 |
 | 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 / September 2005FRAM oil filter
I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil pump problem so I checked deja for possible hints. I found several posts siting various problems with FRAM filters so decided to check it out. Turns out that the drainback valve on the 2 new FRAM filters I bought from Wally world were tight and restrictive (couldn't even get compressed air through). I then ran out and paid $3 more for a WIX filter at CarQuest which had a drainback valve that worked freely and properly. After installation the oil light now goes out quickly after start. I don't know if FRAM is making their filters in China like most other sleazy American companies, but I think they forgot all about quality control and their customers, in favor of profits. They turned what was once a good product into JUNK! Their cheap filters are not worth wasting an engine for. > I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil > light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what was once a good product into JUNK! Their cheap filters are not > worth wasting an engine for. I've never use Fram, but I hear from others that they've been below-par for years. Fram was once known for quality filters, but that changed when they were taken over by another company, about 10 years ago I think. > I've never use Fram, but I hear from others that they've been below-par for > years.  SignatureMike Walsh West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A. > Fram was once known for quality filters, but that changed when they were > taken over by another company, about 10 years ago I think. Fram oil filters have been garbage for at least two decades, in which time they've been through at least four corporate owners. Prior to the mid-late '70s, Fram put out a decent product. >>Fram was once known for quality filters, but that changed when they were >>taken over by another company, about 10 years ago I think. > > Fram oil filters have been garbage for at least two decades, in which time > they've been through at least four corporate owners. Prior to the mid-late > '70s, Fram put out a decent product. In the late 1970s, I worked for a Fram distributor. Fram sent us a letter saying, in effect " We have cheapened our most popular filters so we can get the price down and dirty for the Big Box stores - Wal-Mart, Target etc. However, the price to you, our regular distribution chain that made Fram a household name, will remain the same. Thank you." All you need to do is cut apart a Fram filter, and a Wix. Almost any other filter on the market, including the generics, are constructed better internally than a Fram. I do not use them ever. > Fram was once known for quality filters, but that changed when they were taken over by another company, about 10 years ago I think. Longer than that. They've been owned by Allied Signal about that long, but their oil filters were the pits WAY before that corporate change. > > Fram was once known for quality filters, but that changed when they were taken over by another company, about 10 years ago I think. > > Longer than that. They've been owned by Allied Signal about that long, > but their oil filters were the pits WAY before that corporate change. Honeywell now. Honeywell also owns the Prestone and Autolite brand names. Also Holts, although they're primarily in the UK. > Honeywell now. Honeywell also owns the Prestone and Autolite brand > names. Also Holts, although they're primarily in the UK. When did Ford sell Autolite? > When did Ford sell Autolite? In 1974, Ford was forced by antitrust actions to divest itself in the US of all Autolite activities. > I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil > light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > what was once a good product into JUNK! Their cheap filters are not > worth wasting an engine for. You can also buy Wix filters rebranded as NAPA filters. They offer the standard size for Toyotas, as well as the "tall" canister model. > I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil >light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >what was once a good product into JUNK! Their cheap filters are not >worth wasting an engine for. How did you try to put the compressed air thru them?? >> I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil >>light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How did you try to put the compressed air thru them?? Good question. The anti drain-back valve is the 'rubber' structure immediately below the outer ring of holes at the filter end. ISTM that if air was forced in the centre hole and could not escape through the outer ring of holes, then the valve was doing its job and it is the other filters that are faulty, not the Fram. But perhaps he found some clever way of forcing air in through the outer holes only, the same way as oil flows, without pressurising the centre exit at the same time? Huw Huw > >> I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil > >>light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Huw Maybe what he thought was "tight and restrictive" was actually flow in the reverse direction? In any case would be curious to know if a good (Purolator or Wix) filter solved the problem. I suspect it would but there might be some other, underlying issue (I hope not!) nate >> >> I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil >> >>light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >nate I've often heard that Toyota's HAD to have an anti-drainback valve and that some of the Fram's didn't have them at all and worked poorly on those Toyotas. > >> >> I recently had a problem with my old Toyota where the engine oil > >> >>light came on for several seconds after starting. Thought I had an oil [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > that some of the Fram's didn't have them at all and worked poorly on > those Toyotas. If the car requires an ADBV, the Fram version for that car will probably have one. The vast majority of Fram oil filters have the ADBV. The question is really about the design/materials used and the quality control (or lack thereof). There have been many anectodal reports that the ADBVs in Frams just don't keep the oil in the can, and some have noted that the material has pinched or otherwise remained open. I don't know if FRAM is making their filters in China like most > other sleazy American companies, but I think they forgot all about > quality control and their customers, in favor of profits. They turned > what was once a good product into JUNK! Their cheap filters are not > worth wasting an engine for. If Fram was *ever* a "good product" it was before 1980. They've always been the bottom of my list for oil filters. > If Fram was *ever* a "good product" it was before 1980. They've always > been the bottom of my list for oil filters. While I don't want to defend Fram, I have never yet seen meaningful data about their product. The simple 'saw open and see' tests aren't worth the time it took to do them. They may well be crap, but I can't make that decision based on any data I have seen. >> If Fram was *ever* a "good product" it was before 1980. They've always >> been the bottom of my list for oil filters. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >They may well be crap, but I can't make that decision based on any data >I have seen. Some Napa Auto parts stores have a display with a Gold Napa/Wix filter vs. the Typical Fram Oil Filter. Both have the steel body cut near the base so you can take it off. There is No comparison; the Napa/Wix is much better constructed by far, with more filter media as well. Even the cheaper Silver Line at Napa is better then a Fram. > Even the cheaper Silver Line at Napa is better then a Fram. Prove that it is 'better'. It looks better, I'll grant you. Such tests, although eye catching, mean nothing. We have had years of FRAM strings here, but real data is lacking. > > Even the cheaper Silver Line at Napa is better then a Fram. > > Prove that it is 'better'. It looks better, I'll grant you. Heck, must people don't even know what "better" is. Ed Round and round and round we go. What is a bear? > > Even the cheaper Silver Line at Napa is better then a Fram. > > Prove that it is 'better'. It looks better, I'll grant you. > > Such tests, although eye catching, mean nothing. > We have had years of FRAM strings here, but real data is lacking. What needs to be proven is if the cheap cardboard end caps and cheap construction of the Fram oil filters is better than the steel end cap construction that EVERY OTHER OIL FILTER MAKER uses. I go to the retail auto parts stores that sell mostly consumer shiny chrome crap, like the Checkers/Shucks/Kragen and I see a lot of Fram filters and no other brand. I go to the other auto parts stores in the area like the independents and I see a lot of Purloator and Power-Flo (which is a Purolator-made filter) And the Fram filters cost more. So, please tell me why the Fram construction is so much better that I should pay more? I see Fram selling their Double Guard oil filter and claiming it is better since it has Teflon in it. Then I go to Dupont's website on Teflon uses in automobiles, which is here: http://www.dupont.com/teflon/automotive/index.html and nowhere on it do I see Teflon recomended for use INSIDE OF ENGINES Then I go to DuPont's website that is setup for their version of Teflon that's specifically marketed for use as an oil and grease additive, which is here: http://www.dupont.com/lubricants/en/products/products.html and in the FAQ for this additive, here: http://www.dupont.com/lubricants/en/faqs.html I see the question and answer: "Is Krytox® used as an additive to combustion engine oils? Krytox® is not useful as an ingredient in oil additives or oils used for internal combustion engines because it is inert and will not mix with the oil." So, in leu of any claims from the manufacturer of Teflon, Dupont, that Teflon is of any use whatsoever in internal combustion engines, and in fact a statement that it is "not useful" in engine oil, I have to conclude that Fram is full of sh.t. If you don't think this is real data I don't know how you can possibly be satisfied. I certainly am, and I do not use Fram oil filters in my vehicles. Ted <snip> > So, in leu of any claims from the manufacturer of Teflon, Dupont, that > Teflon is of any use whatsoever in internal combustion engines, and in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be satisfied. I certainly am, and I do not use Fram oil filters in my > vehicles. I'm aware that Canadian Honda OEM filters are made by Fram (they say "Honeywell" on the side). Also, in perusing Fram's site, I see that they are OEM for Mack and Detroit Diesel heavy-duty filters. It's probably a silly question, but why would Honda, Mack, and Detroit Diesel use Fram as a supplier if Fram have such a bad reputation? Are the OEM-built Fram filters different from those available to the aftermarket? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > It's probably a silly question, but why would Honda, Mack, and Detroit > Diesel use Fram as a supplier if Fram have such a bad reputation? Because they were the lowest bidder? Because the filters are good enough that they have an "acceptable" failure rate? > Are > the OEM-built Fram filters different from those available to the > aftermarket? Quite likely. If nothing else, I would assume that the OEM filters would be required to have anti-drainback valves that actually work, unlike the aftermarket garbage. Customers don't like to listen to lifter rattle on brand new cars. Like others have said, it's your choice, but for my own personal cars, I will use any other brand before I use Fram. They just aren't worth it. When my FLAPS sells Wix for the same price why would I touch a Fram with a 10 foot pole? nate > I'm aware that Canadian Honda OEM filters are made by Fram (they say > "Honeywell" on the side). Also, in perusing Fram's site, I see that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the OEM-built Fram filters different from those available to the > aftermarket? When Fram made a corporate decision to cheapen construction of their most popular SKUs so the Big Box guys could sell them for $2.49, they limited it to the top-selling numbers. If you have a HD, ag, or less-popular import, you stand a chance of getting a decent filter. It's the trade-name (which escapes me - Duraguard?) that tags the junk filters. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the OEM-built Fram filters different from those available to the > aftermarket? It is VERY common for manufacturers to have multiple levels of quality for different retail channels that all carry the exact same label and model#. Daniel Stern has a couple of good examples that he cites periodically. But the fact is that when a Walmart goes to a supplier like Fram and orders 100,000 filters at $1 each, (and they order the supplier to sell it to them at this price) what they get looks exactly the same as what a place like Checkers sells, but internally it's cheaper. And this happens in MANY other industries than auto parts. Ted > If you don't think this is real data I don't know how you can possibly > be satisfied. I certainly am, and I do not use Fram oil filters in my > vehicles. > > Ted My statement was, and continues to be, that a cut apart filter comparison does not constitute data. Failure rate comparisons, engine failure statistics, particle size distribution removal, loading capacity, etc constitute data. If there were clear and meaningful data from a credible source, FRAM might be out of business. Others might be in trouble too. Like you, I am sure, I would like to use the best product possible so long as it is not price prohibitive. I just really dont know what that product is in this case. > > If you don't think this is real data I don't know how you can > > possibly be satisfied. I certainly am, and I do not use Fram oil [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > might be out of > business. Others might be in trouble too. Very true. It's odd that even Consumer Reports appear not to have done any sort of filter tests, even as they've done tests on oil itself, however credible or incredible those tests may have been (nod to Daniel Stern). > Like you, I am sure, I would like to use the best product possible so > long as it is not > price prohibitive. I just really dont know what that product is in > this case. Actually, I don't much care what the price is. I just want a good filter. Even if it's $10 per filter and I change the oil six times a year, it's still a minuscule fraction of what I'd spend on fuel (or beer) over that same year. > Very true. It's odd that even Consumer Reports appear not to have done > any sort of filter tests, even as they've done tests on oil itself, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > year, it's still a minuscule fraction of what I'd spend on fuel (or > beer) over that same year. The problem with trying to evaluate oil filter is knowing what is good enough. If the filter is too efficient at removing small particles, it will filter out stuff that won't damage the engine and load up faster, which may restrict flow through the filter and activate the bypass, allowing unfiltered oil to circulate. If it is not efficient enough at removing small particles, then the engine may be damaged. Some engines are very sensitive to oil draining back to the pan and require a very good anti-drainback valve. Other engines have the anti-drain back valve built into the oil system, or just don't need one. Old VWs didn't even have an oil filter. Growing up (60's and 70's), I was used to Fords and Dodges that used the relatively large spin on filters (FL1 / PH8A size) and was always surprised at the small filters on many GM engines (especially when you considered GM only required that they be changed every other oil change). In my opinion, today's conditions are less severe than they were 20 years ago - better oil, no lead in gasoline, better air filters, better pcv systems, fuel injection (less excess fuel), etc., etc., etc.. As a result oil filtration requirements are probably not as critical as they were 20 years ago. There are SAE tests available for evaluating filtering efficiency and capacity. However, these tests only tells you what the filter can do, not what is required for any particular engine and operating conditions. Do I use Fram filters? - Nope. Is this based on knowledge that they are not good enough for the job? - No. Personally I can't find any reason to use FRAM filters. They look cheaper, but generally cost about the same as better "looking" filters. I also don't like the multiple filter line scheme - why have two or three or four lines of filters for a given application? If the low cost filter is good enough for the application, why would you need the higher priced line? And in fact, in some applications, the low line Fram filter is not actually good enough - the Fram Extra Guard Equivalent to a Motorcraft FL-820S (Fram PH2) is not suitable for use on Ford modular motors because it has a crummy anti-drainback valve. The equivalent Fram Tough Guard Filter (TG2) has a better anti-drainback valve and is probably OK. However, it costs more than the Motorcraft part, so why would I use it? My advice is simple - If you own a Ford, use the correct Motorcraft filter, a Chrysler, the correct Mopar filter, a GM product, the correct AC Filter, etc. The only exception for me is my Sister's Honda. You can't buy Honda filters at the local auto parts store and I try to avoid the local Honda dealer like the plague. So for her car I use a WIX filter. I can buy them for about the same as a Fram Extra Guard (the cheap line), and the local garage and auto parts stores have them in stock. Ed >>If you don't think this is real data I don't know how you can possibly >>be satisfied. I certainly am, and I do not use Fram oil filters in my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > price prohibitive. I just really dont know what that product is in this > case. Many years ago, Auto-X (now Grassroots Motorsports) magazine did a comprehensive test of popular oil filters. Wix won, Fram was way back in the pack. But I'd submit to you, what better data-gathering device than your own eyes? Go to a Wix seller auto supply and look at the cutaways. Then use whichever you think represents the best value. . > Many years ago, Auto-X (now Grassroots Motorsports) magazine did a > comprehensive test of popular oil filters. Wix won, Fram was way > back in the pack. Hmmm... http://www.grmotorsports.com/archives/IMAGES/bi8788.pdf Issue # 4/10, November 1987. The article is called "Go with the Flow". They test eight different filters. Apparently you have to order a back issue before you're allowed to read any articles. Time for a trip to the library... > http://www.grmotorsports.com/archives/IMAGES/bi8788.pdf > Issue # 4/10, November 1987. The article is called "Go with the Flow". > They test eight different filters. > > Apparently you have to order a back issue before you're allowed to read > any articles. Time for a trip to the library... I tried to get some real data from publications of SAE and Southwest Testing Laboratories. They seem to have the data, but you have to have paid into the system to get it. Like all good mooches, I want something for nothing. > But I'd submit to you, what better data-gathering device than your own > eyes? Go to a Wix seller auto supply and look at the cutaways. Then use > whichever you think represents the best value. I hear you, Rex, but visual appearance doesn't always mean very much. I have used Wix and all the major filters, including Fram. I have never had a problem with any of them. No case splitting, no leaking, no drain back valve problems...Nothing that I can tell. And my personal observations are just as worthless as appearance. Not detecting a problem doesn't mean there isn't one. >>But I'd submit to you, what better data-gathering device than your own >>eyes? Go to a Wix seller auto supply and look at the cutaways. Then use >>whichever you think represents the best value. > > I hear you, Rex, but visual appearance doesn't always mean very much. Granted, but a visual difference this striking has to count. > I have used Wix and all the major filters, including Fram. I have never > had a problem with any of them. No case splitting, no leaking, no drain back > valve problems...Nothing that I can tell. And my personal observations > are just as worthless as appearance. Not detecting a problem doesn't mean > there isn't one. I was at an autocross in the late 1980s in Mineral Wells TX. A good friend competing in my class was running a 1986 Honda Prelude. In the midle of a run smoke erupted and he immediately parked. Pulled it back to the paddock and discovered his Fram filter can had burst. Wish I had kept it. This was a filter that had been on the car for almost 1000 miles. I have also talked to a dirt track racer who told me about pulling a collapsed Fram filter out of his race car. This was the canister type SB Chevrolet, where you just change the element. The oil-soaked cardboard had collapsed under oil pressure. The entire filter element was a compressed disk about an inch thick, stuck in the bottom of the cannister. When he showed it to his buddies, they said "I bet that was a Fram, wasn't it?" Personally, I have only had one filter failure. That was on a Purolator Group 7, their old second line. It used a rubber washer bypass valve. My oil was getting dirty real quick, so I change it early. found the rubber ring sticking out the threaded center hole like a tongue. > Personally, I have only had one filter failure. That was on a > Purolator Group 7, their old second line. It used a rubber washer bypass > valve. My oil was getting dirty real quick, so I change it early. found > the rubber ring sticking out the threaded center hole like a tongue. I think I have seen one failure, perhaps AC, but not on my car. It was on one of the company cars serviced at the company garage. When we pulled it off, it was DRY. There had never been a drop of oil through it...it had all bypassed. > > Personally, I have only had one filter failure. That was on a > > Purolator Group 7, their old second line. It used a rubber washer [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There had never been a drop of > oil through it...it had all bypassed. "Dry"? Sounds like oil never managed to reach the filter at all. Would that not have been a problem with a bypass valve in the engine block rather than a problem with the filter? It was apparently a problem with that particular filter. We replaced the filter, and the new one worked as it should have. First time I ever saw this, and have never seen it since. >>> Personally, I have only had one filter failure. That was on a >>>Purolator Group 7, their old second line. It used a rubber washer [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Would that not have been a problem with a bypass valve in the engine > block rather than a problem with the filter? The bypass valve *may* be mounted in the filter in some applications, and you are correct, other times it's mounted in the block. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel I work with filters at my job(not oil filters) and know that what is important is what you can not see. I have not seen the displays but unless the displays have microscopic photos of the filter element it means nothing to me. You can have titanium end caps, ground and lapped anti drain back valve and 20 sq ft of filter area but if the filter media is too porous or too impermeable, it will not work well. The "holes" in the filter media has to be the right size to trap harmful particles. There has to be a good ratio of open area (holes) to closed (structure) area to allow the oil flow freely. There is an ASTM test to tell how well filters work. As far as I know there is no information on this available for automotive oil filters. So, with the lack of information it is a crap shoot as to what works best. It is like the old saying "Which is better a Ford or a Chevy". It comes down to non tangibles. What you think is best. > >> If Fram was *ever* a "good product" it was before 1980. They've always > >> been the bottom of my list for oil filters. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Even the cheaper Silver Line at Napa is better then a Fram. I personally don't care how good Fram's media is; if the ADBV doesn't work it's still a piece of crap. It may provide the best filtration of any filter on the market, but when it takes 5+ seconds to build oil pressure it's still harming my engine. nate > I work with filters at my job(not oil filters) and know that what is > important is what you can not see. I have not seen the displays but unless [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > > Even the cheaper Silver Line at Napa is better then a Fram. > You can have titanium end caps, ground and lapped anti drain back valve and > 20 sq ft of filter area but if the filter media is too porous or too > impermeable, it will not work well. ...and likewise, you can have the best, most perfect filter media mankind knows how to make, but if the endcaps are porous and/or incompletely secured to the media, if the antidrainback valve is of an ineffective design, if there's manufacturing trash in the filter assembly, if the overpressure bypass valve opens too soon or not soon enough, it will not work well. That's the whole point: Fram's filter media may be great and goovy, but it doesn't matter, because their materials and construction are garbage. And that *CAN* be seen and evaluated with the eyes and hands. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Fram is better at filtering than others. I am just saying that there is not enough information to know which filter is best. I am not supporting Fram. The reason that I use Fram is that my dad used Fram filters. > > You can have titanium end caps, ground and lapped anti drain back valve and > > 20 sq ft of filter area but if the filter media is too porous or too [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > doesn't matter, because their materials and construction are garbage. And > that *CAN* be seen and evaluated with the eyes and hands. > I am not supporting Fram. The reason that I use Fram is that my dad used > Fram filters. I'm not supporting Fram either, contrary to what some might believe. > Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Fram is better at filtering than > others. I am just saying that there is not enough information to know which > filter is best. > > I am not supporting Fram. The reason that I use Fram is that my dad used > Fram filters. With all due respect to your Dad, that's pretty lame. The Fram your dad did business with probably was a good, indpendent company that made a quality product at a reasonable price. That changed in the late 1970s when Honeywell bought them out and sold the Fram Soul to the Big Box devils, and screwed the traditional automotive aftermarket that put the company on the map. >> Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Fram is better at filtering than >> others. I am just saying that there is not enough information to know [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Fram Soul to the Big Box devils, and screwed the traditional automotive > aftermarket that put the company on the map. Well Rex... I am sure thats not Scotts fault... he probably didn't know that info you just mentioned....he probably thought Fram filters were/are Fram filters.... Fwed > Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Fram is better at filtering than > others. I am just saying that there is not enough information to know which > filter is best. There is plenty of information, though, to know which filters are *not* best. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.