A letter from FRAM (from another site)

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Apparently this must be beyond your comprehension.

---

No, you're the one with a comprehension problem. You also fail on logical and analytical reasoning.

Just because you take things out of context, put words in my mouth and put forth a plethora of invalid arguments doesn't mean you're winning the debate.

As usual, you write another half page diatribe and yet say nothing worth reading.

For example:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:
"OEM Specifications" are derived from the very same ISO and SAE test procedures you mentioned. The difference is the OEM specifies the parameters of the test.

---

This point was made way earlier in the thread, but you act like you just brought up now to an ignorant audience. I guess we didn't say it simply enough for you.

 

[Filter guy]

A couple of things Gary...

OEM's may or may not share their test parameters. So reverse engineering is done. Bring in the OEM filters, run the gamit of SAE or ISO tests and produce a filter that hopefully equals or betters the OEM if one does not have the actual spec. We all know that happens.

In either case a lab should be able to come up with a filter that "meets or exceeds" even when you don't have access to the actual spec.

Now when Filter Company Z gives out their information on beta ratios or whatever, they are confident based on the ISO test they run.

But if GM wants their filter tested at 8 GPM and Filter Company Z unknowingly runs their tests at 5 GPM this will show different results. Lower flow--better efficiencies. So if GM says their filter is 92% efficient and Filter Company Z says theirs is 94%..maybe filter Company Z's would be 92% or 90% at 8 GPM. However, the spec may actually be a minimum of 65%..which Filter Company Z doesn't know but surely "exceeds".

The same with beta results. GM's may test out with 8gpm at B28=75...28 micron absolute. And Filter Company Z may test out with 5gpm at B25=75. Again when run at 8gpm filter company Z's may be 28 or 30 micron. The spec may be a maximum of 40 absolute allowable.

Both filters clearly "exceed". I think what some in here seem to think is that the OEM results are the "spec" and that is not the case. Every OEM filter exceeds the specs. Some with great degree. ( Like the Corvette OEM filter..it WAY exceeds the spec.)

How else can virtually every OEM show their filter to be better than some competition if the OEM filter only met the minimum spec for each value?

Which is why when reverse engineering from time to time a filter company gets it wrong and doesn't meet one of the specs. They guess that a certain component or media is "close" enough. They get it wrong and then redesign one that will work. And believe it or not at that point the OEM may tell them which spec the filter doesn't perform to. Because it is their engine they don't want problems with or warranties for and the owner whinging about it even though he/she didn't use the OEM filter. If the car is in the shop..the owner is still inconvenienced even if the filter company is paying for it.

 

[Filter guy]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Apparently this must be beyond your comprehension.

---

No, you're the one with a comprehension problem. You also fail on logical and analytical reasoning.

Just because you take things out of context, put words in my mouth and put forth a plethora of invalid arguments doesn't mean you're winning the debate.

As usual, you write another half page diatribe and yet say nothing worth reading.

For example:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:
"OEM Specifications" are derived from the very same ISO and SAE test procedures you mentioned. The difference is the OEM specifies the parameters of the test.

---

This point was made way earlier in the thread, but you act like you just brought up now to an ignorant audience. I guess we didn't say it simply enough for you.

---

427Z06...

Okie dokie..

As I have nothing worth reading....I will ask you that in the future please comment with your opinions and refrain from mentioning my name and/or responding to my posts.

Keep your posts to your own point of views without dragging me in.

Thank you..

Have a nice day..

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:
OEM's may or may not share their test parameters. So reverse engineering is done. Bring in the OEM filters, run the gamit of SAE or ISO tests and produce a filter that hopefully equals or betters the OEM if one does not have the actual spec. We all know that happens.

In either case a lab should be able to come up with a filter that "meets or exceeds" even when you don't have access to the actual spec.

Now when Filter Company Z gives out their information on beta ratios or whatever, they are confident based on the ISO test they run.

But if GM wants their filter tested at 8 GPM and Filter Company Z unknowingly runs their tests at 5 GPM this will show different results. Lower flow--better efficiencies. So if GM says their filter is 92% efficient and Filter Company Z says theirs is 94%..maybe filter Company Z's would be 92% or 90% at 8 GPM. However, the spec may actually be a minimum of 65%..which Filter Company Z doesn't know but surely "exceeds".

The same with beta results. GM's may test out with 8gpm at B28=75...28 micron absolute. And Filter Company Z may test out with 5gpm at B25=75. Again when run at 8gpm filter company Z's may be 28 or 30 micron. The spec may be a maximum of 40 absolute allowable.

Both filters clearly "exceed". I think what some in here seem to think is that the OEM results are the "spec" and that is not the case. Every OEM filter exceeds the specs. Some with great degree. ( Like the Corvette OEM filter..it WAY exceeds the spec.)

---

Blah, blah, blah. All that is common knowledge.

All that is being asked for is for the filter test procedures and parameters to be made available. And if a filter is spec'd for multiple applications, and the testing procedures and parameters are different enough to make comparisons not truly valid, just make the information available.

And this also applies to the Amsoil advertising above. If they're going to advertise comparisons like that, they need to make available ALL the test parameters.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:
As I have nothing worth reading....I will ask you that in the future please comment with your opinions and refrain from mentioning my name and/or responding to my posts.

Keep your posts to your own point of views without dragging me in.

---

Not going to happen.

I'm guessing you haven't grasped the concept of a public forum?

 

[SWHeat]

Just a few thoughts and frustrations from an educated consumer that would like the apples to apples comparison to be valid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:

Now when Filter Company Z gives out their information on beta ratios or whatever, they are confident based on the ISO test they run.

But if GM wants their filter tested at 8 GPM and Filter Company Z unknowingly runs their tests at 5 GPM this will show different results. Lower flow--better efficiencies. So if GM says their filter is 92% efficient and Filter Company Z says theirs is 94%..maybe filter Company Z's would be 92% or 90% at 8 GPM. However, the spec may actually be a minimum of 65%..which Filter Company Z doesn't know but surely "exceeds".

---

It is the very nature of the testing proceedure that causes the perceived notion that the consumer is being lied to. It is true that there are testing standards. The very fact that there are excessive variables within the testing proceedure itself make it ripe for manipulation for the sake of monetary gain. The very fact that the automobile manufacuters do not state outright what their parameters are for a given appplication, just makes it more of a cloak and dagger story.
The consumer, just scratching his head...and buying FRAM!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:

Is it to confusing for you to understand ISO and SAE just set out the test procedure and that is all. It is up to the OEM, or private label customer, or Filter manufacturer to specify the parameters in order to run the test.

It is NOT marketing glitz or "half truths". Regardless of your demented version of filter testing.

---

Again, the very fact that the testing proceedure has so many variables makes it ripe for manipulation. Just because each manufacturer can state outright and factually that their filter meets certain beta ratios, does not make it helpful to the consumer. Explained another way....us, as the consumer, cannot rightly compare brand x to brand y given the writting on the box due to the excessive variables permitted during testing. Both are factual, but the fact that we, the consumer, don't have all of the facts (ie flow rates, add rates, even the type of "dust" used!!) makes it a "half truth" to us, the consumer, because we cannot compare apples to apples between filter brands for the same application. Don't even go to trying to upsize a filter for an applications and think you can make an educated comparison if you can't for the proper part number between brands. Hence, "half truth" and "marketing glitz" fits from a purely consumer orinted point of view.....because.....in this context ONLY because the entire truth is NOT given for proprietary...read monitary...read trade secretes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:

Which brings me back to my point, which i've posted before, unless you know all of the parameters of a test and have the data to compare apples to apples based on the parameters of the test...you don't know the whole picture. And even with Baldiwn showing bits of the test they used, you still don't have the flow rate, Add rate, test termination, etc. Do you?

---

Understood, again. Just because that is the way the world is, does not mean we, the consumer, have to like it. It also does not mean that the status quo is the best, correct, moral, honorable, upright, way either. Bottom line is...it is all about trade secretes and money. What else can you expect from a capitalist society? Nothing better has come up yet....but that does not mean there are no flaws.

My 0.02 for the month.

 

[Patman]

Filter guy asked me to post this response to SW Heat:



It would be nice if consumers on every product they bought were able to get reliable one test data for the product.

It makes no difference as to buying a car or a television. There are many consumer choices in every product avilable and each touts their own features. All companies put their best foot forward.

Filter companies or the brands they private label for are no different.

But before any filter company can show testing to one uniform standard of procedures and parameters first the OEM's worldwide would need to agree on what that 1 standard is.

Engines are complicated pieces of machinery. With many different tolerances. Different horsepowers. Different by-pass requirements. Yet the claim is only one standard of testing will satisfy all the requirements of every engine manufacturer.

So Ferrari and Proton will be happy with what Toyota wants. Or what Chrysler wants. Or what BMW wants. But it's more than just "car" engines as gasoline engines are used in multiple applications from Lawn and Garden, to Motorcycles, to Marine, etc.. don't they have a say?

It may be utopia for BITOG types to have a one set of testing criteria but it is not the filter mnaufacturers who are behind the "problem" if there is one. Those that complain, some almost vociferously, aren't going to be happy campers any time soon as there is no push worldwide to have one set of testing parameters for the ISO or SAE tests. Nor is there a push to have one by-pass valve or one diameter can or one length filter. Why not have one standard on those as well?

Why not a spec engine for all to use in every car manufactured and let the OEM's tweak the spec engine like some racing series do?

Why are their V8's or V12's and why not everyone use 4 Cylinder engines? That is about the type of question being asked when it comes to filter testing. That one size fits all. One testing standard and parameters will satisfy every type of gasoline engine out there.
Then there is the--well one filter part number is cataloged for a couple different engine manufacturers, so why not one test standard if a filter can fit two different engine? Which is ridiculous on the face of it and not well thought out. The filter meets or exceeds the OEM's specfications of the engines it is cataloged for. That is all. It doesn't mean you can use that filter on other engines because those filtration specs are different. Standard tests or no industry standard test. A filter industry standard test doesn't guarantee that a filter does meet or exceed the other engines filtration specs. It is the OEM's which will need to agree on an industry standard filter test for all engines. Filter companies only guarantees the filters cataloged for specific engines.

Then to go on whinge and then claim that there is almost some sort of conspiracy by filter companies is a bit much.

It is not "half truths" or marketing glitz either. Just because someone is not satisfied.

Consumers do their own version of testing everyday with the filter brand they choose. If for instance Purolator came out with testing that claims their filter outperforms Wix in some manner..do you think that will sway Wix users away from Wix filters to Purolator? Or is that just marketing glitz? A Wix user bought their filter for their own individual reasons. They know the Wix filter "Meets or Exceeds". Unless they have a problem with the filter it is likely they will just continue to buy their brand even if there was a "uniformed" test.

There are those who buy on price or because a brand is on sale or because of a coupon. Do you think testing means anything to them?

So 1% of the public may feel there should be uniform testing. 99% of the public are happy with the information available to them and will buy for various reasons. That is why OEM's worry about thier own testing parameters for their own engines and nothing else. Becuase they only care about their own engines performance and reliability.


[ September 17, 2006, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Patman ]