 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / December 2006So what's wrong with the Airhog filters? was:Re: Airhog filters almost free after Fram's rebate
Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... No one really told me why I should NOT buy an Airhog filter. Is there a REAL reason???? At $11-16 for the standard filter for my 4.2L F150, The $31.99 Airhog with $20 rebate costs me $11.99 (I'm assuming shipping is similar For my Taurus...$6 vs $38 = $12. so why not?? ==Don Don Byrer Commercial Pilot / CFI Student Electronics Technician, RADAR/Data/Comm @ CLE Amateur Radio KJ5KB "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..." "I know what it sounds like....when doves cry" (Bird Strike 8/29/05) > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..." > "I know what it sounds like....when doves cry" (Bird Strike 8/29/05) Improved airflow comes at a price, generally reduced filtering ability. The only way around that would be to increase the surface area of the filtering media. Plus, their commercials just rub me the wrong way. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..." > "I know what it sounds like....when doves cry" (Bird Strike 8/29/05) Same reason as a K&N. They don't filter as well as the stock unit and since they are also an oiled gauze item the oil can cause problems with the MAF sensor. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > > No one really told me why I should NOT buy an Airhog filter. Is there > a REAL reason???? They are made by FRAM. all I need to know to avoid them. The don't do a particularly good job of filtering air. Like K&N and other high flow filters, the allegedly "higher" flow comes at the price of a whole lot more grit passing through the filter. > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..." > "I know what it sounds like....when doves cry" (Bird Strike 8/29/05) > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > > No one really told me why I should NOT buy an Airhog filter. Is there > a REAL reason???? ======================== I saved this old posting because I thought it answered this recurring question well: ----------- From: Matthew E. O'Toole (motcm@ix.netcom.com) Subject: Re: K&N air filter? View this article onlyNewsgroups: rec.autos.tech Date: 1995/05/02 In <3o45ke$ln0@newsbf02.news.aol.com> ghamma01@aol.com (GHAMMA01) writes: >I have had great luck with K&N filters. The number one main reason I like >them is that they last forever (more or less) without cleaning (at least [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Firebird Formula 350. They normally cost about 2-4 times as much as an >OEM filter. I've used K&N filters over the years too, and while the results you cite are not contrary to my experience, I am concerned about recommending these for everyday use in a passenger vehicle. I have done oil analysis on every car on which I've used a K&N. On all 6 cars, this showed many times the amount of silica particles (airborne dust) in the oil than when a paper filter was used. This means that the K&N does not do as good of a job filtering the air, allowing more dirt into your engine. You may very well experience increased engine wear due to this, as your oil filter will not catch it all. Notice that K&N does not advertise their product as offering "better filtration", only as offfering "better flow". The K&N is a good product for it's intended use, which was not originally long term use in a passenger vehicle. Matt O. > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > > No one really told me why I should NOT buy an Airhog filter. Is there > a REAL reason???? Turning your question upside down is there a reason you should buy a filter from an unknown company that calls itself Airhog when you could buy a perfecty good filter designed for your car from the dealer or from a reputable parts house. The difference in price is trivial, however the difference in quality is likely significant. Unless you have tests performed by a nationally recognized independent laboratory that show the Airhog filter performs at least as well as the one from the manufacturer I would stay away from an unknown. > At $11-16 for the standard filter for my 4.2L F150, > The $31.99 Airhog with $20 rebate costs me $11.99 (I'm assuming [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..." > "I know what it sounds like....when doves cry" (Bird Strike 8/29/05) > > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > at least as well as the one from the manufacturer I would stay away > from an unknown. Well, it's branded as a Fram filter, which is a well known brand, but they're well known for not-so-high-quality oil filters, so that's not necessarily a plus in my book. nate > > > Other than a few derogatory comments abpout the price... > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > they're well known for not-so-high-quality oil filters, so that's not > necessarily a plus in my book. I was referring to quality filters including those from the car manufacturer. > nate > I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > manufacturer. <eyeroll> here we go again.... still believe that car manufacturers also build air and oil filters, do you? For filters, the best brand names to buy on are Wix or Purolator. Filters from a dealer and labelled with a car-maker's parts division are truly of unknown origin in many cases. You can assume that they meet the minimum specifications for the part, but that's all. QC/QA can be all over the map. > > I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > > manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the minimum specifications for the part, but that's all. QC/QA can be > all over the map. Oh, good there is a waxing moon tonight and the troll has come out of hiding. Once again he will tell us of his extensive inside knowlege anout the design, contracting and purchasing decisions made by the major auto makers. >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > anout the design, contracting and purchasing decisions made by the > major auto makers. It's a well known fact that OEM filters for various makes are obviously relabeled product of the major aftermarket mfgrs. Sometimes Dana (Wix) sometimes Champion Labs, sometimes Fram. There's little "tells" in the construction of the filter that make this evident. Perhaps *you* should look into the subject before firing off authoritative-sounding, condescending messages. and just before you scream "cite!" as I know you will, here ya go... http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html#mc-fl1a nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> Oh, good there is a waxing moon tonight and the troll has come out of >> hiding. Once again he will tell us of his extensive inside knowlege [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > nate I cant believe someone yells troll without himself having a clue about the subject. > >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It's a well known fact that OEM filters for various makes are obviously > relabeled product of the major aftermarket mfgrs. > Sometimes Dana (Wix) > sometimes Champion Labs, sometimes Fram. Why should that be any surprise...good grief. Just as many other other automotive components come from specialist companies. > There's little "tells" in the > construction of the filter that make this evident. What in heavens sake is a tell. And please describe the little fellows. > Perhaps *you* should > look into the subject before firing off authoritative-sounding, > condescending messages. I was responding to a snide comment from a troll. > and just before you scream "cite!" as I know you will, here ya go... > > http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html#mc-fl1a That car manufacturers depend on filter manufacturers for their products comes as no great surprise to me and hopefully it is not to you either. However I think that it is completely incorrect to assume as steve-the-troll does that car manufacturers blindly accept the least-cost product with no mind given to standards of filtration, quality, etc. The website presents an interesting home project, but in terms of this discussion it adds very little. > nate > > -- > replace "fly" with "com" to reply. > http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > > >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Why should that be any surprise...good grief. Just as many other other > automotive components come from specialist companies. It shouldn't be a surprise at all. > > There's little "tells" in the > > construction of the filter that make this evident. > > What in heavens sake is a tell. And please describe the little > fellows. You know, things that make the filter unique from others on the market, like the number/size/shape of the holes in the baseplate, the form of the crimp, the construction of the bypass or anti-drainback valves (if present,) the construction of the filter media (and in the case of one mfgr. the presence of a string around the media) - things like that. > > Perhaps *you* should > > look into the subject before firing off authoritative-sounding, > > condescending messages. > > I was responding to a snide comment from a troll. I didn't see it as snide at all, nor did I see it as a troll. > > and just before you scream "cite!" as I know you will, here ya go... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > least-cost product with no mind given to standards of filtration, > quality, etc. When they choose Fram, that is the only logical conclusion, although certainly they have to meet the manufacturer's minimum standards for quality and filtration. I think Steve's point was that the average consumer may not wish to merely meet the manufacturer's standards when there are likely aftermarket products available that will exceed them (for a similar price.) Which brings us full circle to the original poster's question regarding using a particular aftermarket air filter. Now that particular filter in my opinion may not be the best choice for regular on-road use, but there may very well be aftermarket filters available that ARE better choices than an OEM-branded part, with little or no cost penalty. You certainly can't say with a straight face that you'd rather have the oil that comes out of the 55-gallon drum at a dealership than some Mobil One or Redline, can you? But the oil in the 55-gallon drum meets the manufacturer's specifications... (well, usually. There have been exceptions...) > The website presents an interesting home project, but in terms of this > discussion it adds very little. It certainly lends credence to Steve's assertion. nate > > > >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > > > >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > there are likely aftermarket products available that will exceed them > (for a similar price.) No Steve said this: For filters, the best brand names to buy on are Wix or Purolator. Filters from a dealer and labelled with a car-maker's parts division are truly of unknown origin in many cases. And my response would be unless you have all of the information about the performance of a group of filters (or any automotive component) then you do not know whether one filter with a brand name on it willl perform any better or worse than a filter with a car manufacturers brand name on the outside. This discussion heads in the same direction every time it comes up. Some of us are in love with a particular brand and when pressed to say why the response is along the line of "It's a better filter" or "I've always used brand XXX and it has never let me down", but there is no evidence provided to support such a statement. It's little more than an anecdote trading exercise. > Which brings us full circle to the original > poster's question regarding using a particular aftermarket air filter. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the manufacturer's specifications... (well, usually. There have been > exceptions...) I could not imagine why anyone would want to get into vetting the sources for components used on a car. Neither you nor steve has access to information to show that the filters provided by GM, Volvo, Mercedes, etc., is any better or worse than an over the shelf unit. Unless of course you can come up with independent laboratory tests of the performance of those filters that shows something to the contrary. That website fallls way short of providing such information. > > The website presents an interesting home project, but in terms of this > > discussion it adds very little. > > It certainly lends credence to Steve's assertion. It is little more than a long anecdote about someone who cut a bunch of filters apart with NO information about how the filters perform in the real world. > nate > > > > >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > > > > >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > perform any better or worse than a filter with a car manufacturers > brand name on the outside. That's correct, because you don't know what is in the manufacturer-branded box until you open it. Which is what Steve said. > This discussion heads in the same direction every time it comes up. > Some of us are in love with a particular brand and when pressed to say > why the response is along the line of "It's a better filter" or "I've > always used brand XXX and it has never let me down", but there is no > evidence provided to support such a statement. It's little more than > an anecdote trading exercise. The fact that you don't recognize the evidence or reasoning given doesn't mean that it's not a valid criterion. In this instance I agree with Steve that Wix and Purolator filters have been of apparent consistent high quality for years, therefore buying a Wix or Purolator branded filter is a reasonable assurance of quality. This is not always true of manufacturer-branded filters, which have been in some cases rebranded Frams. Whether or not you agree, there is good evidence that Frams have not been consistently high quality products. > > Which brings us full circle to the original > > poster's question regarding using a particular aftermarket air filter. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I could not imagine why anyone would want to get into vetting the > sources for components used on a car. I can't imagine why someone would make a statement like that. Of course I always attempt to use the highest quality parts that I can on my car, within some financial constraints. > Neither you nor steve has access > to information to show that the filters provided by GM, Volvo, > Mercedes, etc., is any better or worse than an over the shelf unit. > Unless of course you can come up with independent laboratory tests of > the performance of those filters that shows something to the contrary. > That website fallls way short of providing such information. It does, however, show that OEM filters are not always made by the same manufacturer, even for the same part number. I'd rather know what's in the box I'm ordering. > > > The website presents an interesting home project, but in terms of this > > > discussion it adds very little. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > filters apart with NO information about how the filters perform in the > real world. Again, I've heard enough anecdotal evidence about how Frams perform in the real world that I don't want to take the chance of having one on any of my engines (more pertinent to oil filters than to the original subject of air filters, however.) I've had personal experience with faulty Frams (nonfunctional ADBVs) that predispose me to not choose them. I wouldn't want to pay a premium to buy an OEM part just to find that it's the same crap that I've had bad experiences with in the past, when Wix filters have always performed flawlessly for me and many others. nate > Again, I've heard enough anecdotal evidence about how Frams perform in > the real world that I don't want to take the chance of having one on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > nate Admittedly, it tends to make on nervous. I have used Frams and have NEVER had an incident. But, you really dont want and need an incident. > > Again, I've heard enough anecdotal evidence about how Frams perform in > > the real world that I don't want to take the chance of having one on [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Admittedly, it tends to make on nervous. I have used Frams and have NEVER > had an incident. But, you really dont want and need an incident. Agreed. I haven't had any of the catastrophic can-blowing-apart-at-the-crimp failures of legend, but still, when one brand has a bad ADBV and one has a good one, you buy the good one. nate > > > > > >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > > > > > >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 143 lines] > > nate As I have said over and over all this group is doing is repeating anecdotes with little solid evidence to base their proclamations of product quality on. It's like the guy that puts a half-cup of oil enhancer in with every oil change and proclaims that Motor Honey (or some other product) Did It Again because my engine has been running for xx years. If you are a true believer then I'm sure the lack of facts won't get in the way. > > > > > > >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > > > > > > >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > xx years. If you are a true believer then I'm sure the lack of facts > won't get in the way. Well, if every time I see a slant six that rattles and knocks and keeps its oil light on for 5+ seconds after a cold start it has a Fram installed, and if on each car I change the oil and filter using a Wix filter and it stops doing that, in the future, what brand filter would you recommend that I use? Fram or Wix? nate >Well, if every time I see a slant six that rattles and knocks and keeps >its oil light on for 5+ seconds after a cold start it has a Fram >installed, and if on each car I change the oil and filter using a Wix >filter and it stops doing that, in the future, what brand filter would >you recommend that I use? Fram or Wix? The issue is that it's entirely possible that the issues would have gone away even if you'd have replaced the filter with another Fram. That is, the fresh oil and any fresh filter would have helped. Much as I dislike Fram filters, I haven't seen any good numbers on the things either. So I'm not going to flat out say they're all no good, even though I might avoid buying them myself. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>> nate >> As I have said over and over all this group is doing is repeating [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > nate wouldn't that depend if you were the owner or someone who sells slant six bearings for a living? ;) > > > > > > > >>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car > > > > > > > >>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 159 lines] > > nate Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve no purpose whatsoever. Or more directly I really don't give a damn what you put in your car. All I am saying is that before you proclaim to one and all that brand XX is the best filter while brand YY is the worst filter you should have some good solid facts to back up that recommendation. Something beyond a simple it is so because you say it is. Anecdotes and myths get repeated so often in small groups like this that they take on the status of Euclidian postulates and are never questioned. It is really worth taking the time to think about what gets repeated over and over. >>>>>>>>>>>I was referring to quality filters including those from the car >>>>>>>>>>>manufacturer. [quoted text clipped - 163 lines] > control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve > no purpose whatsoever. It's not a hypothetical anecdote. Those are my personal experiences. > Or more directly I really don't give a damn > what you put in your car. All I am saying is that before you proclaim > to one and all that brand XX is the best filter while brand YY is the > worst filter you should have some good solid facts to back up that > recommendation. Something beyond a simple it is so because you say it > is. And that's what I've given. Several different similar engines, all experiencing delayed building of oil pressure on a cold start, mysteriously stop doing so when changing from a Fram filter to a Wix filter. If that doesn't convince you that Fram is inferior to Wix, at least in that one application, I don't know what will. Catastrophic engine failure, maybe? > Anecdotes and myths get repeated so often in small groups like this > that they take on the status of Euclidian postulates and are never > questioned. It is really worth taking the time to think about what gets > repeated over and over. I guess I must just be incapable of making valid observations, then. Who is qualified to do so? Not that I really care one way or another what you think, *I* am convinced that I would be doing people a disservice by recommending any Fram product based on my repeated observations that they are inferior to other aftermarket products. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete > control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > questioned. It is really worth taking the time to think about what gets > repeated over and over. John, as a professional research engineer of 20 years experience, I tend to agree with your statemenst above entirely. BUT, when I note that I *personally* have experienced the long delays on initial oil pressure with *one* brand of filter virtually every single time I use one over a 30 year period.... well, the simple thing to do is just not buy it. And then when I start seeing widespread reports of the SAME THING by other car owners, I am further persuaded that there is more to it than simple anecdotal evidence. THEN, when someone takes the trouble to cut a bunch of filters open and do some "comparative anatomy," that adds further weight. No, the "comparative anatomy" isn't scientific, it isn't conclusive, and it isn't sufficient in and of itself. But when combined with the "anecdotal" evidence, a very strong pattern develops. At this point, I have to ask if its worth my time and effort to CONCLUSIVELY condemn Fram, or just punt the ball. That is to say pay the extra few dollars for a different brand that doesn't have such a trail of circumstantial evidence following it around. And that's the whole root of why I do avoid dealer parts for things like filters. Since they are *known* (not just by me, its admitted industry-wide) to change suppliers periodically, I run the risk of getting that one filter brand that has repeatedly caused me trouble. You can take that, or leave it... but to insinuate that I'm claiming some mysterious inside knowledge about how dealer parts supply chains work is just asinine. I'm just stating OBSERVED facts and drawing a conclusion. Disagree with the conclusion if you want- that doesn't bother me- but don't put words in my mouth. >> Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete >> control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > conclusion. Disagree with the conclusion if you want- that doesn't > bother me- but don't put words in my mouth. That's what I was trying to say, and what I assumed you were saying all along. Let's take it a step farther... let's say that I was a professional mechanic. (I'm not, don't worry.) Let's say that I had a customer that had, say, a '65 Dart that he'd been taking to me for oil changes for years. One day, it up and throws a rod. This guy knows that a slant six is a strong engine and shouldn't just throw rods. He gets online, starts poking around, and sees that I've posted to RAT noting that I've noticed faulty ADBV's in Fram filters. But wait, he says, this same guy has been installing Fram filters on my car for years! Do you think that the fact that my "evidence" is "anecdotal" is going to make the customer any less pissed off at me? If he's pissed off enough to take me to court, do you think that the judge is going to accept my argument that "well, my postings were just anecdotal evidence and shouldn't be used to make purchasing decisions; Frams should meet all of the manufacturer's specifications?" Or, given the overwhelming number of anecdotes about the shitteaux nature of Frams, would you be willing to put one on YOUR car, given that there are other major brands readily available and comparably priced, that do NOT have the same stories told about them? In a pinch, maybe, but as a regular practice, I sure wouldn't. It was a happy day for me when my local independant FLAPS switched from Fram to Wix. IMHO, all filters are NOT created equal, which was the whole point of this thread. To address the point of this particular sub-thread, since it would appear that OEM-labeled filters seem to change suppliers far more often than the major aftermarket brands the chances of getting an unknown, or worse, known to be less desirable part are actually greater with the OEM-branded filters. I don't enjoy paying a premium at a dealer for an unknown quantity when I can get a known quantity at my FLAPS. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete > > control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > conclusion. Disagree with the conclusion if you want- that doesn't > bother me- but don't put words in my mouth. If there were corroborated reports of several different incidents then I would agree. Unfortunately the same story can as we all know get repeated over and over on the internet and the problem can look to be huge when it isn't. As with most other automotive accesories most of us don't have the time, resources or inclination to investigate and test the technical features of automotive components and determine who actually manufactured a given component. An automotive manufacturer is in a much better position to make that assessment than an internet discussion forum. > > > Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete > > > control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > If there were corroborated reports of several different incidents then > I would agree. There are. Steve's and mine, for starters. > Unfortunately the same story can as we all know get > repeated over and over on the internet and the problem can look to be > huge when it isn't. What if it really is huge and you're just sticking your fingers in your ears? > As with most other automotive accesories most of us don't have the > time, resources or inclination to investigate and test the technical > features of automotive components and determine who actually > manufactured a given component. Exactly. Therefore I buy a brand where I don't have to do that research. > An automotive manufacturer is in a > much better position to make that assessment than an internet > discussion forum. They may be in a better position to make that assessment, but they also use different criteria for selecting a supplier than an end user. Cost is far more important to them than quality. (That said, I believe that MoPar has switched from Fram in the filters that Steve was mentioning earlier, so maybe there is some hope.) nate > They may be in a better position to make that assessment, but they also > use different criteria for selecting a supplier than an end user. Cost > is far more important to them than quality. (That said, I believe that > MoPar has switched from Fram in the filters that Steve was mentioning > earlier, so maybe there is some hope.) I believe that is true, and I have been told that a few particular filter types (IIRC the severe duty V10 filter, and the filters for the Cummins, of course) never did change. But when I learned how the line is *subject* to change, I quit even looking at them. > > > > Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete > > > > control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > What if it really is huge and you're just sticking your fingers in your > ears? I recently thought my engine was getting tired due to the new valve train noise that started happening at start up. It sounded like empty hydraulic lifters rattling/ clacking like mad. So it came time to do the next oil change and I tossed the Fram oil filter in the garbage and went with another brand and 100% of the startup noise went away!! This is on a Jeep 258 engine. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) >>>Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete >>>control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > repeated over and over on the internet and the problem can look to be > huge when it isn't. I would agree... IF: 1) I hadn't observed the drainback problem repeatedly. Once- I could write that off to a bad filter and go on. But CONSISTENTLY when I use Fram filters? Warning light goes on. 2) I hadn't seen the obviously weaker internals of Fram filters 3) I hadn't heard the same reports from so many conscientious auto enthusiasts who don't go off half-cocked claiming the wonders of Dr. Mojos Miracle Motor Medicine left and right. Now I ask you- would I be intellectually honest if I DIDN'T point out my conclusions after years of observation here? I have nothing to gain or lose. I'm not a mechanic, I don't work for Fram, Champion Labs, Wix, Purolator, or ANY company associated with auto parts, auto manufacture, or auto repair. I'm just a car nut who also has a couple of engineering degrees and a curious nature. > As with most other automotive accesories most of us don't have the > time, resources or inclination to investigate and test the technical > features of automotive components and determine who actually > manufactured a given component. An automotive manufacturer is in a > much better position to make that assessment than an internet > discussion forum. Not really, because the auto manufacturer will at least consider taking the lowest bid, and depending on what solicitation process they use they will open themselves to legal action if they DON'T take the lowest bid that claims to meet specs unless they a lot more money to PROVE that the specs aren't met. Trust me, in my job I have to buy a lot of components that go into stuff that gets my employer's name on it, and sometimes I am forced by the system to take a vendor whose product I *know* is inferior, but PROVING the inferiority sufficiently to prevent my employer from being sued by a disgruntled vendor costs far far more than gritting my teeth and swallowing the added overhead of dealing with failures of the inferior part. I sometimes spend hours crafting bid requests that will somehow exclude *every* inferior vendor, but they still slip through and have to be considered. Asinine? Yes. Fact of life? YES. We as enthusiasts can set the standard far, far higher and can be far more discriminating than the auto maker. > >>>Given that it is your hypothetical anecdote and you are in complete > >>>control of the "facts" presented therein a recommendation would serve [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > that claims to meet specs unless they a lot more money to PROVE that the > specs aren't met. Do you work for the government, possibly the DoD? > Trust me, in my job I have to buy a lot of components > that go into stuff that gets my employer's name on it, and sometimes I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > We as enthusiasts can set the standard far, far higher and can be far > more discriminating than the auto maker. OK, I think we may be getting somewhere. As an automotive enthusiast what specific standards are you setting for filters. What requirements for filtration, capacity, sealing, etc., do you expect from an oil or air filter. >>We as enthusiasts can set the standard far, far higher and can be far >>more discriminating than the auto maker. > > OK, I think we may be getting somewhere. As an automotive enthusiast > what specific standards are you setting for filters. That the brand I buy not have bitten me in the rod bearings repeatedly in the past. That the brand I buy AT LEAST have an internal structure that is not visibly inferior and likely prone to collapse (eg. has metal end caps on the filter medium. That the brand I buy have a reliable bypass spring design. That the brand I buy have a good anti drain-back valve material and design. > What requirements > for filtration, capacity, sealing, etc., do you expect from an oil or > air filter. Quite honestly, I don't think filtration is an issue. WHEN any mainstream design oil filter works, it filters OK. Its when the medium collapses that its a problem, or when the ADBV leaks down so that the engine is slow to build oil pressure on restart. For air filters, I just demand that there be no visible openings between the filter media and sealing grommets (I've seen that on some 'house brand' air filters) and I want "paper" (tight-woven dry fiber) filter media instead of oiled cotton or oiled foam. I'm not REALLY being all that demanding! >>> We as enthusiasts can set the standard far, far higher and can be far >>> more discriminating than the auto maker. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I'm not REALLY being all that demanding! you forgot about "oil filters that don't blow apart if you forget and wind it out while the oil is still cold." I've heard of a few instances of that happening, usually at an autocross, usually in a watercooled VW (which do develop some monster oil pressures when cold) and usually involving the Orange Canister of Death. Of course this one *hasn't* happened to me, so I am filing it under "anecdotal" although I'm already prejudiced against that particular product. And, of course, Mann or Mahle brand filters are the same price if I order them through one of the aftermarket mail-order places at the same time that I'm ordering other parts. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>As I have said over and over all this group is doing is repeating >>anecdotes with little solid evidence to base their proclamations of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > nate EXACTLY. There is no need to apply rigorous scientific method when there is sufficient observed evidence to establish a very strong correlation. And while the slant-6 is the toughest test case because of its upside-down oil filter, I have noticed the same behavior on a 318 and a 383 when, periodically over a 20 year period, I have used Fram filter on them. Now, if I were a Fram engineer I *would* apply rigorous scientific method to see why my filters were behaving that way. But as a consumer, I just switch brands. . Now, if I were a Fram engineer I *would* apply rigorous scientific > method to see why my filters were behaving that way. But as a consumer, I > just switch brands. Fram and all other filter manufacturers probably DO apply statistical analysis to their product failure rates. Quality control deals heavily in statistical analysis of specifications and failure. This would constitute real evidence if we could get our hands on manufacturers data. Only by the use of large scale data evaluation can you really get an idea of how good or bad one product is versus another. The occasional anecdotal account is interesting but means nothing statistically. As a consumer, I switched from *Fram too, only because I 'smelled smoke', and chose not to trust Fram any longer. But I dont KNOW that they are bad products. > Quality control deals heavily in statistical analysis of specifications and > failure. This would constitute > real evidence if we could get our hands on manufacturers data. No. It would only tell us how often Fram's filters met fram's spec. You can make absolute crap for a product and be ISO9001 if all the paperwork and processes match up and are done per spec. Quality control is to ensure what is manufactured meets spec. A bad design that does not perform well won't be detected in QC. >> Quality control deals heavily in statistical analysis of specifications >> and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Quality control is to ensure what is manufactured meets spec. A bad > design that does not perform well won't be detected in QC. Agreed, ISO does not guarantee quality...it promotes repeatability, traceability which are important tools in developing quality.' You can continue to make crap as long as you make it consistently. But ISO also has a requirement for continuous improvement. Read what I said again. 'statistical analysis of quality AND FAILURES'. Every company which makes products experiences failures. And those failures can be analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Is the failure rate for Fram significantly greater than for Wix? I have no idea, and doubt that you do either. This data would be of use, but it is not data that companies like to put out for comparison. As far as repeatability, if you cannot reproduce your results, you can pretty much assume that quality is substandard. And I suspect both you and I would really like to see comparison data of this type > Read what I said again. 'statistical analysis of quality AND FAILURES'. Yes I read it. The lack of oil pressure on start up might not be considered a failure. 'it's not a bug, it's a feature!' > Every company which makes products experiences failures. And those > failures can be analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Generally are not... but those are stories for another time ;) > Is the failure rate for Fram significantly > greater than for Wix? I have no idea, and doubt that you do either. What is a failure? What's a failure for Wix, What's a failure for Fram? I'll wager they are two very different things. > This data would > be of use, but it is not data that companies like to put out for comparison. And would likely be comparing apples to oranges. > And I suspect both you and I would really like to see comparison data of > this type Actually, I would like to see the internal testing requirements and in house design standards. First, we need to know who is even attempting to design and build a good product, then we can worry about who puts one out the door consistantly. My guess is that the standards a wix filter has to pass in house are much tougher than those a fram filter has to pass in house. > analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Is the failure rate for Fram > significantly > greater than for Wix? Yes, it probably is. But not for the reason you might think. The reason the Fram is more likely to fail is that it does a better job of filtering. When you have an engine that has been driven for a 100K and had an oil change with Wix filter every 4-5K and at that point you change the oil and put on a Fram you are indeed risking major engine problems. If you actually do try this experiment I recommend you remove the Fram filter after about a 100 miles of driving. At that point you will notice that it weighs about 50 lbs. That should give you a clue as to what's going. -jim I have no idea, and doubt that you do either. This > data would > be of use, but it is not data that companies like to put out for comparison. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And I suspect both you and I would really like to see comparison data of > this type >>analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Is the failure rate for Fram >>significantly [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -jim If you set out to write a post with as many stated facts wrong as possible, you really couldn't do any better than Jim just did... > >>analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Is the failure rate for Fram > >>significantly [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > If you set out to write a post with as many stated facts wrong as > possible, you really couldn't do any better than Jim just did... If that was an attempt to illustrate how to post without any facts at all it was well done :^} I submit that if the folks in this thread who have complained that they get low oil pressure when using a fram filter had any brains they would turn the engine off and unscrew the oil filter and feel how heavy it was. Then they wouldn't have any trouble understanding why there oil pressure is inadequate. -jim > I submit that if the folks in this thread who have complained that they > get low oil pressure when using a fram filter had any brains The day after the installation of the Fram filter? > they would > turn the engine off and unscrew the oil filter and feel how heavy it > was. Then they wouldn't have any trouble understanding why there oil > pressure is inadequate. This [supposed] superior filtering ability isn't going to work in a day, which is exactly how long it takes to realize that the Fram filter is draining back overnight. > > >>analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Is the failure rate for Fram > > >>significantly [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > -jim If you're implying that the Fram is so superior in its filtering ability that it will plug immediately, I offer that the bypass valve should open in that case and therefore no loss in oil pressure should be detected. I don't buy that explanation. nate (never had these issues with a Canton/Mecca filter either... are you telling me that Fram is superior to C/M? I *certainly* don't buy that.) > If you're implying that the Fram is so superior in its filtering > ability that it will plug immediately, I offer that the bypass valve > should open in that case and therefore no loss in oil pressure should > be detected. I don't buy that explanation. If you are implying that no loss of oil pressure to the engine accompanies a plugged filter - you don't know what you are talking about. In fact the symptoms of a plugged or severely restricted filter are exactly identical to the symptoms various people have described in this thread. The bypass does not supply full flow and pressure to the engine. I'm not saying there is a huge difference in the filtering capability of a fram filter and others. But a tiny difference over many tens of thousands of miles does have an accumulated affect. There are many cars on the road today where you can change the oil and filter and drive it 10 miles and check the oil and the new oil has already turned black. Crud does accumulate in engines, particularly with the relatively long oil change periods that many of the manufacturers are now recommending. If you look at the published data for the filtering capability of different oil filters, Fram filters rate near the top for removal of the tiniest particles. Given the above facts, it isn't too hard to imagine a scenario where someone puts a fram filter on and it gets plugged in a hurry. All I know is when I read descriptions of symptoms that sound to me like a plugged oil filter I think - maybe you got a plugged filter? -jim I had an issue recently with a lot of valve train noise upon cold starts and a delay in my 'mechanical' oil pressure gauge before it came up to pressure. I was just thinking the engine was getting old and tired... I recently also read about fram filters and sure enough, that's what I put on. I changed the oil and put on a different brand filter and 'all' the startup noise went away and my pressure comes up instantly now. I was amazed at the difference because I was already eyeballing a spare engine I have thinking it's time to start a re + re on it. Now I figure I have time to wait... This filter wasn't plugged, it just let all the oil drain out of the engine when it sat. Garbage in my mind. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > > If you're implying that the Fram is so superior in its filtering > > ability that it will plug immediately, I offer that the bypass valve [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- > I had an issue recently with a lot of valve train noise upon cold starts > and a delay in my 'mechanical' oil pressure gauge before it came up to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This filter wasn't plugged, it just let all the oil drain out of the > engine when it sat. I know fleet mechanics ( I used to be one) that have put thousands of fram filters on vehicles and never had a single problem like you describe. You come along and don't even know what type of filter you have on your vehicle but you are certain it wasn't plugged. Well OK, that was certainly convincing. -jim > > I had an issue recently with a lot of valve train noise upon cold starts > > and a delay in my 'mechanical' oil pressure gauge before it came up to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -jim I change my oil regularly and had only 2 or 3 months on that filter. I normally buy the brand that's on sale at Canadian Tire, not a certain one. When I was reading about the fram filters I remembered the one I put on was orange so went and looked at the name. Sure enough, it was a Fram. The mechanical oil pressure gauge was reading proper pressure at speed and at idle, so I sure didn't think it was plugged... I still have it out in the garage as far as I know, would you like me to go take a digital photo of it? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > I still have it out in the garage as far as I know, would you like me to > go take a digital photo of it? No and I'm surprised you asked. I don't doubt any of the facts you present. You had a fram filter installed. You experienced some oil pressure problems. You changed the filter and the problem went away. You interpret those facts however you like doesn't affect me any. There may even be some validity to your interpretation. For instance, when the filters bypass mechanism is blown open its possible that it might never seal shut properly again so that could allow the oil to drain back. I don't know. -jim > > I still have it out in the garage as far as I know, would you like me to > > go take a digital photo of it? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -jim According to my 'mechanical' oil pressure gauge, I didn't have an 'oil pressure problem' at all.... I had a dry engine start up problem causing bad valve train noises on cold starts. This filter did it from new. It was a Fram filter. My 'engine' has a bypass mechanism, the filter doesn't as far as I know.... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > I had a dry engine start up problem causing bad valve train noises on > cold starts. This filter did it from new. It was a Fram filter. Your original story was that it developed after you had a fram filter installed for several months. You said "I was just thinking the engine was getting old and tired..." Now you say you you noticed it right away. OK I take it back. I don't believe you are telling the truth anymore. bye bye. -jim > > I had a dry engine start up problem causing bad valve train noises on > > cold starts. This filter did it from new. It was a Fram filter. > > Your original story was that it developed after you had a fram filter > installed for several months. You said "I was just thinking the engine > was getting old and tired..." That's not what he said. here's his original post; -------------------------------------------------------------- > In article <457085AF.8364FC6E@sympatico.ca>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > This filter wasn't plugged, it just let all the oil drain out of the > > engine when it sat. Garbage in my mind. ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Now you say you you noticed it right away. OK I take it back. I don't > believe you are telling the truth anymore. > > bye bye. Don't see any mention of "several months." I see you still can't read eh... Where did I say that it 'developed'? I said I 'had' an issue. Here is the part you snipped: I had an issue recently with a lot of valve train noise upon cold starts and a delay in my 'mechanical' oil pressure gauge before it came up to pressure. I was just thinking the engine was getting old and tired...' Do you always cut out the important parts to make a false claim about something? Mike > > I had a dry engine start up problem causing bad valve train noises on > > cold starts. This filter did it from new. It was a Fram filter. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- > I see you still can't read eh... > > Where did I say that it 'developed'? I said I 'had' an issue. YOU SAID "I change my oil regularly and had only 2 or 3 months on that filter." You are now saying that it took you 2 or 3 months to realize that there was an immediate connection to the oil pressure problem and installing the fram filter. yeah right. Your original tale was believable it no longer is. -jim > > I see you still can't read eh... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > was an immediate connection to the oil pressure problem and installing > the fram filter. yeah right. Are you playing the foole on purpose? Once again you cut out parts to make a false claim, such as the rest: Quote: When I was reading about the fram filters I remembered the one I put on was orange so went and looked at the name. Sure enough, it was a Fram. End Quote. That happened to be two or three months after doing the last change... I am done playing word games with an obvious foole. Mike > > > I see you still can't read eh... > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > put on was orange so went and looked at the name. Sure enough, it was a > Fram. So you are claiming that you know the problem started as soon as you put the filter on but it took you 2 - 3 months to come to that realization. OK whatever. > > > > I see you still can't read eh... > > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > OK whatever. A crappy filter was the last thing to come to 'my' mind on an 'unknown mileage' 1978 engine in a 1986 vehicle that gets driven hard some days. I put 3000 miles on it at the start of the summer on one camping trip then changed the oil and noticed the start up noise just after. Hmm, engine is getting tired I think, then I read about the drain back issues with the Fram filter. Change the filter and bingo, what I thought was a tired engine now sounds great again. Why is that so hard to believe? I have no connection with any parts sellers. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > A crappy filter was the last thing to come to 'my' mind on an 'unknown > mileage' 1978 engine in a 1986 vehicle that gets driven hard some days. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why is that so hard to believe? I have no connection with any parts > sellers. I have no connection to a parts seller either but I can add 2+2. You made no connection between changing the oil and the problem until 3 months later. At that point you are positive there was a connection. That's not rational. 3 months after the fact you suddenly put 2 and 2 together but you couldn't do it at the time. More than likely it was something like a week later that the noise developed and it developed slowly and that's why you never made the connection and thought it was your engine going. I also find it interesting that its the guys with the 20 30 or 40 year old vehicles that are reporting this problem. The hundreds of thousands of fram filters sold to people with new cars don't seem to have this defect. I know... I know... some guys going to now jump in now and say he has 30 brand new cars one of each make and model and it happens to every one of them when he puts on a fram filter. HAHAHSA Usenet.... You gotta love it. -jim >>A crappy filter was the last thing to come to 'my' mind on an 'unknown >>mileage' 1978 engine in a 1986 vehicle that gets driven hard some days. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > every one of them when he puts on a fram filter. HAHAHSA Usenet.... You > gotta love it. And yet the problem GOES AWAY when you put a different brand filter on it... yup, it couldn't possibly be that Fram makes a shitty product. That would just be to darn logical and make too much sense. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>A crappy filter was the last thing to come to 'my' mind on an 'unknown > >>mileage' 1978 engine in a 1986 vehicle that gets driven hard some days. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > it... yup, it couldn't possibly be that Fram makes a shitty product. > That would just be to darn logical and make too much sense. I had this same problem about 5 years ago when I bought my old beater '71 chevy pick-up i use to haul wood and manure and such. When I got it the first thing I did was change oil and I happened to use a fram filter. About a week later I had exactly the same symptoms that Mike described. So I took off the filter and noticed that it felt like it was full of lead. So I went out and bought another fram (well actually i already had one) and put it on and the problem went away. After another couple hundred miles of I changed the oil and filter again. Since then the oil has stayed pretty clean and there have been no reoccurrence. But hey you can believe what ever you want. I don't own any Fram stock it's no skin off my nose. -jim > > >>A crappy filter was the last thing to come to 'my' mind on an 'unknown > > >>mileage' 1978 engine in a 1986 vehicle that gets driven hard some days. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > -jim But, But, But, But, But, you had the problem, changed it to another bad filter because you bought a spare, had the problem within 200 miles again and changed it to a 'good' filter and the problem has gone away. I just love the fact you don't say what the 'good' filter was that now works or did you suddenly buy the frams in 3 packs....? At least I was figuring the hard 3000 mile run I just did had worn out something. LOL! Mike > But, But, But, But, But, you had the problem, changed it to another bad > filter because you bought a spare, had the problem within 200 miles > again and changed it to a 'good' filter and the problem has gone away. No, I didn't say I changed the oil after about 200 miles because it happened again. The reason I changed it is because I expected it would probably happen again since the oil on the dipstick was getting very black. Personally, I would rather have the dirt in the filter than in the engine. But there is a limit to how much a filter can hold. When I changed the oil a second time the filter was very heavy again so yeah it probably would have happened again. I have used Fram filters in the truck up until just this fall. The local farm supply store has recently quit selling Fram filters and they now sell a brand called BF which I suspect may be made by fram since the cross reference numbers seemed to match up. I don't think it makes much difference what type of filter and oil you use. Having a lubrication related engine failure or damage due the brand you choose is so unlikely as to be non existent. If your concerned about lubrication related failures you will keep you cooling system in good shape. Modern oils do not hold up well when they are over-heated. They lose much of their lubricating ability when they get cooked and that's when you are likely to see some engine damage. -jim > I just love the fact you don't say what the 'good' filter was that now > works or did you suddenly buy the frams in 3 packs....? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Mike > the engine. But there is a limit to how much a filter can hold. When I > changed the oil a second time the filter was very heavy again so yeah it > probably would have happened again. The filter is heavy because it's full of oil when you remove it. All filters are heavy when you remove them because they are full of oil. The weight of the 'dirt' and the difference in density between 'sludge' and oil is too small to feel. You'd need a balance that could measure in grams or less to see a difference in filtering abilities. > A crappy filter was the last thing to come to 'my' mind on an 'unknown > mileage' 1978 engine in a 1986 vehicle that gets driven hard some days. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Why is that so hard to believe? I have no connection with any parts > sellers. I have no connection to a parts seller either but I can add 2+2. You made no connection between changing the oil and the problem until 3 months later. At that point you are positive there was a connection. That's not rational. 3 months after the fact you suddenly put 2 and 2 together but you couldn't do it at the time. More than likely it was something like a week later that the noise developed and it developed slowly and that's why you never made the connection and thought it was your engine going. I also find it interesting that its the guys with the 20 30 or 40 year old vehicles that are reporting this problem. The hundreds of thousands of fram filters sold to people with new cars don't seem to have this defect. I know... I know... some guys going to now jump in now and say he has 30 brand new cars one of each make and model and it happens to every one of them when he puts on a fram filter. HAHAHSA Usenet.... You gotta love it. -jim > when the filters bypass mechanism is blown open its possible that it might never > seal shut properly again ^^^^^^ Sounds like a defect. Another reason not to use them. >>I still have it out in the garage as far as I know, would you like me to >>go take a digital photo of it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > seal shut properly again so that could allow the oil to drain back. I > don't know. Fortunately for the rest of the world, LOTS of people DO know that the anti-drainback and bypass valves are two separate mechanisms. > I know fleet mechanics ( I used to be one) that have put thousands of > fram filters on vehicles and never had a single problem like you > describe. Wouldn't most drivers of 'fleet' vehicles would just let a rattle be... it's not their vehicle. > > I know fleet mechanics ( I used to be one) that have put thousands of > > fram filters on vehicles and never had a single problem like you > > describe. > > Wouldn't most drivers of 'fleet' vehicles would just let a rattle > be... it's not their vehicle. Exactly. >> I had an issue recently with a lot of valve train noise upon cold starts >> and a delay in my 'mechanical' oil pressure gauge before it came up to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- I can tell you that I stopped using Canadian Tire filters for the very same reason on my Fiero. Every cold startup it would take two-three seconds for the valvetrain to stop clattering. Switch to a different brand and that problem went away. Canadian Tire filters are made by Fram. > Crud does accumulate in engines, particularly with the relatively long > oil change periods that many of the manufacturers are now recommending. I have been doing 6-7K mile oil changes with mobil 1 and motorcraft filters in my car for 146K miles and nearly 10 years. The oil just starts getting dark on the dipstick when it's time to change it. > If you look at the published data for the filtering capability of > different oil filters, Fram filters rate near the top for removal of the > tiniest particles. Given the above facts, it isn't too hard to imagine a > scenario where someone puts a fram filter on and it gets plugged in a > hurry. In exchange for a death rattle on start up... > All I know is when I read descriptions of symptoms that sound to me > like a plugged oil filter I think - maybe you got a plugged filter? I sumbit that a new filter shouldn't be a seal. And you are apparently arguing that the fram filter isn't letting oil through from brand new. Not exactly what I want in a filter. Maybe I can sell a hunk of rubber as an airfilter.... no particulates get through! >>If you're implying that the Fram is so superior in its filtering >>ability that it will plug immediately, I offer that the bypass valve [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > this thread. The bypass does not supply full flow and pressure to the > engine. So why does the engine have full oil pressure after 5-10 seconds then (and <5 PSI prior to that?) How is this possible, if the vastly superior Fram filter is plugged? (not that I can even say whether you're right or not; to my knowledge I have never started an engine with a plugged oil filter.) Also, one of the engines that experienced this behavior had had a reman engine installed by the PO only a few months before I bought the car; can you please explain to me how the oil became so contaminated that the filter would have been plugged (even assuming that the PO never changed the oil once after the new engine was installed?) > I'm not saying there is a huge difference in the filtering capability > of a fram filter and others. But a tiny difference over many tens of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > scenario where someone puts a fram filter on and it gets plugged in a > hurry. Faster than my Canton/Mecca filter? Which is rated by the manufacturer to filter down to 8 microns and DOES NOT INCLUDE A BYPASS VALVE? (so I would DAMN sure know if it were plugged?) Does your data show C/Ms? > All I know is when I read descriptions of symptoms that sound to me > like a plugged oil filter I think - maybe you got a plugged filter? But the situation that I and several other posters describe sounds NOTHING like a plugged oil filter, and EVERYTHING like an ADBV that doesn't seal properly. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Is the failure rate for Fram >>>>significantly [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > was. Then they wouldn't have any trouble understanding why there oil > pressure is inadequate. Well, the one time That happened to me with a Fram, I cut the filter open and found the pressure was low because the filter had collapsed internally. But most people (including me) do NOT have problems with "low oil pressure" whn using frams. What we've had problems with is NO oil pressure on start-up because the anti-drainback valve didn't work, and allowed the filter to fill with air overnight, so that the pump has to run for several seconds to blow the air out (through the bearings, I might add, which disrupts the oil film already present on the bearings) before pressure will build. And if you think (as you imply) that other brands leave a lot of junk in the engine that the Fram mysteriously is able to remove (despite having less surface area and a filter media with the same pore size) then I challenge YOU to cut one open and prove to me that it is indeed "heavy" because it has trapped a lot of stuff out of the engine. I also find that hard to believe because none of my engines have ever shown any sign of any sort of internal deposits when I've pulled oil pans or valve covers to replace gaskets. \ > But most people (including me) do NOT have problems with "low oil > pressure" whn using frams. What we've had problems with is NO oil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > might add, which disrupts the oil film already present on the bearings) > before pressure will build. The problem is that there is no evidence that any of the automobiles built in the last 10-15 years has suffered any engine damage at all when using Fram filters. If the engine damage you are claiming actually happened and if the customer used a fram filter, don't you think that manufacturers would void some of the high mileage extended warranties they give nowadays? There is no reason to believe your car or engine's life span will be reduced any at all if you use a fram filter. If you can show me an engine manufacturer that is concerned about the engine damage that you are concerned about, I might take you seriously. They would have millions in warranty claims to worry about if any of your claims were really valid. Considering the enormous number of engines worth literally billions of dollars that are driving on the roads with fram filters installed, don't you think some enterprising lawyer would immediat |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message