Who was it who mentioned Fram oil filters and dropping oil pressure? (2025 Update)

But if it DOES, you know engine clearances or a worn out pump are NOT the issue.

My uncle used it in his Kenworth grain hauler and reported engine temperatures dropped 15 degrees or something like that and idle speed increased something like 25 percent - indicating reduced engine friction.

I tried it in one of my vehicles and found absolutely no improvement in operation - no reduction in (minimal) oil consumption, no reduction in fuel consumption, no reduction in operating temperatures (but it was a 3.0 liter Aerostar - even with a good thermostat it needed a "winter cover" to get any heat in the winter).

DuPont says do NOT put teflon (they are the manufacturer) into an engine - and there have been reports of it (the teflon) being caught in oil filters, restricting oil flow, so I choose not to ever use it again.

I had the pan off a '78 Civic for some time while doing major repairs once. After I put it back together and started it, it blew out the oil filter gasket and sprayed oil on the front of my garage door! The OPRV was stuck closed. I took it off and freeed it up and cleaned. Everything good after that.

Carl

If you use any brand oil filter and follow the maintenance recommendations of the engine manufacturer it is extremely unlikely that the engine will fail in any way before you reach that point where you are no longer willing to keep the rest of the car running. So the question of whether one filter may be better than another is completely moot except to idiots who hold superstitious beliefs.

In the long run insisting on one brand filter over another is going to have just as much effect as performing ritualistic dances and mumbling voodoo incantations in an attempt to extend the life of an engine.

-jim

Bollocks, bollocks, and more bollocks.

Is a Chevy made to the same quality standards as a Porsche or Mercedes?

Someone has to be number one, and someone has to be number two. The question is only how *much* better everyone else is than Fram.

It's common knowledge that Fram is the lowest quality "big name" filter on the market. Is it *acceptable* is the only question that remains.

Or are you going to parrot "Mike Hunter" and then try to tell me that a Chevy *is* in fact just as quality a product as everyone else's?

nate

Using a "known inferior" part and counting on the engine to last is what takes faith - and mabee a supersized side order of stupid to go with it.

"Honeywell testing of filter efficiency and capactiy of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles >

From

"SO 4548-12 is derived from the ISO standard for Multi-pass filter testing (ISO 16889) which is based upon testing of hydraulic filters. This test requires filter manufacturers to determine the average particle sizes which yield Beta ratios equal to 2, 10, 75, 100, 200, and 1000, using the multi-pass test stand approach. The multi-pass test bench must contain On-Line Liquid Automatic Optical Particle Counters and calibrated using certified calibration fluid with a known particle size distribution. Particle counts are taken upstream and down-stream every minute of the test. The new standard gives a better interpretation of a filter's overall performance...."

I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, what I said was - "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."

This is not at all the same as saying - "you are the one who claimed the extra filter efficiency was unnecessary"

SAE J1858 Full Flow Lubricating Oil Filters Multipass Method for Evaluating Filtration Performance, Standard

".....SAE J1858.....reviews the ability of a filter to remove contaminants of a specific size from the fluid stream at a specific moment in time. The test can be repeated to suggest efficiencies over the life of the filter. Results are reported as a ratio between the number of partials of a given size entering the filter and the number of the same size particles exiting the filter. The difference between the two is referred to as the BETA ratio."

See above - "the standard FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard)." Wasn't that clear enough?

So where can I read one of the tests?

Actually I agree with this statement. I certainly believe that regular filter replacement is important and that replacing a Fram at every oil change is better than leaving a better quality filter in place for two or more changes.

So what is your criteria for picking Fram? They are not the cheapest. In my opinion, they don't appear to be well made. They don't claim particular good filter efficiency. Is it the Orange paint?

This is not the same situation as a gasket. There are no metal surfaces clamping the paper end caps in place. There is a gap above the end cap, and only glue holding it to the fitler element below. The Fram "Extra Guard" construction invloves gluing the open ends of the filter element to the end caps. 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, closing off the top of the filter element. Fram just glues the open pleats to the paper end cap. The only thing holding the end caps to the open ended pleats is the glue. Try gluing a thing piece of paper perpendicular to another slightly thicker piece of paper and tell me how well that works. Most of the time the Fram filters have enough glue to securely attach the peats to the end cap, but I've cut open used Frams where the pleats were separated from the end caps. The only other filter I've seen using a similar construction technique is a Delco.

Not true. Several use plastic (not Fram). For an example see

Look at the Motorcraft picture I sent you in a link to earlier. The filter element is potted into a >0.1" thick glue mass contained by the metal end cap. You might tear the filter media, but you can't pull it out of the end cap without tearing it (I've tried). I've cut open Fram filters where the filter media had detached from the end cap - most likely becasue the glue they used didn't seal the media to the end cap properly. For good Fram filters, there is a thick bead of glue built up on both sides of the media, securing it to the end cap. However, it seems sometimes the bead is thin or mislocated and there is not a good bond (my theory). This is far less likely to happen with the sort of metal end caps used by most other filter manufacturers (again, my opinion).

Not ture. Again, go look at the Fram bypass valve and expalin how it works given your claims.

How do you know that? There is a filter test to test burt strenght of the can. I don't have a copy of it, so I have no idea if it also evaluates the whether the Fram end caps stay in place.

I don't appreciate being called a liar. I think you are wrong about the forces not being able to cause a separation. Go look at the picture of the Fram filter and expalin to me how their bypass valve works if you are right.

Well made filters with cardboard end caps are OK. This is not always the case with the standard Fram Filters (the so called "Extra Guard"). I'll bet that your Chevy had relatively thick end caps that were firmly attached to the end caps. I've had farm tractors that used cartrigde type filters and never had a concern either. And if they failed, at least I would have known it when I replaced the filter. Hard to know what is happening inside the orange can if you don't cut it open.

By the way - didn't your old cartridge filter include a metal cannister on the outside and on the inside of the filter media? And are you sure it did not have metal end caps? I looked up the P/N for the old Chevrolet V8s I looked them up for several years), and even Fram's picture of the cartridge shows an external metal can and metal end caps.

Some just had plain metal end caps, see::

There were also versions that had meal end caps, with a paper gasket on top. See:

I never could find a picture of a Chevy V8 filter with paper end cpas. I have seen such filters, so I know they exist. My MF175 used cartridge filters with a metal outer cylinder and paper (thick paper) end caps. But that filter went in a can that had a spring loaded metal plate on the bottom and a flat sealing surface on the top. The end cpas were well suppoted - unlike the paper end caps in a standard Fram fliter.

You have no proof they work as well, you just think they do. Maybe they are good enough, but in my opinion, they are not a good choice. For my use, there are better constructed filters available for the same money or less. I can't see why I would buy a Fram Filter when most stores carry filters I like better on the same shelf.

I think you should have said - "I find no particualr reason to listen to people who don't agree with my beliefs ." As far as I can tell, you don't have a sound scientific reason for preferring Fram filters over other brands.You "believe" "they work as well as the other brands," but don't actually have any proof of this and in fact I am not even sure what you are including in your list of "other brands." If I am wrong, enlighten me. Otherwise, how is our opinion different from "people who believe in witchcraft."

Fram fiilters may be "good enough," but I can't see spending more to get a barely adequate filter, when for less I can get better than adequate. If a Motorcraft or Wix fitler cost significantly more than the standard orange Fram filter, then I might reconsider and buy the Fram. But, I can't see paying more or even a little less for a Fram filter. Even if the end cap joint is 100% reliable, the standard (Extra Gaurd) Fram filters still appears to have an inferior anti-drain back valve (comapred to the equivalent Motorcraft) and an inferior bypass valves (compared to almost any other filter). The higher priced Fram filters do include the better silicone antidrainback valve, but they cost far more than Motorcraft filters that include this feature as standard.

Ed

Well that must explain why the SO's parents have such good luck with their Toyotas - they are protected by the Oboma stickers.

Ed

To quote someone with whom you appear to have a lot in common, "unsupported assertion."

You mean to say that a drill can spin an oil pump faster than a running engine? What if the OPRV were found to be in good operating condition? What if instead of a drill it was simply a cold start on a cold day while the engine was filled with the factory-recommended grade of motor oil? No, your mind is made up, no sense confusing you with facts.

You have yet to demonstrate that to my satisfaction, while there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Or you simply make judgements based on construction materials and techniques as well as in-service failure rates, in which case the Fram comes out on the bottom of the pile.

nate

the FTC and Slick 50

In 1997, three subsidiaries of Quaker State Corp. (the makers of Slick

"Every time you cold start your car without Slick 50 protection, metal grinds against metal in your engine."

"With each turn of the ignition you do unseen damage, because at cold start-up most of the oil is down in the pan. But Slick 50's unique chemistry bonds to engine parts. It reduces wear up to 50% for

"What makes Slick 50 Automotive Engine Formula different is an advanced chemical support package designed to bond a specially activated PTFE to the metal in your engine."

In fact, the FTC said, "most automobile engines are adequately protected from wear at start-up when they use motor oil as recommended in the owner's manual. Moreover, it is uncommon for engines to experience premature failure caused by wear, whether they have been treated with Slick 50 or not."

It seems to take you a long time to google for quotations that turns out to contradict the point you were previously making. Before you were quoting the results of single pass tests. Now you quote the procedure for a different test. What is it you think these quotations contribute to your position?

Yes it is exactly and precisely the same . At least it is if you are using the same basic definition of the words that automotive engineers use. If you have your own definitions for words then you should give them. I don't see where you have explained what exactly "remove a lot of very small, non-harmful particles" means. But it is Crystal clear that previously you were claiming Frams are bad because they are too aggressive at removing the smallest particles. Now you seem to be desperately digging for data on the web to refute that claim.

So your comparison is what WIX filters remove from oil in a test involving multiple passes to what Fram filters remove in a single pass? You think that is a meaningful comparison?

So is the quality of the filters Fram makes other than the standard line OK? If someone buys the other Fram filters you see no problem?

Your the one doing all the googling of SAE tests. You must have stumbled across several by now.

It's better than leaving a Fram in place for longer than the auto makers recommendations. The assumption you are changing filters at least as often as the recommended maintenance schedules.

So you think the choice of filter must always be based on some kind of superstition belief? I didn't state a criteria for picking Fram. I simply stated your criteria for avoiding Fram was primarily superstition. And it is obvious the superstitious beliefs started after cutting open a filter.

As far as I can tell the price available to you is the only criteria you have for selecting a brand that is based on anything real.

Yes there is a gap above the endcap but it never moves into the gap. How would it with the oil pressing against it pushing in the opposite direction?

That description describes a Fram also. The Fram pleats are glued together at the ends also. But what you just described has nothing at all else supporting the pleats. The Fram has the extra cardboard support to keep them evenly spaced. So isn't that a better design?

You mean kinda like this"

"I've seen other filters that use just a simple retainer (think plastic or paper) at the top of the filter element, but these filters glue the pleates together, "

So obviously because you "know" this can't possibly work it is now perfectly OK to now make up stories about engine failures - Right?

You don't need to describe how these filters are constructed. I have seen hundreds of paper replacement cartridges with this same design. I have seen them when they are new and after they have filtered the oil and I didn't need to rip and tear and damage anything to get a look at them.

Well there are several engine manufacturer's OEM filters that use this design since they are made by Fram. They I'm sure have looked at a lot more filter guts than you have and they have the reputation of their entire manufacturing process at stake. So I find them a just tad more credible.

The fact that the thinner paper pleats can collapse and rip away from the end cap in many cases is caused by cutting the filter open. But you haven't said anything convincing that the end caps themselves move anywhere at all. The mode of failure you describe was the paper filter media collapsing inward and ripping away from the end caps. This could happen even is the caps were steel and you have said nothing that would indicate the Fram filter media ia any more fragile than anyone else's.

If the filter media is collapsing towards the center with any brand of filter, that should be telling you something about your engine.

Sounds like since you endcap theory fell on its face you are modifying your position to claiming they don't use enough glue. And I imagine if that theory was shot down you would move to a theory that there is too much glue and it is using up valuable space that could be used for filter media and crud.

I would much prefer to have an engine where there is zero danger of it going into by pass mode. That isn't hard to achieve. If you do have such a cruddy engine then don't use a Fram I strongly suspect that Fram would like to see those engines go to their competitors. But since you brought it up what has the bypass got to do with the endcaps moving.

No need to google. I'll concede that point. When the outer shell blows off, the end cap and everything else inside the can is going to fall out on to the ground. But don't you have any curiosity as to what would cause a can to burst.

No actually the cardboard looks a little thinner. And as far as I ever saw everybody made them pretty much the same.

As I said if the center tube hasn't collapsed you can be sure the end caps haven't gone anywhere.

Not the ones for the 283. All brands have the inner support tube. How they are made probably depends on what the specs are for a particular application are.

Nope I still have one and i cut open a used Fram extra gard to compare . The modern spin on has thicker cardboard end caps and more glue on the ends of the pleats. Other than that and the size there doesn't seem to be much difference in design. The filter I have is a hardware store brand so it may or may not be made by Fram. But IIRC they all pretty much looked the same on the shelf in a store where you had a choice.

The first picture looks like the stock filter for the 283. The endcaps are made of cardboard and what you are calling a metal can is just glossy paper wrapped around the filter media. The purpose of the paper is probably to keep the mechanics greasy fingers off the filter media. That paper looks like what you would find in a typical glossy magazine with a bunch of holes punched in it.

The other bypass filters in your pictures must be some after market product for an auxiliary add-on filter. Couldn't tell you what those filters are made of.

What about the millions of engine applications where the filters do not fail as you have imagined they are going to? You're the one claiming they are not any good and have a high probability of failure. I myself wouldn't have typed a single word about Fram filters if I had not seen others typing so much misinformation. It is just plain irksome to listen to all these obviously unsupported allegations.

I could have said that. Until i see some believable facts to change my mind I will be sticking to my own beliefs - thank you very much.

Not really no. But then I can't recall making a statement about my filter preference. I have never personally had a problem when I used a Fram. I have never met any one else who had a problem and all told that represents quite a lot of filters that haven't failed. I never even thought about it until I started reading some of the obviously bogus claims by the Fram bashers. The typical Fram basher has used only one Fram filter in his whole life (and he usually won't even admit to buying that one) and he will tell you about the numerous defects that one filter exhibited. Well I'm sorry that is just way too implausible and improbable to be believed.

I don't know what your asking?

So if one scenario of filter failing doesn't support your superstition you move on to another. Please don't ever pay any attention to all the cars that aren't having the problems you imagine they must be having.

-jim

Oh the OPRV was probably working all right. But the after market filter adapter the guy said he put on the engine was probably covering it up.

Hey this is not my story its just another clowns story. Why didn't you challenge the guy who told the story early on the thread if you find fault with it?

Yeah your evidence is googling for stories from more clowns, geesh.

And that is based on voodoo. Produce something besides clowns sitting around the internet campfire passing on implausible folklore to support your claim.

-jim

Everyone has anecdotes, here's mine... I've driven lots of domestics HARD even when they had high miles (100K+) and never had an auto transmission go bad from doing so. We inherited a Toyota Tercel with right at 100K easy miles on it from the in-laws and after just a couple of time when I insisted it actually do full throttle up shifts the transmission no longer shifted properly. Not to mention it had a blown head gasket that some sealer temporarily fixed. My sister in law had a Datsun F-10 that turned into a piece of crap. A friend as a Maxima with 125K on it and it needs $3500 in front and rear end suspension work and motor mounts. Then there are the other friends who wound up spending $500 two times to repair the electric windows in their Honda Accord. I have to hand it to the imports, they did a heck of a job brainwashing folks.

Exactly. There are multiple ways that a filter can fail, and most (all?) are more likely with a Fram.

Please do not let facts get in the way of your ranting, you're on a roll.

nate

That must have been one severely abused, mistreated car.

One car? unusual.

No, not at all. It's clear by observation that Frams use thinner cans than other brands, and almost as clear that the internals are made of arguably inferior materials, hence "common knowledge." There's also a wealth of anecdotal evidence of several different failure modes that occur apparently more often with Frams than with other brands.

If one has an engine that develops unusually high oil pressures, has an "upside down" filter, or one just wants to get the best engine protection, there's compelling arguments for not using Fram.

nate

Well, I've owned and worked on the whole gammut. I sold my 1981 Tercell with something like 375,000 km on it. Can't remember for sure. It had one set of drive axles reolaced on it in that time,one clutch, and one timing belt. I replaced the clutch and timing belt as "preventative maintenance" before a trip from Waterloo Ontario toPrinceton University, Washington DC, and the Blueridge mountains. No sighn of impending failure when removed, but I had it apart, so I replaced them. Four years after I sold it I talked to the guy I sold it to - he had roughly doubled the mileage and only changed the points and condenser and a few sets of brakes before finally scrapping it (I had patched the rear fenders with fiberglass - and he redit that once - and scrapped it when it needed doing again)

That's the highest mileage any of my cars has ever accumulated. My '69 Dodge Dart I sold with 240,000 plus miles on it in 1973. I had not a single mechanical failure on that car.

My 1961 Austin Mini had 196,000 on it when I bought it, and between then and when I sold it at 214,000 miles I rebuilt the engine. Brakes and windsheild wiper transmissions were a constant battle on that baby-buggy, but the rest of the car was so simple there was virtually nothing to go wrong.

My 1988 New Yorker went 242,000 km before I sold it at 18 years of age. The Japanese engine (3.0 Mitsu) was on it's third set of cyl heads, and the differential bearings had gone so I replaced the (3 speed automatic) transmission at about 200,000 km. Otherwize a trouble free car.

My 1989 Aerostar was virtually trouble free till I sold it at 115000 more or less KM, and remained trouble free except for body rust for the friend who bought it from me untill somewhere around 245,000 when he scrapped it. My 1990 Aerostar went to 245,000km. The engine was replaced under warranty due to piston slap, the trans front seal went out towing the trailer to BC, the main input quill shaft snapped at about 200,000 km, and one of the accumulator covers on the trans leaked somewhere around the same time. The transmission cooler line and power steering lines both rusted through, as did the oil pan. The body rust was not as severe as on the 1989.

The 1995 Trans Sport was an unmitigated disaster. (3.8 liter coudn't pull the trailer the 3 liter aerostar just played with) Ball joints and tie rod ends were constantly being replaced as well as front axle bearings. The second engine blew at 275,000km (98,000km on the factory rebuild-"crate" engine)

Wife's 1996 Mystique 2.5 V6 is a blast to drive, but I'm constantly fixing stupid electrical problems. Power windows, brake light circuit,horn, signals, etc etc. and I fought for quite some time with a driveability broblem caused by a colapsed/split vacuum line hidden down in the bowels of the engine compartment (after replacing suspect/leaky intake manifold gaskets/seals did not solve the problem

- over-lean condition on bank #1) and it still "mooses" when it is cold.

In my carreer as a motor mechanic, 12 years of it with Toyota, the last 10 of those as service manager from '76 to '86, I can truthfully say the amount of "repair" work we did was EXTREMELY low. I think in those 10 years we had "mabee" 2 automatic transmission failures, and replaced bearings in a dozen or so manual transmissions. Had a couple noisy diffs. Back in 1972 (first stint with Toyota) we had a rash of cracked (corolla 1600cc - 2TC) cyl heads replaced under warranty. The early tercels had a suspension rust recall that was significant. Electrically they were almost bullet-proof too. Some high resistance starter circuit problems (woudn't crank hot) that were easily fixed - and the old rotting brake rotor problem that every manufacturer was faced with when asbestos pads were eliminated.

All in all I'd have to say the Toyotas, at least in those years, were mechanically above average in quality and reliability. The bodies back then were perhaps not quite up to standard - but EVERYBODY had rust problems back then - mirrors falling out of 2 year old Ford Torinos, etc.

MOST Toyotas today are more reliable than many Chevies - and their resale value bears that out. People are willing to spend serious cash on used Toyotas and Hondas (Not so much Mazdas, and certainly less for Nissans), while used GM's, Mopars, and even Fords, do not retain very much value after 5 years.

That's why I'm not driving Toyotas or Hondas right now. I buy 5 years old, with 100,000km, for $5000.00 - Have not found a Toyota or Honda that I can buy for that price in the last 12 years so I drive Mopars and Fords (and that ONE crappy Poncho- which I bought for SIgnificantly LESS than $5000 at 4 years of age) and would have been overpriced at half that.

Just my observations (and I've also owned/driven Renault, VW, Peugot, Vauxhaull, AMC, BMC,Chevy, Fiat and worked on Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Honda, International, Jeep, Mazda, and countless other brands over the years)

Buying a Toyota - even a new one, is no guarantee you won't encounter problems, but your chances of having a reliable ride go WAY up.

And better than the Mopars and Fords that you buy, according to what you state below. That's your opinion and experience I guess. Mine is I get perfect reliability out my used Chevys. Which means to me they never worry me or strand me. If I toss on a $100 alternator once in a while or a $20 water pump every 60k miles, or a starter, that's small change. All I've replaced on Chevys gave me fair warning. The only exception was a bad ignition switch on my '90 Corsica, which required a tow to a shop. But even that doesn't change my mind. Better than paying extra thousands and feeling like a sucker. There's perception and there's reality. I measure reality in cash.

There's no reason to buy a lemon nowadays unless you're not doing your homework. I suspect the Pontiac was long ago, or you didn't do your homework.

--Vic

(for those who've forgotten posts from weeks past.. I blew up an Orange Fram when priming (w/electric drill) a rebuilt early chev 283 with an aftermarket "spin-on adapter")

I'm "the guy". I forget the brand of the adapter, but it was a respected name brand item. I'd used the same exact ones before with no problem.

After blowing up the Fram filter, I put on a Hastings filter and topped the oil back up.

The Hastings *didn't* blow up.

I'd say "Jim" is the clown. I'm still trying to decide if he works for Fram or one of their distributors; or if he's just an argumentative Fram fanboi.