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: C. E. White on 1 Dec 2009 10:52 "jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote in message news:rM2dnWxd4IvDs4jWnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d(a)bright.net... > > > "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. Where did I claim "filtering small particles is not needed?" What I actually said was - "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 plugging 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." I am all for filtering small particles that are potentially harmful. I pointing out that having a filter that filtered out particles that were very samll was not necessarily a good thing. >> 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. How do you know that? All we know is that FRAM tested per a particualr SAE standard and that FRAM� Extra Guard� offers 96% single pass efficiency....." What is the minimum industry test standard? What does a particualr vehicle manufacturer require. >> 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. Well the WIX link is fact filled, unlike the typical FRAM ad. You should at least look. The FRAM links are not actually marketing literature, they are discussions of proper fitler rating methods I though you might find it interesting. The WIX filter has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=12/25 - which implies a 91.7% efficiency of removing 2 micron particles and a 96% efficiency at removing 20 micron particles. The Fram literature at http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/extra-guard.php claims the standard FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard) is 95% efficient at removing 20 micron and greater particles. We have no idea how good it is for smaller particles. And even at 20 microns, it is inferior to the WIX filters. >> >>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. Well I am sorry if it came out that way. I don't see where I said "small particle removal was unimportant." See comments above. >> 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? Not really. I don't actaully know the right answer. I was just pointing out that claiming high filtering efficiency for small particles is not an unmixed blessing. You need to trade off micron size, filtering efficiency, and filter capacity. I was wrong about other manufacturer's not rating below 10 microns, the WIX information actually included the filtering efficiency for 2 micron 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. >> >> 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? Surely you can't be that dense.What causes the bypass valve to open.....the same forces that open the bypass valve can separate the filter media from those paper end caps. In some samples they are barely glued on. Here is what happens - high pressure on the outside of the media, low pressure on the inside of the media - pressure deforms folds in filter media, filter media separates from end caps at poorly glued joints, oil bypasses filter media, unfiltered oil circulates through engine....not a good thing. I've cut open used FRAM filters and found them separated. For years I swallowed the FRAM advertising copy. Only after I started cutting open used fitlers did I realize how crummy they are. >> 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. Even if the Motorcraft filter cost a $1 more, I'd prefer it over the FRAM. My pouint would be that FRAM is selling a low quality product for more than higher quality items from other suppliers. I can't say a Motorcraft filter is the best filter for the money, but I can say I'd be willing to pay a lot more for one than I would for the standard quality FRAM filter. What would your reason be for buying FRAM's standard filters? The only possible reason I can see is low cost - and they aren't even particularly cheap! Ed
From: jim on 1 Dec 2009 12:54 "C. E. White" wrote: > How do you know that? All we know is that FRAM tested per a particualr > SAE standard and that FRAM� Extra Guard� offers 96% single pass > efficiency....." What is the minimum industry test standard? What does > a particualr vehicle manufacturer require. Typical minimum requirements for a automotive application were something like removing 80% of the 40 micron particle in a single pass. The 96% rating Fram advertises I beleive is for a particular test which may be single pass at 20 microns (I've seen it but don't remember). Any filter is well above the minimum requirement. But the single pass test is a fairly old test. there have been other tests that are more commonly used since then. As I said you are the one who claimed the extra filter efficiency was unnecessary so don't expect me to now defend your previous position. > > >> 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. > > Well the WIX link is fact filled, unlike the typical FRAM ad. You > should at least look. The FRAM links are not actually marketing > literature, they are discussions of proper fitler rating methods I > though you might find it interesting. > > The WIX filter has a Beta Ratio of 2/20=12/25 - which implies a 91.7% > efficiency of removing 2 micron particles and a 96% efficiency at > removing 20 micron particles. Using which test protocol? >The Fram literature at > http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/extra-guard.php claims the standard > FRAM Filter (the Extra Guard) is 95% efficient at removing 20 micron > and greater particles. We have no idea how good it is for smaller > particles. And even at 20 microns, it is inferior to the WIX filters. Which filters are you comparing. Fram has 4 different lines that are designed to perform differently under various different test protocols so that the customer has a choice depending on what they might to consider important. There have been independent laboratories that run the various SAE tests and make apple to apples comparisons. All the advertising literature is going to highlight the tests where they perform best and not mention where they don't perform as well. And they all perform well above the minimum required and any differences are simply not likely to show up during the life of the engine if you follow the car maker's maintenance schedule during the ordinary life of an ordinary car. > > > > More arguing with yourself? > > Not really. I don't actaully know the right answer. I was just > pointing out that claiming high filtering efficiency for small > particles is not an unmixed blessing. You need to trade off micron > size, filtering efficiency, and filter capacity. I was wrong about > other manufacturer's not rating below 10 microns, the WIX information > actually included the filtering efficiency for 2 micron particles. The filtering efficiency at different sized particle are all part of test procedures. As I said any advertising is going to cherry pick whatever they happen to think makes them look good. It really doesn't say anything about how two brands compare when you pick the results of one test from one brand and compare it to the results of another test from another brand. > > > > 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? > > Surely you can't be that dense.What causes the bypass valve to > open.....the same forces that open the bypass valve can separate the > filter media from those paper end caps. In some samples they are > barely glued on. No it can't. Cardboard is used as gasket material all the time particularly for things that need to seal in oil. . When you torque something down tight onto such a gasket you put a lot more force on the cardboard than the oil does but it doesn't damage it or cause it to move anywhere. > > Here is what happens - high pressure on the outside of the media, low > pressure on the inside of the media - pressure deforms folds in filter > media, filter media separates from end caps at poorly glued joints, > oil bypasses filter media, unfiltered oil circulates through > engine....not a good thing. All filters have a metal containment tube in the outlet. If you look inside the outlet hole of a Fram you will see the STEEL containment cylinder. Look up what all the filter manufactures say about damage to or collapse of that center supporting steel tube. They all agree that if that center support tube becomes damaged or collapsed there is something drastically wrong with the engine or the maintenance that the engine receives. They all agree that damage to that tube never happens on an engine that is working properly and is properly maintained. This is not unique to fram. If the filter media collapses and pulls away from the end caps why do you think having metal end caps is going to be beneficial? If the center support tube that you can see when you look down the center hole isn't damaged there is no way the cardboard on the ends can come loose or migrate into the oil flow. It is not designed so that there is any force to pull it apart. If the filter media itself becomes damaged or torn or collapsed then that is that on any brand filter. The filtering media can colapse and pull away from the metal end cap just as easily (or maybe even more easily). There are tests that are performed to measure the strength and the ability to withstand dynamic flexing. And all the filters are made to meet these specifications. > > I've cut open used FRAM filters and found them separated. For years I > swallowed the FRAM advertising copy. Only after I started cutting open > used fitlers did I realize how crummy they are. Well either you are lying or they only were separated due to the fact that you cut them open. Either way its not very interesting. There is no way the forces inside an operating filter can cause them to separate even if they were assembled without any glue( if you left them alone and didn't cut them open). SWome filter manufactures that have metal ends don't use any glue so how well do you think that seals the ends of the filter. But still the ends themselves don't come apart simply because all the forces when in operation are working to hold them together. I had a chevy 283 that took a replacement cartridge filter. For 30 years every oil change, I took out a paper cartridge that had cardboard on both ends and put in another with cardboard on both ends. This is a proven reliable design. There is absolutely no reason to panic because you see cardboard > > >> 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. > > Even if the Motorcraft filter cost a $1 more, I'd prefer it over the > FRAM. My pouint would be that FRAM is selling a low quality product > for more than higher quality items from other suppliers. I can't say a > Motorcraft filter is the best filter for the money, but I can say I'd > be willing to pay a lot more for one than I would for the standard > quality FRAM filter. > > What would your reason be for buying FRAM's standard filters? The only > possible reason I can see is low cost - and they aren't even > particularly cheap! The reason to buy one is they work as well as the other brands and I find no particular reason to listen to people who offer advice based on their belief in imaginary scenarios of what might happen. I might as well take advice from people who believe in witchcraft -jim. > > Ed
From: Nate Nagel on 1 Dec 2009 19:00 Hachiroku ハチロク wrote: > 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. > Meh? I gotta say, I'm not a big fan of the Slick 50. Never used it; but it seems awful hokey. nate -- replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel
From: Bob F on 1 Dec 2009 20:01 Hachiroku ???? wrote: > When I do the oil change, probably sooner than the 3,000 miles I > usually do, because winter is creeping up, I'm trying a different > filter. If the oil p comes back up, good! If not...did I mention the > shredder is about 2 miles away? I took my old Nissan Van to the metal recycler a week ago. That thing lasted me well for 20 years and 200,000 miles. Last I saw, it was laying on its side next to a 40 foot high pile of scrap. Kind of sad.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 1 Dec 2009 20:18
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:53:26 -0600, jim wrote: > farther than resorting to > superstitious beliefs. One company making a better oil filter than another is not a 'superstitious belief'. Gonna tell me Chevys are as high quality as Toyotas now? |