothing else)I am not particularly rigid on this. Sometimes the local Autozone runs a special where you get a Mobil 1 Filter and 5 quarts of Mobil 1 for a low price. When they do this I always take the deal and use the Mobil
1 Filter. And occasioanly I can't get my preferred brand of filter, so I pick something else. I've even used a Fram on Hondas several times (heck I believe the Honda dealer sells repainted Frams as Honda filters). When I am at my farm, I usually go by a local garage and pick up filters. The garage carries Motorcraft, Delco, and Wix Fitlers, so I use which ever of those he has for my application (BTW, the garage owner doesn't use Fram filters wither - if he can avoid them - I guess he has been reading the Internet stories, well except he doesn't have an Internet conenction). I am also using Toyota aftermarket filters on the SO's Toyota. I bought a case of filters from a distributor thinking I was getting the OE style Toyota filter (which is a really unique filter) but got the aftermarket ones made in Thailand instead. I don't like them as well as most other filters available for the application, but I am not throwing them away becasue of "like" or "dislike."In my opinion one of the best filters you can buy is actually an Amsoil EA Oil Filter (made by Donaldson I think). I am often offended by Amsoil claims, but the filters are really quite nice, BUT, they are very pricey and I don't see then being worth it. Likewise Donaldson and Fleetguard have some very well made oil filters, but they are also pricey and not worth it in my opinion for my particular usage. Donaldson makes an especially nice filter for Ford FL820 applications, but since I do regular oil changes (5000 miles max) I don't think I need them for my Fords (i did try a couple though). I've never actually worn a Ford car or truck engine out, and some of them used Fram filters for years.
If I am going to over spend on filters, it will be on air filters, not oil filters. Oil filters can only remove what is already in the engiens. Air filters keep bad stuff out.
Ed