 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Trucks / September 2004Oil Relocation Kits - Harmful to your engine?
Hello. Is there any truth to the rumor that oil relocation kits may be/are harmful to your engine? A few months ago I installed a Perma-Cool relocation kit on my 2000 Toyota 4-Runner 3.4L and everything went fine. I would add an additional halfpint (total of 6-pints) to bring the dipstick level into range. I use a Fram P8HA size filter that is installed below the battery on the inner fender wall. So today, I got to talking to the know-it-all (?) guy at the autoparts store. He said that every time I started my engine I was harming it because the P8HA did not have a check valve or something that is found on the stock Toyota filter. This would cause the engine to lose its oil pressure every start. Eventually, say after 50,000 miles (his words) the engine would be junk. He said many Toyota engines have been ruined by relocation kits using the wrong filter. Can any Toyota techs confirm if this is really correct, or is this guy full of it. Thanks. Which way did you install the filter? If the filter is hanging down, it will stay full and your pressure will be there fast, if the filter is sideways or upside down, then yes you will lose pressure for a while on starts and the gent was right. I would go for the filter with the valve if in doubt. That extra buck or two for OEM parts is well worth it sometimes. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's > Hello. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks. Mike Romain wrote Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:36:30 GMT %n > Which way did you install the filter? > > If the filter is hanging down, it will stay full and your pressure will > be there fast, if the filter is sideways or upside down, then yes you > will lose pressure for a while on starts and the gent was right. It's about 45-degrees, rising 6-inches or so from the original block location. Here's a pic: http://home.earthlink.net/~mailmover/pics/oil.jpg > I would go for the filter with the valve if in doubt. That extra buck or > two for OEM parts is well worth it sometimes. FWIW, the stock Toyota filter is half the size. If needed I can change to the smaller filter. Another poster, though, says the P8HA has the valve. I don't know the specs on the kit and neither does anyone else here by the looks of things. You have it positioned so it won't drain, valve or no valve. There 'seems' to be a concern about a bypass valve, not a drain back valve. That 'does' need looking into although according to the 'experts' here an engine won't run without a bypass valve because the pumps put out way too much pressure so the gauge would 'have' to be pinned at max. (in another thread) Do you have an oil pressure gauge. Does it pin out at cold start like it should if there is no bypass? Or were the 'experts' just full of crap? That kit is either a great thing or snake oil that will kill your engine it would seem eh? I tried looking up the specs for the filter and for your kit but could not find them listed. You know the old saying, when in doubt, RTFM or read the *.* manual. Mike > Mike Romain wrote Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:36:30 GMT %n > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > FWIW, the stock Toyota filter is half the size. If needed I can change to > the smaller filter. Another poster, though, says the P8HA has the valve. > would go for the filter with the valve if in doubt. That extra buck or > two for OEM parts is well worth it sometimes. I must give credit to Toyota for employing marketeers so brilliant at what they do that they have succeeded in promulgating the idiotic notion that only Toyota-branded filters contain antidrainback valves. But the blame for believing it goes to the general public. >> would go for the filter with the valve if in doubt. That extra buck >> or two for OEM parts is well worth it sometimes. > > I must give credit to Toyota for employing marketeers so brilliant at > what they do that they have succeeded in promulgating the idiotic > notion that only Toyota-branded filters contain antidrainback valves. Toyota has never asserted any such thing so far as I have ever been aware. Please tell me where you acquired the notion that Toyota's "marketeers" ever said this.  SignatureTeGGeR? How to find anything on the Internet: www.google.com or in Usenet Groups: www.groups.google.com Google is your friend. Learn how to use it. On Fri, 18 Sep 2004, Tegger wrote: > > I must give credit to Toyota for employing marketeers so brilliant at > > what they do that they have succeeded in promulgating the idiotic > > notion that only Toyota-branded filters contain antidrainback valves. > Toyota has never asserted any such thing so far as I have ever been aware=2E > Please tell me where you acquired the notion that Toyota's "marketeers" > ever said this. Numerous magazine ads over the last fifteen years or so. >>would go for the filter with the valve if in doubt. That extra buck or >>two for OEM parts is well worth it sometimes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But the blame for believing it goes to the general public. Well, the fact that Fram filters don't, and being that Fram is the most common aftermarket brand, that made their jobs so much easier. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > I must give credit to Toyota for employing marketeers so brilliant at > > what they do that they have succeeded in promulgating the idiotic > > notion that only Toyota-branded filters contain antidrainback valves. > > But the blame for believing it goes to the general public. > > Well, the fact that Fram filters don't There is no such fact! Fram filters are garbage, but the ones designed for applications that require antidrainback valves *have antidrainback valves!* >>>I must give credit to Toyota for employing marketeers so brilliant at >>>what they do that they have succeeded in promulgating the idiotic [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > applications that require antidrainback valves *have antidrainback > valves!* Um, they just don't prevent oil from draining back. Therefore, they may have something that Fram calls an anti-drainback valve, but my experience with them has shown that they don't actually have anti-drainback valves. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>I must give credit to Toyota for employing marketeers so brilliant at >>>>what they do that they have succeeded in promulgating the idiotic >>>>notion that only Toyota-branded filters contain antidrainback valves. >>>>But the blame for believing it goes to the general public. >>> >>>Well, the fact that Fram filters don't they do! Bypass filters don't need the anti drain valve >> There is no such fact! Fram filters are garbage, but the ones designed for >> applications that require antidrainback valves *have antidrainback >> valves!* Fram uses cheap materials (less cost) and are substandard. The anti drain valve is the rubber behind the holes nearest the gasket. >Um, they just don't prevent oil from draining back. Therefore, they may >have something that Fram calls an anti-drainback valve, but my >experience with them has shown that they don't actually have >anti-drainback valves. No anti drain valve=delayed oil pressure No bypass valve=oil starvation if filter clogs or cold thick oil cannot pass element. Over pressure valve (in oil pump) maintains max oil pressure with cool oil and increased RPM when oil pump puts out higher volume than needed for engine. kend > So today, I got to talking to the know-it-all (?) guy at the autoparts > store. He said that every time I started my engine I was harming it > because the P8HA did not have a check valve or something that is found > on the stock Toyota filter. Blah, blah, blah. The PH8A, like all Fram filters, is a low-quality oil filter, but it most certainly DOES have an antidrainback valve. Just use the Motorcraft FL-1A, which is what the PH8a is.. or use a Purolator, which have the valve, and also a better quality filter. > > So today, I got to talking to the know-it-all (?) guy at the autoparts > > store. He said that every time I started my engine I was harming it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Blah, blah, blah. The PH8A, like all Fram filters, is a low-quality oil > filter, but it most certainly DOES have an antidrainback valve. > Just use the Motorcraft FL-1A, which is what the PH8a is.. or use a > Purolator, which have the valve, and also a better quality filter. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Blah, blah, blah. The PH8A, like all Fram filters, is a low-quality oil > > filter, but it most certainly DOES have an antidrainback valve. Just spend the money and get a Toyota filter. Costs about $5.00 here in Albuquerque. Bearman SignatureIf it's got tits, tires, tubes, or transistors, it's trouble. >> So today, I got to talking to the know-it-all (?) guy at the autoparts >> store. He said that every time I started my engine I was harming it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Blah, blah, blah. The PH8A, like all Fram filters, is a low-quality oil >filter, but it most certainly DOES have an antidrainback valve. The parts guy is right, but the anti-drainback valve is not your problem at all. Pay attention now, and all will be explained... ;-) Even though it bolts right up the same and appears to be interchangeable you can NOT use a PH8A filter safely on a Toyota that calls for a PH3614, because it does not have an overpressure relief (bypass) valve inside the filter like Toyota uses require. Fords have the relief valve - between the oil filter inlet and outlet passages - built into the engine block (or filter mounting adapter), most of the Toyota 4's and V-6's have it inside the filter. (The only exception I can find right now that can use PH8A is the F-motor - LandCruisers. The F-motor designer was Chevrolet in the 1920's (the "Stovebolt Six"), Toyota bought it. Can't find my paper Fram catalog right now to look for any others, and their online site can't do a reverse search.) When you drive in sub-zero weather conditions every time you do a cold start the oil pump tries to force the frozen oil through the oil filter - but you can't filter something with a consistency somewhere between honey and mayonnaise, and the oil won't start thinning out until the engine starts warming up. Without a bypass valve to send the cold oil around the filter element, the pressure on the input side of the filter can spike over 100 PSI - even 500 PSI wouldn't surprise me at all, it's a gear pump. You seriously risk have an oil filter either blow out the mounting gasket or the base crimp of the filter can from overpressure, and total oil volume loss as it dumps it all on the ground. If you don't spot the loss of oil pressure fast enough, this will be followed soon after by the engine seizing up. --<< Bruce >>-- SignatureBruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545 Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net. Bruce L. Bergman wrote Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:27:25 GMT %n >>> So today, I got to talking to the know-it-all (?) guy at the >>> autoparts store. He said that every time I started my engine I was [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > --<< Bruce >>-- Thanks, Bruce for the detailed explanation. After reading through the thread I have decided to go back to the stock location. Getting leverage to remove the filter from the block was a PITA, and the reason why I relocated it. Couldn't get a strap remover in there, etc. One brand of filter that makes removal much easier is the K&N line with its hex end. http://www.knfilterchargers.com/search/product.aspx?Prod=HP-1002 It's $10 at the parts store though. That hex end is worth the extra $5 alone! Thanks to everyone else who offered advice. Much appreciated. -mm >Bruce L. Bergman wrote Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:27:25 GMT %n >> Even though it bolts right up the same and appears to be >> interchangeable you can NOT use a PH8A filter safely on a Toyota that >> calls for a PH3614, because it does not have an overpressure relief >> (bypass) valve inside the filter like Toyota uses require. <Big Snip> >Thanks, Bruce for the detailed explanation. De nada. ;-) (And that's about the limit of my Spanish...) >After reading through the thread I have decided to go back to the stock >location. Getting leverage to remove the filter from the block was a >PITA, and the reason why I relocated it. Couldn't get a strap remover >in there, etc. A pain in the a.s you can live with, it's the absolutely impossible ones that need a remote kit - and the design engineer needs to be shot for putting a service item in an impossible spot in the first place... There's a special level in Hell reserved for the all the engineers who make things that look beautiful - but are impossible to repair without busted knuckles and/or total disassembly. And dropping the skid plate to change the oil filter certainly counts - I would have grabbed a plasma torch and cut an access hole in the skid-plate if they stuck me with that one. If the remote filter kit had the relief valve in it, you would probably be OK, but I don't know of any that do. With remote filters, there's a lot more things to go wrong, between the seals from the adapter to the block, and all the extra oil hoses - KISS. The less things you add that can break, the less that will. >One brand of filter that makes removal much easier is the K&N line with >its hex end. >http://www.knfilterchargers.com/search/product.aspx?Prod=HP-1002 > >It's $10 at the parts store though. >That hex end is worth the extra $5 alone! There are other spin-on oil filter designs that fit those cup-end filter wrenches - and just as many different sizes of cup end wrenches needed to fit them, because each brand has a different flat count on each size... <Aarghhh!> --<< Bruce >>-- SignatureBruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545 Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net. >>One brand of filter that makes removal much easier is the K&N line with >>its hex end. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >needed to fit them, because each brand has a different flat count on >each size... <Aarghhh!> I got a nifty filter wrench at Sears--has a rack & pinion setup internally so when I twist it CCW its jaws clamp onto the filter. Fits just about anything. Only caveat is that on a really tight filter I've heard it can crush the can before unscrewing it, but I've never met a filter that tight. SignatureB.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net > I got a nifty filter wrench at Sears--has a rack & pinion setup >internally so when I twist it CCW its jaws clamp onto the filter. Fits >just about anything. > Only caveat is that on a really tight filter I've heard it can crush >the can before unscrewing it, but I've never met a filter that tight. So what... it's trash anyways :) --- Rich http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ >> I got a nifty filter wrench at Sears--has a rack & pinion setup >>internally so when I twist it CCW its jaws clamp onto the filter. Fits [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So what... it's trash anyways :) What if it's over your head? (: SignatureB.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail.net WARNING: Finish all liquid refreshments before proceeding. s p o i l e r s p a c e >>> I got a nifty filter wrench at Sears--has a rack & pinion setup >>>internally so when I twist it CCW its jaws clamp onto the filter. Fits [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What if it's over your head? (: So you get dripped on a bit, big deal - it's all good. "Oily to bed and Oily to rise makes a gearhead healthy wealthy and wise." Or something like that... ;-) --<< Bruce >>-- SignatureBruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545 Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net. >>> I got a nifty filter wrench at Sears--has a rack & pinion setup >>>internally so when I twist it CCW its jaws clamp onto the filter. Fits [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What if it's over your head? (: You're not wearing safety glasses? --- Rich http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ >After reading through the thread I have decided to go back to the stock >location. Getting leverage to remove the filter from the block was a >PITA, and the reason why I relocated it. Couldn't get a strap remover >in there, etc. Why? I didn't see where anyone had a bad thing to say about the remote filter just several people that thought you should use a specific filter on the remote unit. Did I miss something? Steve B. Steve B. wrote Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:21:37 GMT %n >>After reading through the thread I have decided to go back to the >>stock location. Getting leverage to remove the filter from the block [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Steve B. I ordered a remote kit specifically for a 2000 Toyota 4Runner. The kit that arrived was designed to use a PH8A or equivalent-sized filter. The oem Toyota filter or any matching aftermarket filters would simply not fit the remote kit. > I use a Fram >P8HA size filter that is installed below the battery on the inner fender >wall. FRAMs aren't known for having good ADB Valves. I once used them on my Honda and the oil light took noticeably longer to go out on the first start of the day compared to the OEM filter. There's nothing wrong with a remote filter kit. Just use a quality filter with a silicon rubber ADBV. Silcon valves are ORANGE in color and can be seen through the inlet holes. If the valve is black, it's the lesser quality Nitrile rubber, which is more prone to hardening with exposure to oil over time. > FRAMs aren't known for having good ADB Valves. Frams aren't known for having good anything. > There's nothing wrong with a remote filter kit. Just use a quality filter Correct on both counts. > with a silicon rubber ADBV. There are many different kinds of rubber very suitable for making anti drainback valves, of which silicon rubber is only one. > Silcon valves are ORANGE in color and can be > seen through the inlet holes. If the valve is black, it's the lesser > quality Nitrile rubber, Both Nitrile and Silicon rubber are available in many, many colors, including orange and black. >> FRAMs aren't known for having good ADB Valves. > > Frams aren't known for having good anything. They build good filters when adhering to Honda's specifications. Canadian Honda OEM filters are made by FRAM (now Honeywell) and have been for at least a decade. >> There's nothing wrong with a remote filter kit. Just use a quality >> filter [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Both Nitrile and Silicon rubber are available in many, many colors, > including orange and black. True. You can make polymers literally any color under the sun. But colors are often used as identifiers. In this case, black is generally used to indicate nitrile rubber, and orange to identify silicone. Honda's Canadian OEM filters use orange silicone anti-drainback flaps. SignatureTeGGeR? How to find anything on the Internet: www.google.com or in Usenet Groups: www.groups.google.com Google is your friend. Learn how to use it. I have been using Fram from day one on my 1984 Toyota Extracab 4x4 pickup (22R engine). Got 240,000 miles and still a trucking! Nick > Hello. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks. > I have been using Fram from day one on my 1984 Toyota Extracab 4x4 > pickup (22R engine). Got 240,000 miles and still a trucking! > Nick Assuming that you have changed oil every 3000 miles that is a total of 80 Fram oil filters that you have used. If the failure rate of Fram filters in service is 10%, (1 in 10, or 10 in 100 filters) it is easily possible that you would have never experienced an oil filter failure - ie: there was a 90% chance that every time you bought a Fram oil filter that it was a good one that wasn't going to fail. Thus I don't see that your testimonial is worth much. Come back after you have 300,000 miles on your Toyota and tell us then how good Fram filters are. Ted > > I have been using Fram from day one on my 1984 Toyota Extracab 4x4 > > pickup (22R engine). Got 240,000 miles and still a trucking! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have > 300,000 miles on your Toyota and tell us then how good Fram filters are. Well, that would be 20 more filters. 10% failure rate?? For real? What fails? That's a HIGH failure rate! ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll > Ted >> I have been using Fram from day one on my 1984 Toyota Extracab 4x4 >> pickup (22R engine). Got 240,000 miles and still a trucking! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >good >one that wasn't going to fail. From your claim he should have had 8 filter failures. He's had none. I'd give his claim a lot more value since it's based on ACTUAL filter usage, then the observations made from hacksawing filters apart and commenting on the quality of the spot welds and whether or not the endcaps had glue dribbles on them. >Thus I don't see that your testimonial is worth much. Come back after you >have >300,000 miles on your Toyota and tell us then how good Fram filters are. Ludicrous request. >Ted -- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 > >> I have been using Fram from day one on my 1984 Toyota Extracab 4x4 > >> pickup (22R engine). Got 240,000 miles and still a trucking! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > From your claim he should have had 8 filter failures. How do you figure that? Just because the failure rate is 1 in 10 does not mean he's automatically going to have every 10th filter he buys fail on him. Statistically, that is what the AVERAGE person would have happen. But these sorts of statistics are totally meaningless when applied to a SINGLE person in the sample group. Maybe he's just been one of the lucky ones. Maybe someone else has had EVERY filter they bought fail - that is where you get an average from. And in any case I said "IF THE FAILURE RATE" I didn't say that the failure rate WAS that for Frams. I don't know the actual failure rate but as failure rates of any product are partly determined by quality of construction (ie: your spot welds) it is pretty clear that Frams fail at a higher rate because their construction is poorer. I used 10% because that makes it an easy calculation for the example, since evidentally so many people in this forum are math-challenged. It's a shame that so many people in this forum are unable to see the difference between an example that is setup for illustrating a point, and an actual example of something that happened. You don't hear about many oil filter catastrophic burst failures, this isn't a common problem. As nobody tracks auto repairs (other than the automakers and they only care about in-warranty repair tracking) nobody really knows what the average burst failure rate of an oil filter is. If Usenet is any kind of a guide, it's probably under 1%. I would theorize that this is because the auto oil filter is so overengineered for strength in the first place - because a burst failure is so catastrophic - that even the worst examples don't have a high burst failure rate. And of course, if the filter fails internally, nobody is going to know because it will most likely clog and the bypass valve open. The only evidence would be a slightly dirtier oil at change time and nobody is going to notice this. But there IS a failure rate for oil filters, no doubt about it. I submit that it's higher for Frams, a lot higher, due to their construction. Please now provide a logical argument showing how something made more shoddily is going to have a better failure rate than something made better, the designs being equal. > He's had none. > I'd give his claim a lot more value since it's based on ACTUAL filter > usage, then the observations made from hacksawing filters apart and > commenting on the quality of the spot welds and whether or not the > endcaps had glue dribbles on them. The folks that saw them apart also use them. And some of them even have testimonials as well. Since you give his pro-Fram testimonial so much credit, why don't you give the anti-Fram testimonials equal credit? Now do you finally understand the futility of arguing with testimonials? 4 out of 5 dentists! > >Thus I don't see that your testimonial is worth much. Come back after you > >have > >300,000 miles on your Toyota and tell us then how good Fram filters are. > > Ludicrous request. Ludicrous that a Toyota would make it to 300,000 miles? At least that we agree on. Ted Ted sed: > I used 10% because that makes it an easy calculation for the example, since > evidentally so many people in this forum are math-challenged. It's a shame [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that > happened. Dat's cuz "if" is a perty small word, and proly got lost in the eyeball shuffle... And altho it was argued oppositely in terms of the filter material itself, chintzing on welds etc would in all likelihood *correlate w/ some kind of "irregularity" in the media itself*, porosity or otherwise. People, and mfr's in particular, usually don't kick the dog w/o kicking the cat. > Ludicrous that a Toyota would make it to 300,000 miles? At least that we > agree on. Probably another thread, but my impression of automotive lore is that Toyota's would be statistically *more likely* to make 300,000 miles... Your overall point is spot spot on (spot weld??): if the cost is the same, why *reward* a chintzing mfr?? And, why take the chance? Which proves that you don't nec get what you pay for! Your points about oil filters and "consumer behavior" are really interesting. AZGuy's point about a filter poss. being too fine (toward the end of again hustling the consumer) was also astute. We are, as consumers, but fish in a barrel. Actually, one of the better threads I've read in a while, from everyone's input. ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll > > >> I have been using Fram from day one on my 1984 Toyota Extracab 4x4 > > >> pickup (22R engine). Got 240,000 miles and still a trucking! [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Ted On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:43:49 -0400, "Proctologically Violated©®" <physical@erols.com> wrote: >Ted sed: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >kind of "irregularity" in the media itself*, porosity or otherwise. People, >and mfr's in particular, usually don't kick the dog w/o kicking the cat. But think about it from a different viewpoint. If two manufacturers are targeting to have a $5 filter, which would you rather have, the one with the heavy metal can and great spot welds,which accounts for $4 out of the $5 cost, leaving them $1 to spend on the actual filter media... Or the other manufacturer who uses thinner metal and who's spot welds don't look as pretty (but are more then adequate) and which account for $3 of the cost leaving $2 to spend on the filter media itself. In the absence of REAL DATA on any of this, we just don't know do we. >> Ludicrous that a Toyota would make it to 300,000 miles? At least that we >> agree on. [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] >> >> Ted -- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 > >Ted sed: > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > itself. In the absence of REAL DATA on any of this, we just don't > know do we. Indeed, a good point. We have to be clairvoyant to know whether a company is indeed kicking the cats along with the dogs, or is actually doing good cost/benefit analysis, resource allocation. Intuitively I believe most are kicking the cats, as consumers are increasingly but fish in a barrel. And intuitively I would correlate better welds w/ better filtering. But you are correct, we really don't know, unless some independent testing firm has some compelling protocol, or good statistics have been compiled. Indeed, the fellow who's gone 240,000 miiles on Frams is actually a perty good testimonial! Since I now have the Oil Willies, ahm thinkin bout machining an adapter plate that can hold THREE oil filters in parallel.... ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll > >> Ludicrous that a Toyota would make it to 300,000 miles? At least that we > >> agree on. [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House > of Representatives, August 17, 1789 Is this just a little blown out of proportion. I have used mostly Frams and some other brands and not had a problem in 294K miles. Never seen the checkvalve fail, at least when I take it off, only a little oil drains out. When I cut it open, a bunch gushes out. The 3L does not seem that picky. I have had as little as 2qts in it (normal is 5qt) and a much as 9qts. It's still going down the road. On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 05:40:58 -0700, Proctologically Violated©® wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 08:40:58 -0400, "Proctologically Violated©®" <physical@erols.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:43:49 -0400, "Proctologically Violated©®" >> <physical@erols.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Since I now have the Oil Willies, ahm thinkin bout machining an >adapter plate that can hold THREE oil filters in parallel.... Maybe it's time we switch to discussing the benefits of toilet paper filter systems. They keep the oil completely clean. -- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 >But think about it from a different viewpoint. If two manufacturers >are targeting to have a $5 filter, which would you rather have, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >itself. In the absence of REAL DATA on any of this, we just don't >know do we. Ya, but the problem is, instead of actually spending the remaining $2 on filter media, they put in half the amount of media as the competitor. --- Rich http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ >> >> I have been using Fram from day one on my 1984 Toyota Extracab 4x4 >> >> pickup (22R engine). Got 240,000 miles and still a trucking! [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Maybe someone else has had EVERY filter they bought fail - that is where >you get an average from. If he was buying a case of filters and then using them one at a time over the life of the vehicle your view might have some merit, but as he's buying them as he needs them and therefore is getting a "representative" sample of many manufacturing lots, he is very likely to hit the average, whatever it is. >And in any case I said "IF THE FAILURE RATE" I didn't >say that the failure rate WAS that for Frams. I don't know the actual [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >higher >rate because their construction is poorer. No, it's not at all clear. You can't tell squat from the eyeball analysis as to failure rates. Those cardboard end caps you talk about, what makes you think they are going to fail? The pressure of the oil when the filter is in service pushes the caps ON, not off. >I used 10% because that makes it an easy calculation for the example, since >evidentally so many people in this forum are math-challenged. It's a shame [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that >happened. Look, you gave the example and I showed how your conclusion, which you attempted to base on your example, was 180 degrees wrong. >You don't hear about many oil filter catastrophic burst failures, this isn't >a common problem. Then why are you obsessing over how strong the can is? I've never had on burst and not a single person I've known in decades has ever had a filter burst. It's really a non-issue except for those few special cases people allege and even that, the VW's that supposedly burst filters.... my wife, and both sisters had VW and never had any bursting problems with the filters. >As nobody tracks auto repairs (other than the automakers and they only >care about in-warranty repair tracking) nobody really knows what the average [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >because it will >most likely clog and the bypass valve open. How does a filter "fail" resulting in a "clog"? Or do you mean it fills with "dirt" and goes into bypass mode. Based on the couple of used filters I've hacksawed open, I'd be shocked if that happened on anything other then a vehicle that was totally ragged out and burning a quart every 100 miles. None of the used filters I've opened had more then a tiny little bit of stuff on the paper. Most of the dirt you see in your used oil is the stuff that's so small you don't need to worry about it and the filters are not supposed to be taking it out. The only evidence would be a >slightly dirtier oil at change time and nobody is going to notice this. > >But there IS a failure rate for oil filters, no doubt about it. I submit >that it's >higher for Frams, a lot higher, due to their construction. You can submit your opinion all you want. That proves nothing. Please now >provide >a logical argument showing how something made more shoddily is going to >have a better failure rate than something made better, the designs being >equal. Because nothing about the fram design logically means it won't provide the same level of filtering over it's 3000- 6000 mile life. It's just a filter, it's not supposed to be a work of art. >> He's had none. >> I'd give his claim a lot more value since it's based on ACTUAL filter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >have testimonials as well. Since you give his pro-Fram testimonial so much >credit, why don't you give the anti-Fram testimonials equal credit? The credit I'm giving him is that unlike you, he has an evidentiary basis for his opinion, you have, well, nothing but an opinion. There are lots of testimonials for how great K&N filters and Gas Magnets are - does that mean you believe them? And if you saw two gas magnets and one was REALLY WELL MADE would you think it worked better then one that was poorly made? Or would you say, wait a minute, even if this magnet gizmo does work, why would it matter if it had a really nice coat of paint on it and cost more the one with the same amount of magnetic flux with a lousy paint job? >Now do you finally understand the futility of arguing with testimonials? 4 >out of >5 dentists! Hmm, you base your view on hacksawed eyeball observations and declare a winner, while the guy who actually used them with zero problems for nearly 300K you discount as meaningless data. >> >Thus I don't see that your testimonial is worth much. Come back after >you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Ludicrous that a Toyota would make it to 300,000 miles? At least that we >agree on. Ludicrous that you would think another 30K would prove something more then what we already know. -- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 >>You don't hear about many oil filter catastrophic burst failures, this isn't >>a common problem. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > filters.... my wife, and both sisters had VW and never had any > bursting problems with the filters. Where I've heard of this happening is usually at an autocross where someone is making a hard run and getting to near-redline speeds without checking to make sure the oil is properly warmed up first (and probably running 15W40 or 15W50 oil as well... remember we're talking VW's here, they like thick oil) Admittedly not a common scenario, but one that is of concern to some of us. <snip> > Please now > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the same level of filtering over it's 3000- 6000 mile life. It's just > a filter, it's not supposed to be a work of art. That doesn't mean that there isn't an apparently better made (i.e. Purolator or Wix) product available at the same price. There's not necessarily a correlation, but it does seem reasonable that if more care were taken in the manufacturing and materials used that more care may have been taken in the design as well. In my mind, it's just not worth taking a chance. <snip> > Hmm, you base your view on hacksawed eyeball observations and declare > a winner, while the guy who actually used them with zero problems for > nearly 300K you discount as meaningless data. I've seen quite a few instances of vehicles with "upside down" filters and running Frams showing evidence of a faulty anti-drainback valve. If that doesn't count for anything, what does? It is clear to me that the filter was the problem, as it seems farfetched to assume that the oil itself had thinned so much as to require several seconds to build pressure on startup when after an oil change with a different filter it only took a fraction of a second. I guess what this whole discussion boils down to is that some people are satisfied with "good enough" and some are always looking for the best value for the money. I consider myself in the latter category, which is why I avoid Fram and also always use "fleet" oils (a.k.a. HDEO's or "dual rated" oils) when I don't run synthetic. Doesn't cost me a penny more than regular name brand stuff but gives me that little extra cushion against problems, or maybe a few extra miles at the end of the engine's life... nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>You don't hear about many oil filter catastrophic burst failures, this isn't >>>a common problem. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >they like thick oil) Admittedly not a common scenario, but one that is >of concern to some of us. And since that's based on REAL world data, it's something worth knowing and taking into account for those who will be operating under those conditions. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >have been taken in the design as well. In my mind, it's just not worth >taking a chance. Which is certainly your right. It's your money. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >pressure on startup when after an oil change with a different filter it >only took a fraction of a second. And as with the race track example, that's real world data taht's worth knowing. The stuff I was objecting to as being of any great help was the eyeball assessments where people declare such and such filter to be junk because they don't like the way it looks inside without any regard or knowledge of how well it filters. >I guess what this whole discussion boils down to is that some people are >satisfied with "good enough" and some are always looking for the best >value for the money. Since you don't know whether what you call "good enough" is actually any worse then the stuff you pay more for and think is better, I only see an unsupported opinion being passed off as much more then it is. IN the process you impugn anyone who chooses to base their opinion on actual facts rather then subjection opinion. Seems backwards to me. I consider myself in the latter category, which is >why I avoid Fram and also always use "fleet" oils (a.k.a. HDEO's or >"dual rated" oils) when I don't run synthetic. Doesn't cost me a penny >more than regular name brand stuff but gives me that little extra >cushion against problems, or maybe a few extra miles at the end of the >engine's life... Well, you *think* it's giving you something extra. The fact is, you have no way of knowing if that's true or not. And in fact, some of those oils really aren't supposed to be used in newer cars because they are more likely, due to additives, to foul the cat converter sooner then if you used the proper type of oil. A person with a new car, following your advice, might wind up replacing their cats at 75,000 miles as a result. Not my idea of a "cushion against problems". >nate -- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 > >I guess what this whole discussion boils down to is that some people are > >satisfied with "good enough" and some are always looking for the best [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > IN the process you impugn anyone who chooses to base their opinion on > actual facts rather then subjection opinion. Seems backwards to me. I guess I just haven't seen any hard facts supporting the assertion that Fram is a decent product other than one CR study done over a decade ago. And I don't have a particularly high opinion of CR soooo.... > I consider myself in the latter category, which is > >why I avoid Fram and also always use "fleet" oils (a.k.a. HDEO's or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 75,000 miles as a result. Not my idea of a "cushion against > problems". I'm aware of the potential ZDDP issue with the cats, but the only car I have with a cat is my 944 and that drinks Mobil 1, not an issue. I use Rotella in the Studes because they have a nasty habit of leaking everywhere and Mobil 1 could get a little expensive. nate Why don't you like CR? I hedge w/ them myself, cuz I think they're better stat compilers than actual reviewers, but still, they are supposed to be the bastion of neutrality. But, in reading the fine print on their reliability assessments in the April car buying guide, I wonder just how big a spread there is between "poor" and "good". I sort of hope the spread is substantial, to justify the higher prices I'm willing to pay for reliability. But who really knows? That statistical gobbledygood I read in there left me wondering if *they* know what their statistics mean. ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll > > >I guess what this whole discussion boils down to is that some people are > > >satisfied with "good enough" and some are always looking for the best [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > nate Proctologically Violated©® wrote: > Why don't you like CR? > I hedge w/ them myself, cuz I think they're better stat [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reliability. But who really knows? That statistical gobbledygood I read in > there left me wondering if *they* know what their statistics mean. If nothing else, their philosophy of what makes a good car is almost diametrically opposed to mine. They seem to focus solely on initial quality and not take into account how a vehicle performs over the long term. They're not the only ones guilty of this, however, most car mag "long term" tests barely cover the vehicle's warranty period, I'm more concerned about what my running costs will be when it's 10 or 15 years old. Granted, that's awfully hard to determine and a lot of it has to be done subjectively by evaluating the quality of the components, but there ya have it. Doing stupid sh.t like criticizing a small, light off-road vehicle for being tippy (and there's debate about that, even) in emergency lane changes just to attract (the wrong kind of) readers doesn't help matters any either, in my eyes... That all said, I don't doubt the veracity of the oil filter test (it would be pretty hard to allow a bias to creep in in something like that, and durability for longer than a few thousand miles really isn't an issue,) but the fact remains that that's ancient history and probably all filter mfgrs. have redesigned their product several times since then. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > Why don't you like CR? > > I hedge w/ them myself, cuz I think they're better stat [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be done subjectively by evaluating the quality of the components, but > there ya have it. In principle, their reliability ratings would address this. I agree, tho, that testing-wise they can indeed miss the point. What issue had the oil filter test? Would it be online? ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll > Doing stupid sh.t like criticizing a small, light off-road vehicle for > being tippy (and there's debate about that, even) in emergency lane [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > nate Proctologically Violated©® wrote: > What issue had the oil filter test? Would it be online? I doubt it, I think CR's web site only goes back 4 years even if you have a subscription (I don't) nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >From your claim he should have had 8 filter failures. He's had none. How would we know? I put 225k on my '94 Toyota p/u, having the oil changed at Jiffy Lube every 10-15k. Toward the end it was down on power... probably indicative of a stretched timing chain... and it burned about a quart every 5,000. We both know that the bypass on those filters was probably open most of the time after 8,000, which would equate to a 100% filter failure, yet the truck kept on running. --- Rich http://richlockyer.tripod.com/ >>From your claim he should have had 8 filter failures. He's had none. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >of the time after 8,000, which would equate to a 100% filter failure, >yet the truck kept on running. Why do you think it was open after 8000? Did you ever cut open a filter to see what's in it? I bought a 89 S-10 with 150K on it that had been given it's regular oil and filter changes all it's life at 6000 mile intervals. I switched it to Mobil One and put on a new filter (don't recall what brand, most likely the Bosch that AutoZone usually sells)) and since the synth oil is supposed to really clean out deposits I figured that a truck with 150K on it switched to synthetic would most likely fill that filter up so I changed it at 4000 miles instead of my usual 6000 to 10000 I would do with synthetic. Then I cut the filter open. Nothing in it to speak of. If I'd run it another 4000 and it had twice as much stuff in the filter is still would have eyeballed as nothing much in it. -- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 > >>From your claim he should have had 8 filter failures. He's had none. > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > If I'd run it another 4000 and it had twice as much stuff in the > filter is still would have eyeballed as nothing much in it. The wife was telling me about her co-worker, who got pissed at his leasing company, and changed the oil twice before he turned in the car, at 60,000 miles. Too bad you couldn't saw DAT filter in half! But another good reason to buy new, I would imagine. ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll > -- > Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House > of Representatives, August 17, 1789 >Hello. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Thanks. As posted by a previous poster, most american engines have a filter bypass in the engine block. Most European and Japanese engines place it in the filter. Bypass pressures vary by application and the correct filter should be used to prevent oil starvation. I work @ a Japanese auto dealership and have an OEM filter and a Fram filter cut open. The difference is an eye opener. You get what you pay for!!! I do engine conversions and have relocated the filter only when absolutely necessary. With an american mfg engine it can be done safely since the oil will bypass in the block. The rest of the worlds engines bypass in the filter and ALL of the oil must pass through the filter, hoses, cooler etc causing a restriction in the flow. If you must, use as large as possible diameter hose and fittings. Also, check the filter catalog and find out the pressure the filter will bypass. Be sure it is the same or lower than the original. Better dirty oil than no oil. The "P8HA" is for an american application? NO BYPASS? If so, I'd dump it for at least a stock filter till you do the homework. kend > >Hello. > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > it for at least a stock filter till you do the homework. > kend I just installed a remote filter (Be Cool) on my '04 Tacoma 4x4 double cab. The "Tough Guard" series of Fram filters has the Bypass and filters down to 20 microns (or so it says on the box). But . . . after taking off the OEM filter, I can see that we are talking apples and oranges. The OEM filter is much higher quality I will be changing mine to OEM very soon. I don't care if Toyota has me fooled - that OEM filter looked and felt like a high quality piece. The remote filter install went fine except now my ABS light is on. Maybe I snagged a wire somewhere with my big, clumsy hands! Anyway, installed filter on firewall next to brake booster. Very clean look and filter is now very easy to reach/change. Only thing I am going to change is to replace the rubber lines with something stronger - maybe braided steel or something like that. Foy > > >Hello. > > > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Foy My bad - my relocation kit is from Perma-Cool not Be Cool. Foy Not sure why anyone would need a relocation kit unless it was a real pain to get to. And even then... I have to drop the skidplate to access on my 3L, but its only 4 bolts and I just spin the filter off by hand and spin on a new one. Takes all of 5 minutes. Nothing but a 12mm and 14mm socket and wrench is needed for a full oil change. (well, next to someplace for the old oil. And the new oil, fitler, and oil treatment. :) > Hello. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks. a relocation kit would work good for people wanting to change their oil filter more frequently... like those who believe in the 10,000 mile oil change. > Not sure why anyone would need a relocation kit unless it was a real pain > to get to. And even then... [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > Thanks. |
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.