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 30 Nov 2009 20:43 On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:37:04 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:23 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > >> Who was it in the Subaru group that mentioned my low oil pressure might >> be caused by my using Fram oil filters? >> >> There may be something to this. >> >> > > OK....changed the oil in the Soob today ,a dn installed a Wix filter. Just > by lokking at it it appeared to be a better made filter. > > No change in oil pressure... > > However that horrible clacking noise went away in about 2 minutes, after > clacking for the past week. Previously, changing oil did NOT eliminate the > clacking noise once it started. > > Filter change do that? I don't know. I don't care. It stopped. Let's revise that. Not only has the clattering gone away, but there has been a noticable rise in oil pressure, esp at higher revs. Oil pressure goes much higher than it did before, and does not bottom to 0 on the gauge...
From: Nate Nagel on 30 Nov 2009 21:12 Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:37:04 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:23 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> >>> Who was it in the Subaru group that mentioned my low oil pressure might >>> be caused by my using Fram oil filters? >>> >>> There may be something to this. >>> >>> >> OK....changed the oil in the Soob today ,a dn installed a Wix filter. Just >> by lokking at it it appeared to be a better made filter. >> >> No change in oil pressure... >> >> However that horrible clacking noise went away in about 2 minutes, after >> clacking for the past week. Previously, changing oil did NOT eliminate the >> clacking noise once it started. >> >> Filter change do that? I don't know. I don't care. It stopped. > > > Let's revise that. Not only has the clattering gone away, but there has > been a noticable rise in oil pressure, esp at higher revs. Oil pressure > goes much higher than it did before, and does not bottom to 0 on the gauge... > > Just for completeness' sake, I ASSume the same brand/weight oil both times 'round? Or did you only top up and not change the oil? nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: clare on 30 Nov 2009 22:29 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:08:09 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > >"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. > The large particles cause the fastest and most severe wear to the most parts of the engine. Small amounts of very fine particles wear areas with tight tolerances - things like hydraulic lifters. Cheap filters use Cellulose filter media. Better filters use synthetic media, and the best filters use either "micro-glass" of extremely fine metal screens. Some research done by GM in recent years shows ta "Typical low cost oil filter" will remove about 40% of particles in 8 to 10 micron range Typical OEM oil filter will remove about 72% of particles in 8 to 10 micron range . The best full flow filters tested catch 99% of 10 micron particles and up to 95% of 5 micron particles. Many "particles" in the oil are less than 5 microns - some even sub-micron - and these cause very little wear, if any. HOWEVER, submicrom iron particles act as a type of catalyst in relation to oil oxidayion - and there is some evidence that removing these fine particles magnetically CAN extend the life of engine oil, as well as automatic transmission fluids. This is one reason magnets in transmission pans, on drain plugs, and even in some filters, can be beneficial. The drainback valve is VERY IMPORTANT on applications that do not mount with ehe "hole" up. A leaky drainback valve will allow the crud captured in the case of the filter to return, with the oil, into the crank-case. Not good. This is over and above the problem with possible dry starts due to filter drainage. Bypass valves are important too - not necessarilly that they need to work - with the right oil weight anf timely changes the bypass should never come into play - but they MUST SEAL - otherwize unfiltered oil goes through the engine. The big problem I see with "paper" end caps on the element is it is hard to assure a good, positive, repeatable seal at the bypass valve. > > > >> 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
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Nov 2009 23:59 On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:12:36 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote: > Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:37:04 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:23 -0500, Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: >>> >>>> Who was it in the Subaru group that mentioned my low oil pressure >>>> might be caused by my using Fram oil filters? >>>> >>>> There may be something to this. >>>> >>>> >>> OK....changed the oil in the Soob today ,a dn installed a Wix filter. >>> Just by lokking at it it appeared to be a better made filter. >>> >>> No change in oil pressure... >>> >>> However that horrible clacking noise went away in about 2 minutes, >>> after clacking for the past week. Previously, changing oil did NOT >>> eliminate the clacking noise once it started. >>> >>> Filter change do that? I don't know. I don't care. It stopped. >> >> >> Let's revise that. Not only has the clattering gone away, but there has >> been a noticable rise in oil pressure, esp at higher revs. Oil pressure >> goes much higher than it did before, and does not bottom to 0 on the >> gauge... >> >> >> > Just for completeness' sake, I ASSume the same brand/weight oil both times > 'round? Or did you only top up and not change the oil? > > nate I have been using QS Hi-Mileage oil with Slick 50 for the past 3 oil changes, 10W30 or 10W40, depending on when it was changed. Some say Slick 50 isn't good all the time, so this time it got Mobil Clean 5000, and since winter is coming, 10W30.
From: C. E. White on 1 Dec 2009 08:58
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:UJ6dnRUrQKPHzYnWnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)bright.net... >> 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 Do you have any idea what the test actually requires? Pointing at an abstract is a waste of time. Fram actually provides a brief but interesting description of these tests at http://www.fram.com/carcare/faq.php#q9 . >>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 should not have said everything...my mistake. An accurate statement would be that I have read all of the literature I could easily obtain from FRAM. You might want to read http://www.fram.com/carcare/faq.php From http://www.fram.com/carcare/faq.php#q4 : "FRAM� Extra Guard� Oil Filter for the average motorist who commutes regularly to work, the local store and occasionally embarks on a long road trip. FRAM� Extra Guard� offers 96% single pass efficiency....." 96% is not particualrly good.... From http://www.wixfilters.com/productinformation/gff_oilfilters.html "SAE J806 tests prove that WIX oil filters hold 45% more dirt than the leading national brand -...." We all know that the leading national brand is FRAM... I suppose Wix might lie...but why would you suppose they are more likely to lie than FRAM? While you are rading FRAM literature, you might also read http://www.fram.com/pdf/FluidFilterRating.pdf and/or http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-5R3.html. This rating scheme is designed primarily for hydraulic filters, but it can apply to lube oil filters as well. Too bad they don't provide this rating information for their fitlers. WIX does - for example, see http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/PartDetail.asp?Part=51372 . I am more inclined to trust a company that provided more and better quality information, instead of vauge advertising copy. >>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. Better would be - better filtering efficiency, better capaicty, better construction, etc. Motorcraft doesn't make the sort of statements that WIX does about being x% better than FRAM. They only say "Efficient Filter Media; Re-engineered media increases Motorcraft� filters' dirt-collecting capability, allowing them to capture more engine-harming particles than ever before." This is just advertising copy from http://www.motorcraft.com/products.do?item=13 . Still, I feel confident a Motorcraft Filter is at least as good as a standard Fram at removing contaminants. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/ofa/FAMS/evaloilfilters.pdf is a long paper detailing the potential advantages of installing bypass type filters on larger vehicles (truck and buses) and extending oil change intervals for all vehicles. As part of the study they compared FRAM X2 filters (the really expensive ones that claim to be super good) to standard Car Quest Filters. Here is what they found: "No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance." Most likely the Car Quest Filters were private label WIX filters. So at least as far as this study was concerned, high priced, "premium" FRAM filters (which Fram claims are superior to their standard filters) are no better than a private branded version of a WIX filter. Here is FRAM's advertising claims for the X2 fitlers: "The new FRAM� X2T Extended GuardT has all the single pass efficiency of a FRAM� Extra Guard� oil filter but with TWICE THE CAPACITY! FRAM� X2T is the very first premium oil filter to offer an amazing 7,000 miles plus performance! Combined with Triad Technology, the FRAM� X2T filter also features the new FRAM� X2000 high-synthetic blend (70%) media. It's thicker and denser for efficiency and extra capacity, and backed by a rugged, metal screen design that helps achieve uniform pleating, maintaining optimum oil flow, and greatly extended service." Net: FRAM's best is no better than a bottom of the barrel Car Quest filter.... >> 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. I have a hard time deciding what the right number is for non-harmful components. I've read some information that indicates particles smaller than 10 microns can lead to significant wear and others that say they are not so harmful. It seems that most filter manufacturers never rate anything below 10 microns, and mostly they are targeting the 20 micron size. >> 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. Have you ever looked at the insides of a standard FRAM filter. If not, go to http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id10.html . There is plenty of room for the top end cap (if you can call a piece of paper an end cap) to detach and pull away from the filter element. Compare that to http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3nc/id9.html . The Fram filter cost $3.77, the Motorcraft $3.28 (2006 prices). Which would you think was better? Ed |