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: 1 Lucky Texan on 1 Dec 2009 09:06 On Nov 30, 7:43 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:37:04 -0500, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:23 -0500, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B 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... I think when my daughter had her old Nissan, her mechanic put some shims behind the spring in the oil pressure relief valve and increased her oil pressure somewhat. Dunno how practical that trick would be for you - just a thought. Carl
From: C. E. White on 1 Dec 2009 09:20 "1 Lucky Texan" <alckytxn(a)swbell.net> wrote in message news:057065a3-90ea-4463-828e-c787481d15ca(a)f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 30, 7:43 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:37:04 -0500, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: >> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:23 -0500, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B 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... > > I think when my daughter had her old Nissan, her mechanic put some > shims behind the spring in the oil pressure relief valve and > increased > her oil pressure somewhat. Dunno how practical that trick would be > for > you - just a thought. I can't imagine why this would be useful unless there was a problem with the oil pressure relief valve. Ed
From: jim on 1 Dec 2009 09:25 clare(a)snyder.on.ca wrote: > >> > >> 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. Small particles cause pretty much the same wear as large - just not as much. And an oil pump will wear out faster pumping dirty oil than clean oil. > > Cheap filters use Cellulose filter media. Better filters use synthetic > media, and the best filters use either "micro-glass" of extremely fine > metal screens. That's just marketing BS. There are tradeoffs in engineering a product like this. For instance, after you have stuffed the can full of filter media - how much room have you left for the dirt to accumulate? That would be the question I would ask the toilet paper filter people if I ever met one. Another consideration is how durable is the design - will it fall apart in the field? There are laboratory tests and real world testing that answer these questions. The results of those tests do not agree with the assessments of the amateurs cutting filters open. So who are you going to believe? > > 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. All filters remove some particles at even 1 micron. But that fact is more irrelevant BS. As I said the question of whether you need to go beyond the manufacturers recommendations is simply a question of extra ordinary circumstances. Under ordinary circumstances, anyone can use any filter and any brand oil and follow the car makers regimen and the engine will outlast the rest of the car. Now if for some reason you decide you intend to make the rest of the car last 50 years and 500k miles then it makes sense to start thinking about how to improve on the basic maintenance regimen. But if that extra ordinary circumstance isn't your goal - if you are aware of the fact that the rest of the car is going to be shot at 150K, 200K or 250K (depending on what "shot" means to you) then there is no point in going to the extra effort and expense. > > 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. There are SAE designed tests to determine if filter manufacturers valves work to industry standards. But if you are using a filter and it goes into by-pass mode there is something wrong with your maintenance regimen or something wrong with your engine. That is not normal and shouldn't be regarded as normal occurrence. > > 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. What does the by pass valve have to do with the end cap? There are engine applications where the engine is equipped with the valve to bypass a plugged filter and its not in the filter. -jim > > > > > > > > >> 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: jim on 1 Dec 2009 09:55 "C. E. White" wrote: > > "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.... You were the one claiming filtering small particles is not needed - now you argue against yourself. > > 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? Now you have got your apples and oranges confused. Holding more dirt and removing more dirt from the oil is not really the same thing. But I can assure you that both filters are well above all the minimum industry test standards. > > 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 have little interest in wading through anybody's marketing literature. > > >>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. You were the one claiming all this small particle removal was unimportant. Don't drag me into your personal arguments with yourself. > > 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. More arguing with yourself? > > >> 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 . Finally after much arguing with yourself, we get to what i asked you about. Yeah those are better than average pictures of cut open filters. And So? > 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 . And what would cause it to do that? Are you saying if you turn the engine upside down and run it reverse rotation it is not going to work? Well probably so. The oil pressure is all pushing it in the direction to hold it in place. It can't go anywhere even if they didn't use glue to hold it in place. And you still haven't explained why you think that heavier fiber is the weak link and not the lighter filter media. And by what mechanism this failure of the cardboard end cap occurs. Sure if you open any filter you can tear the paper parts to pieces with your bare hands - but so what? > > The Fram filter cost $3.77, the Motorcraft $3.28 (2006 prices). Which > would you think was better? > So that's it? So why did you need to cut filters open and argue all the marketing BS with yourself if all it comes down to is the price on the box? If you had said that in the first place I would have said Yeah grab the cheaper one. -jim
From: jim on 1 Dec 2009 10:53
1 Lucky Texan wrote: > > On Nov 30, 7:43 pm, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B <Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:37:04 -0500, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:23 -0500, Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B 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... > > I think when my daughter had her old Nissan, her mechanic put some > shims behind the spring in the oil pressure relief valve and increased > her oil pressure somewhat. Dunno how practical that trick would be for > you - just a thought. That would be practical only when it increases the oil pressure. If the reason an engine has low oil pressure is a weak spring in the oil pressure relief valve that is certainly something that should be addressed. Fixing a mechanical problem will always get you farther than resorting to superstitious beliefs. Typically if the oil pressure is low in an old engine changing the spring isn't going to help because if the engine can't develop enough pressure to open the regulator valve then increasing the spring tension isn't going to affect the oil pressure. -jim |