quote:
Originally posted by John W. Colby:
quote:
Originally posted by Filter guy:
John W. Colby
I love your rant. And i'm sure there are a few other who probably feel as you do.
Thanks, now if you would just quit spewing garbage!
If only everyone in the USA cut open their filters.
But while you say it is meaningless that Champ has the lowest amount of filters returned, how can that be meaningless? What it does mean is those that DO have a problem, are more likely to have that problem with another manufacturers filter. Doesn't it? Simple as.
Everything is simple to a simple mind.
I love how you consistently ignore (refuse to comment on) the fact that ANY manufacturer never sees the vast majority of their failures.
So you spew numbers about infinitesimally small number of failures per million produced, but we all know that in statistics, if you only sample an infinitesimally small sample of the total, your statistics are meaningless. You have to have a meaningful sample size for the statistics to be meaningful.
Since 99.99% of failures are thrown away, your statistics are meaningless.
If you got 50% of the failures back, I would be most impressed with your figures. If you got 5% of your failures back, I would be most impressed with your figures. But since you only get .001 % of your failures back (never mind .001% of ALL the filters sold), I am just speechless that you would even publish such specs.
The facts that people don't cut open their filters and throw them away is the same for all manufacturers. Of course you want to focus on but one.
I am not focusing on any single manufacturer. I am not naming names, I just using the generic term "trash filter" or "Junk". YOU are the one that assumes I am talking about a specific manufacturer when I say JUNK.
Why is that?
Is that manufacturer's low end JUNK and you are therefore just assuming I am talking about that manufacturer?
BITOG has any number of people who cut open filters. What have they found? That is the relative sample that would constitute a "poll". As they use various brands of filters. And pay various amounts for them.
And we have had some of them report problems too, which you convienently ignore. Furthermore, in the end, BITOG members only use a total of .00001% of all filters sold so to try and make any statement based on failure rates in that sample is... well... meaningless.
"Liars, ****ed liars and staticians".
Spew away, but don't expect me to be impressed.
Well i'm no good at this quote and paste like you're doing so bear with me.
"
I love how you consistently ignore (refuse to comment on) the fact that ANY manufacturer never sees the vast majority of their failures. "
I think filter manufacturers see virtually ALL of their failures.
But you're parsing the definition of "failure".
When an engine is trashed and needs repair and the "filter" is thought to be the culprit..it gets sent back. No, maybe not in every case but i'd bet near every case because someone is going to be out money ( serious money) if they don't send it back. And it's my experience that consumers do send filters back in this instance.
What you consider a "failure" is a filter that has something wrong with it when you cut it open. Or maybe it was never cut open and no one knows what's inside. Ok..I agree they don't get sent back. And that is for all manufacturers, i've said that before.
But as with filters that have been pictured in these forums with problems ( and never sent back)..what makes them "failures"? We've had that debate. Ad naseum for some. My contention is the filter sees the conditions it is run under. Others claim anything wrong means "it's the filters fault".
So various conditions which can lead to filter "failure" is not
always the filters fault is where I will always be. Until someone cuts open new filters and finds holes in media, then I will assume the filter was made correctly and therefore the conditions it is used in will determine it's fate. The same for new anti-drains not being "flexible" enough. Or new by-pass valves not working properly. As long as everything is as it should be, then i'm going to ask for data.
What i'd like you and others to admit...is if an engine needs repair, regardless of age of the engine, mileage on the engine, etc filters companies do honor warranties if the filter is at fault. ( even one poster in here with high mileage, out of OEM warranty, was paid by Champ).
It could be the only one time that Brand X is used on that engine and that's the filter that gets returned because something is wrong with the engine. So take a 20 year old car..how many oil changes? How many different filter brands? But the one that gets returned is the one on the engine at the time of engine damage. And if the filter is at fault, filter companies don't ask for records of ever filter put on the engine and then only warranty a percentage based from that.
A filter sold by every manufacture can go on a new car or one 30 years old. The filter warranty is still in effect.
---------
Is that manufacturer's low end JUNK and you are therefore just assuming I am talking about that manufacturer?
As this thread is about Fram and the discussion about Fram..I am waiting for your or anyone's numbers of how many engines using Fram don't knock?
Motorguy222 adds this to the mix;
This chatter is acceptable to Joe consumer because they dont know any better and because it seems to be the norm.
Something to do,as board members are out and about,notice the sound of many of the engines that you are around.
Well when they do, be sure and document if the car is "new" or old.
But I like how someone else is now blaiming the owner as being stupid.
New vehicles, owners take them back to the dealership and complain about noise. As long as the vehicle is within the warranty, which warranties can be up to 60-100,000 miles, the dealership is most likely to have this type of complaint.
So yes, owners must be stupid if they don't take it back to the dealer and complain. And if there is a Fram ( or brand X) on there, what do you think the dealer might say?
So still I do not see any evidence that engine noises are as predominant as people claim. Nor the relationship to the filter itself.
I have admitted that one can change filters and solve the problem. That there are engines with knocking noises.
What no one in here wants to tackle, is how does the noise relate to the filter if the by-pass opens up almost instantaneously....because it senses pressure differential. There is 0 flow coming out of the filter at start up, oil enters the filter, by-pass opens up. So oil flow will still basically be what the output is from the oil pump. Can we discuss that? Instead of just blaiming filters.
I believe Rando said, and i'm sure he'll correct me if i'm wrong, he used Fram. Tried other solutions and stayed with Fram. Changed multiple Fram filters. The noise didn't go away. Whether the Fram was new or at his oil change interval. So the by-pass valve he had in his Fram first time it saw oil, until he took it off, he still had the noise. So useage of an old valve or the buna rubber anti-drain wearing out is not the issue.
Yet, he changes to a more restictive media than what is in the Fram and his problem is "solved".
Isn't that an oxymoron? Wouldn't less efficient media allow more flow?
Of course the claim is the Fram by-pass isn't "designed" well. Well if it isn't why don't
all the owners of his vehicle have that same problem? As I've asked and not got a responce..did they get a better made "cheap Fram"? Were their valves somehow superior to the multiple attempts by Rando to stick with Fram? Did he somehow always end up with the black sheep of Fram by-pass valves?
Or could it be it isn't the Fram filter but his engine responds to a different filter better? Why would his engine do this..
But unless those who have his engine are encountering the same problem in decent numbers, then maybe it wasn't the filter "design".
All of this is food for thought.... or not..
