Who was it who mentioned Fram oil filters and dropping oil pressure?
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: The Most Powerful Natural Penis Enlargement Technique >><<
Next: Replace oxygen sensor even if check engine light does not come on
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 28 Nov 2009 17:39 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote: > So they may or may not be the same person but I thought that "Mike" was > implying that he was "Jim." No, 'jim' is a transplant from the Honda group. They must have all plonked him over there...
From: jim on 28 Nov 2009 20:43 "Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote: > > > So they may or may not be the same person but I thought that "Mike" was > > implying that he was "Jim." > > No, 'jim' is a transplant from the Honda group. They must have all plonked > him over there... Were you born brain dead or do you take medication for that?
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 29 Nov 2009 19:44 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:43:11 -0600, jim wrote: > > > "Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote: >> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote: >> >> > So they may or may not be the same person but I thought that "Mike" >> > was >> > implying that he was "Jim." >> >> No, 'jim' is a transplant from the Honda group. They must have all >> plonked him over there... > > Were you born brain dead or do you take medication for that? No. I read your tirades and it drove me mad.
From: C. E. White on 30 Nov 2009 11:51 "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:uNGdnczgdaH7_pDWnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d(a)bright.net... > > > Ed White wrote: >> >> On Nov 25, 8:33 am, "hls" <h...(a)nospam.nix> wrote: >> > "Nate Nagel" <njna...(a)roosters.net> wrote in message >> > >> > news:hei31712n6l(a)news7.newsguy.com... >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > hls wrote: >> > >> > >> "E. Meyer" <epmeye...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> > >>news:C7313DDB.14358%epmeyer50(a)gmail.com... >> > >>> Everybody is >> > >>> arguing antique anecdotal evidence and apparently no one has >> > >>> any actual >> > >>> facts to contribute. For all we know from this discussion, >> > >>> they had one >> > >>> bad >> > >>> production run in 1994 and everybody is still talking about >> > >>> it. >> > >> > >> You got that right! >> > >> > > meanwhile Wix, Purolator, and Champion Labs have NEVER had a >> > > bad run >> > > significant enough to register on our collective radar screens. >> > > 'nuff >> > > said. >> > >> > > nate >> > >> > The important point, for me, was that so many people jump on this >> > bandwagon >> > and there is very little or no objective data on the subject. >> > This business >> > of cutting >> > open filters and declaring them good or no good got a lot of this >> > started, >> > and it >> > had no relevance at all.- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> I disagree. Examining the components that make up a filter is a >> first >> step. You might not be able to determine the actual quality of the >> filter material, but you certianly can see a major difference in >> quality between a regular grade FRAM filter and a WIX or Motorcraft >> filter. I've cut open numerous used filter and more than once I've >> seen FRAMs with detached end caps. The regular grade FRAM filter >> may >> be adequate for the job, but a look at the insides of regular grade >> FROM filters convined me that they are not as good as filters from >> Motorcraft or Wix that have comparable (or even lower) prices. > > The fact is it has been scientifically proven that Fram filters do a > better job than Wix for removing the smallest particles from the > oil. > That was not determined by cutting filters open but by doing tests > on > the oil after many miles of service. And the effects of not > filtering > the finest particles takes many years and many miles to show up. The > look of the filter may be important to you, but many taxi and > delivery > services use fram filters because they are more interested in the > results than what the filter looks like on the inside. > > >> >> FRAM does not claim to have particuarly good filtering efficiency, >> and >> they do appear to have cut corners on the interior construction. So >> in >> my mind the question is not if FRAM filters are OK, the question >> is, >> Given that FRAM filters are not particualrly cheap, why would I buy >> one? > > Because tests have shown they do remove smaller particles than wix > or > purolator. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. If you have an > old > beater that is loaded up with an accumulation of those fines plus a > worn > out oil pump from many years of pumping those small particles > putting a > Fram filter on the engine can lead to trouble. Who's tests have shown that? I've read everything FRAM calims, and they don't claim to be better than WIX. I can't find numbers for Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters, but I'll bet they are. And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not important. What is important is removing as many as possible of particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't filtering anything. Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end caps often come loose. Ed
From: jim on 30 Nov 2009 18:08
"C. E. White" wrote: > > Because tests have shown they do remove smaller particles than wix > > or > > purolator. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. If you have an > > old > > beater that is loaded up with an accumulation of those fines plus a > > worn > > out oil pump from many years of pumping those small particles > > putting a > > Fram filter on the engine can lead to trouble. > > Who's tests have shown that? The SAE formulates tests that manufacturers must pass to meet engine manufacturer requirements. Among those test are several that determine the filters efficiency at keeping the oil clean by removing particles of various sizes. http://books.sae.org/book-hs-806/2009 >I've read everything FRAM calims, and > they don't claim to be better than WIX. Could well be. I haven't read anywhere close to all the literature Fram has published. >I can't find numbers for > Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters, > but I'll bet they are. That sounds like your every day typical Fram superstition . You probably don't even think you need a definition of "better" to make a statement like that. > > And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not > important. What is important is removing as many as possible of > particles that can damage your engine. The smallest particles do cause wear just not as much wear or as fast. So it is purely a question of how long you intend to make the engine last. It makes no sense to a new car buyer that doesn't intend to keep the car past 100k miles to go to the expense and trouble to do maintenance with the goal of making the engine last 500k miles. That is a complete waste of their time and money. But if someone does happen to want to make it last that long then they will need to do something about keeping the engine clean. And that means doing something to keep the small particles from accumulating. > If you remove a lot of very > small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the > filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting > in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't > filtering anything. The procedure to prevent that is called an oil and filter change. But your analysis is correct. If the filter removes finest particles efficiently and you have an engine that is loaded up with years of accumulation of fine particles then yes the filter will be more likely to plug up. So yes if you put a higher efficiency filter on an old dirty engine you should be aware that it could load up sooner than a filter that is not as efficient at removing the smallest particles. > > Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end > caps often come loose. HA HA HA. So another fool who thinks all he needs is a hack saw and he becomes an expert at oil filter manufacture and design. FYI the end caps are trapped inside the filter. The only way they can move even if there was no glue holding them is if you cut the filter apart. There is no place for the end caps to go. Its absolutely ludicrous that you would you think the heavy reinforced fiber material on the ends is going to be the weak point of filter when every filter on the market have all this fiber material that is much lighter and not as well supported. Your claim that the end caps often come loose is typical of the Fram bashers mythology. What exactly is the failure mode for these end caps. Describe exactly what happens with these end caps when they come loose. And I should warn you if you make something up out of thin air its going sound like an obvious lie, because there is really no failure mode for these filters at all that involves the end caps. -jim > > Ed |