I still think it is OCO DEATH!
What driving conditions ?!?
Weather, frequent stops, highway, high revs ??
Thanks for the pics
What driving conditions ?!?
Weather, frequent stops, highway, high revs ??
Thanks for the pics
Last edited:
Fram Orange Can O' Delight PH3614 Cut Open @ 5385 Miles
- Thread starter MrQuackers
- Start date
- Status
MrQuackers
Site Donor 2024
This OCI a good chunk of hwy maybe 55%. One 25 minute hwy session locked in 3rd gear putting the tach around 4k. Lots of WOT sprinkled in shifting at 5k plus many many times. This is Oregon, you're gonna see rain and plenty.
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
This OCI a good chunk of hwy maybe 55%. One 25 minute hwy session locked in 3rd gear putting the tach around 4k. Lots of WOT sprinkled in shifting at 5k plus many many times. This is Oregon, you're gonna see rain and plenty.
IMO still OCOD, here in Canada we got -20 C(-30C at times) temperatures, snow all day everyday!
Also, high revs to get out of the snow.
This OCI a good chunk of hwy maybe 55%. One 25 minute hwy session locked in 3rd gear putting the tach around 4k. Lots of WOT sprinkled in shifting at 5k plus many many times. This is Oregon, you're gonna see rain and plenty.
IMO still OCOD, here in Canada we got -20 C(-30C at times) temperatures, snow all day everyday!
Also, high revs to get out of the snow.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
That thing just screams "quality".
Aren't you one of the guys who keeps saying any oil filter will do the job, and that oil filters really don't matter much? But yet you're pretty critical of this filter. Hummm ... double standard perhaps?
That thing just screams "quality".
Aren't you one of the guys who keeps saying any oil filter will do the job, and that oil filters really don't matter much? But yet you're pretty critical of this filter. Hummm ... double standard perhaps?
Looks good! Surprised all the pleats are straight. Everyone I had ever cut open the pleats were bent.
I would never use this filter on anything i own or rebuild although all the years i have been around engines i never saw one engine problem that points directly to this filter as far as i can remember... However i really want to try a fram ultra and of course cut it open after 6000 miles. I have used pureone and noticed restrictions (my oil gauge never lies) and i am wondering if the ultra flows better than the pureone which i don't use anymore anyway.
MrQuackers
Site Donor 2024
Found this edmunds forum discussion
http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/2147/ford/x/oil-filters-whose-is-best-and-why/p80
below from page 80 of this discussion
The so-called "study" being referred to is most certainly not science. It
contends to prove that certain oil filters are deficient or "junk" by a
rather subjective and cursory inspection of materials and construction
techniques, neither of which alone or together are empirically proven
to establish the actual effect on suitability, effectiveness or reliability
of any oil filter. In fact, there are no empirical findings in this "study,"
and there are a few totally false conclusions regarding several of the
materials used.
The contention that the amount of filter paper or media used in a
filter as measured by its surface area as the sole determinant of filter
capacity, is patently incorrect. The author blindly and unastutely
assumes that all oil filter medias are alike and contends that the more
square inches of media, the more capacity. This is simply not so and
demonstrates the dangers of simple visual inspection. His overly
simple visual technique is totally misleading and does not or cannot
establish the ability of the media to trap and hold dirt particles. The
belief that more square paper SURFACE area automatically equates to
increased ability to trap dirt is ignorant at best, and most certainly
without merit.
What has been overlooked in this simple analysis is the effect of media
depth and cellular construction, something that was not measured or
determined by the author. Some filter manufacturers will use a media
with a specific structure, composition, and depth that are less able to
trap smaller particles and hold less quantities of dirt to bring the
overall filter capacity up to an acceptable or increased flow rate level.
The SAE HS806 filtration test is the current standard for measuring
media, and thereby determining a oil filter's effectiveness at trapping
dirt. This much accepted sophomoric research being referred to makes
no attempt to use or even establish data that would indicate the
effectiveness of this most important aspect of a motor oil filter. And
yet, through assumption based on mere material visual inspection and
construction techniques, none of which are ever scientifically proven
to be deficient in any way, the author and many of his followers
conclude that a Fram filter is "junk."
Another claim is that the Fram bypass valves are "plastic," a overly
broad and simple term for a wide range of material. He also contends
that the Fram valves contain molding irregularities. The fact is that the
author never states that he has actually observed a molding
irregularity or purports to offer evidence of any, but merely assumes
that because they are "molded plastic" it is a common defect.
The fact is the author does not know what the material is, and the vast
majority of us could never tell just by visual inspection. In truth the
Fram bypass valves are made of glass filled Nylon, a highly durable
material and widely used in high temperature applications. This
material has been selected specifically for its plyability and long-term
durability. In testing, they have withstood hot oil durability testing of
1,000,000 cycles at 275 degrees (F), according to the manufacturer,
and are 100% inspected. It is odd that the author has chosen to
conclude negatively, without any evidence to back up his claims, a
design feature that is actually more reliable than a metal valve which
may be prone to prolapse, tempering and rust over long term use.
Another criticism concerns the end disks used in various Fram oil
filters. These disks only serve one purpose in the Fram assembly. They
are used to hold the glue which keeps the pleated media formed into a
rigid circular tube. The glue-to-media interface is also one of the
sealing surfaces keeping dirty and filtered oil from mixing. The
assumption by the author is that only metal-end disks can adequately
seal and have enough strength in the hot oil environment. The problem
with this conclusion is that the material doing the sealing is the
adhesive, not the disk!
In this design what matters is the strength of the ADHESIVE, its proper
curing, the thoroughness with which it can be applied to the disk, and
its adhesion to the disk. Not the end disk. Composition end disks are
used by Fram to facilitate a more viable, reliable, and long-term
durable bond. The adhesive provides exceptionally strong adhesion to
the fiberboard disk, something that cannot be as reliably made when
trying to adhere to a metal disk.
In another pitfall of the author's simple visual inspection technique,
he comes to the conclusion that the end disk material is of ordinary
corrugation material or "cardboard." It is in fact made of a special
fiber material and is designed to be strong and totally inert in hot oil
at temperatures exceeding engine manufacturers specifications. Oddly,
the claim that the current Fram filters have deviated in this design
aspect and are inferior to Fram filters of old, points again to the
ignorance of the author. Fram has used these fiberboard disks in oil
filters for 38 years!
Despite the often proclaimed "these pages are NOT to be taken as
gospel" precaution, it is interesting that the defenders of this "study"
and attackers of Fram filters treat this author's work as the definitive
example and "proof" of the assumed ineptness of Fram oil filters. It
must be noted that the original version of this so-called study
contained extreme and blatantly biased and unprofessional language,
something that was later edited and removed. And despite the fact that
Fram was the selected target of most of the author's disdain, it was
another company who threatened litigation because of the near total
ineptness of the author's methodology and ultimate conclusions that
were insupportable, even by his own work! It must also be noted that
a so-called example of an Allied Signal engineer admitting that Fram
oil filters were "junk" is an unsigned document and from an
unidentified person and from a unauthenticated source, and as such is
totally lacking in credibility. In addition, the original author has long
since distanced himself from his own work.
I have tried to contact this person without success. If I could, I would
like to pose one question to him: Have you ever had a perceived
problem with a Fram product, or a warranty claim against a Fram
product that was denied by that company?
Please note that I am not now or have ever been an employee,
supplier to, or customer of Allied Signal, of Honeywell, or had any
connection of any type with the Fram product family.
http://forums.edmunds.com/discussion/2147/ford/x/oil-filters-whose-is-best-and-why/p80
below from page 80 of this discussion
The so-called "study" being referred to is most certainly not science. It
contends to prove that certain oil filters are deficient or "junk" by a
rather subjective and cursory inspection of materials and construction
techniques, neither of which alone or together are empirically proven
to establish the actual effect on suitability, effectiveness or reliability
of any oil filter. In fact, there are no empirical findings in this "study,"
and there are a few totally false conclusions regarding several of the
materials used.
The contention that the amount of filter paper or media used in a
filter as measured by its surface area as the sole determinant of filter
capacity, is patently incorrect. The author blindly and unastutely
assumes that all oil filter medias are alike and contends that the more
square inches of media, the more capacity. This is simply not so and
demonstrates the dangers of simple visual inspection. His overly
simple visual technique is totally misleading and does not or cannot
establish the ability of the media to trap and hold dirt particles. The
belief that more square paper SURFACE area automatically equates to
increased ability to trap dirt is ignorant at best, and most certainly
without merit.
What has been overlooked in this simple analysis is the effect of media
depth and cellular construction, something that was not measured or
determined by the author. Some filter manufacturers will use a media
with a specific structure, composition, and depth that are less able to
trap smaller particles and hold less quantities of dirt to bring the
overall filter capacity up to an acceptable or increased flow rate level.
The SAE HS806 filtration test is the current standard for measuring
media, and thereby determining a oil filter's effectiveness at trapping
dirt. This much accepted sophomoric research being referred to makes
no attempt to use or even establish data that would indicate the
effectiveness of this most important aspect of a motor oil filter. And
yet, through assumption based on mere material visual inspection and
construction techniques, none of which are ever scientifically proven
to be deficient in any way, the author and many of his followers
conclude that a Fram filter is "junk."
Another claim is that the Fram bypass valves are "plastic," a overly
broad and simple term for a wide range of material. He also contends
that the Fram valves contain molding irregularities. The fact is that the
author never states that he has actually observed a molding
irregularity or purports to offer evidence of any, but merely assumes
that because they are "molded plastic" it is a common defect.
The fact is the author does not know what the material is, and the vast
majority of us could never tell just by visual inspection. In truth the
Fram bypass valves are made of glass filled Nylon, a highly durable
material and widely used in high temperature applications. This
material has been selected specifically for its plyability and long-term
durability. In testing, they have withstood hot oil durability testing of
1,000,000 cycles at 275 degrees (F), according to the manufacturer,
and are 100% inspected. It is odd that the author has chosen to
conclude negatively, without any evidence to back up his claims, a
design feature that is actually more reliable than a metal valve which
may be prone to prolapse, tempering and rust over long term use.
Another criticism concerns the end disks used in various Fram oil
filters. These disks only serve one purpose in the Fram assembly. They
are used to hold the glue which keeps the pleated media formed into a
rigid circular tube. The glue-to-media interface is also one of the
sealing surfaces keeping dirty and filtered oil from mixing. The
assumption by the author is that only metal-end disks can adequately
seal and have enough strength in the hot oil environment. The problem
with this conclusion is that the material doing the sealing is the
adhesive, not the disk!
In this design what matters is the strength of the ADHESIVE, its proper
curing, the thoroughness with which it can be applied to the disk, and
its adhesion to the disk. Not the end disk. Composition end disks are
used by Fram to facilitate a more viable, reliable, and long-term
durable bond. The adhesive provides exceptionally strong adhesion to
the fiberboard disk, something that cannot be as reliably made when
trying to adhere to a metal disk.
In another pitfall of the author's simple visual inspection technique,
he comes to the conclusion that the end disk material is of ordinary
corrugation material or "cardboard." It is in fact made of a special
fiber material and is designed to be strong and totally inert in hot oil
at temperatures exceeding engine manufacturers specifications. Oddly,
the claim that the current Fram filters have deviated in this design
aspect and are inferior to Fram filters of old, points again to the
ignorance of the author. Fram has used these fiberboard disks in oil
filters for 38 years!
Despite the often proclaimed "these pages are NOT to be taken as
gospel" precaution, it is interesting that the defenders of this "study"
and attackers of Fram filters treat this author's work as the definitive
example and "proof" of the assumed ineptness of Fram oil filters. It
must be noted that the original version of this so-called study
contained extreme and blatantly biased and unprofessional language,
something that was later edited and removed. And despite the fact that
Fram was the selected target of most of the author's disdain, it was
another company who threatened litigation because of the near total
ineptness of the author's methodology and ultimate conclusions that
were insupportable, even by his own work! It must also be noted that
a so-called example of an Allied Signal engineer admitting that Fram
oil filters were "junk" is an unsigned document and from an
unidentified person and from a unauthenticated source, and as such is
totally lacking in credibility. In addition, the original author has long
since distanced himself from his own work.
I have tried to contact this person without success. If I could, I would
like to pose one question to him: Have you ever had a perceived
problem with a Fram product, or a warranty claim against a Fram
product that was denied by that company?
Please note that I am not now or have ever been an employee,
supplier to, or customer of Allied Signal, of Honeywell, or had any
connection of any type with the Fram product family.
Last edited:
Yep, what he said above.
Honestly not even sure why the fram haters are so stuck. Seven out of the top ten selling cars sold in the USA left the factory with our filters. Why? because they take dirt out of the oil and isnt that what its supposed to do? Sometimes we wonder of sales would go up if we stuffed the can with plain cellulose media at maybe 60+ pleats, went to steel end caps and 60 efficiency and a fancy paint job if sales would go up. By many "filter experts" logic, they would. Filter efficiency and capacity per square inch of media is all that matters, all media is far from being equal
Honestly not even sure why the fram haters are so stuck. Seven out of the top ten selling cars sold in the USA left the factory with our filters. Why? because they take dirt out of the oil and isnt that what its supposed to do? Sometimes we wonder of sales would go up if we stuffed the can with plain cellulose media at maybe 60+ pleats, went to steel end caps and 60 efficiency and a fancy paint job if sales would go up. By many "filter experts" logic, they would. Filter efficiency and capacity per square inch of media is all that matters, all media is far from being equal
MrQuackers
Site Donor 2024
Thank you Jay for being a member of BITOG!
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Yep, what he said above.
Honestly not even sure why the fram haters are so stuck. Seven out of the top ten selling cars sold in the USA left the factory with our filters. Why? because they take dirt out of the oil and isnt that what its supposed to do? Sometimes we wonder of sales would go up if we stuffed the can with plain cellulose media at maybe 60+ pleats, went to steel end caps and 60 efficiency and a fancy paint job if sales would go up. By many "filter experts" logic, they would. Filter efficiency and capacity per square inch of media is all that matters, all media is far from being equal
Can you give the efficiency ratings of the Ultra starting with the lowest micron size tested? Please also explain how the multi pass efficiency test compares to real world driving. My theory is engines aren't adding many hard particles during real driving and even a 50% efficiency filter in the lab will clean 100% of the oil to the micron limit of the media, given the oil is circulating many many times per minute.
Looking at the pictures of opened TG and EG here, the fiber end caps and wide uneven pleats aren't impressive, why not just make the Ultra? I just bought some Ultras for less than $6. From the people here discussing them, looks like a nice filter. Why would I buy a TG or EG for $5?
Yep, what he said above.
Honestly not even sure why the fram haters are so stuck. Seven out of the top ten selling cars sold in the USA left the factory with our filters. Why? because they take dirt out of the oil and isnt that what its supposed to do? Sometimes we wonder of sales would go up if we stuffed the can with plain cellulose media at maybe 60+ pleats, went to steel end caps and 60 efficiency and a fancy paint job if sales would go up. By many "filter experts" logic, they would. Filter efficiency and capacity per square inch of media is all that matters, all media is far from being equal
Can you give the efficiency ratings of the Ultra starting with the lowest micron size tested? Please also explain how the multi pass efficiency test compares to real world driving. My theory is engines aren't adding many hard particles during real driving and even a 50% efficiency filter in the lab will clean 100% of the oil to the micron limit of the media, given the oil is circulating many many times per minute.
Looking at the pictures of opened TG and EG here, the fiber end caps and wide uneven pleats aren't impressive, why not just make the Ultra? I just bought some Ultras for less than $6. From the people here discussing them, looks like a nice filter. Why would I buy a TG or EG for $5?
I used the orange can as a matter of preference for years after CR published an oil filter comparo back in the eighties.
The Fram showed impressive filtering efficiency and it was available everywhere for cheap.
I began lurking here eight or ten years ago and switched to Purolators based upon what I read here. The P1, introduced later, was cheap after AAP coupon code when on sale and has filtering efficiency few oil filters can match at any price tier, at least until the media tears.
I've got six Ultras that I got on deals lined up for the '12 Accord and a number of TGs and EGs picked up cheaply from Lowes for various other applications.
Question for you.
How long should the basic orange can be left in service in months and miles?
Not trying to pin you down on this, but I'd really like to know what Fram's recommendation is.
The 5.4K filter shown in this thread still looks good, with nice straight pleats and no tears.
How much longer would be reasonable?
The Fram showed impressive filtering efficiency and it was available everywhere for cheap.
I began lurking here eight or ten years ago and switched to Purolators based upon what I read here. The P1, introduced later, was cheap after AAP coupon code when on sale and has filtering efficiency few oil filters can match at any price tier, at least until the media tears.
I've got six Ultras that I got on deals lined up for the '12 Accord and a number of TGs and EGs picked up cheaply from Lowes for various other applications.
Question for you.
How long should the basic orange can be left in service in months and miles?
Not trying to pin you down on this, but I'd really like to know what Fram's recommendation is.
The 5.4K filter shown in this thread still looks good, with nice straight pleats and no tears.
How much longer would be reasonable?
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I watched a PH8A almost cost my friend his (brand new) engine when it burst....!
When a filter BURSTS... something else has gone seriously wrong... ! The filter failure is just a symptom ...
I watched a PH8A almost cost my friend his (brand new) engine when it burst....!
When a filter BURSTS... something else has gone seriously wrong... ! The filter failure is just a symptom ...
MrQuackers
Site Donor 2024
Right on the box it says "proven protection up to 5000 miles"
I'm sure it is fine for much more for easy highway miles.
I'm sure it is fine for much more for easy highway miles.
Last edited:
MrQuackers
Site Donor 2024
I failed to mention the OCI time duration. It was a short one of about 2.4 months.
Originally Posted By: geeman789
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I watched a PH8A almost cost my friend his (brand new) engine when it burst....!
When a filter BURSTS... something else has gone seriously wrong... ! The filter failure is just a symptom ...
After swapping to a different filter (and cleaning up a gallon of oil that went everywhere), the engine ran 15,000+ miles and MANY drag runs without a problem. I recall it spun to 6000RPM on the strip. What went wrong was the filter sucked.
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I watched a PH8A almost cost my friend his (brand new) engine when it burst....!
When a filter BURSTS... something else has gone seriously wrong... ! The filter failure is just a symptom ...
After swapping to a different filter (and cleaning up a gallon of oil that went everywhere), the engine ran 15,000+ miles and MANY drag runs without a problem. I recall it spun to 6000RPM on the strip. What went wrong was the filter sucked.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Can you give the efficiency ratings of the Ultra starting with the lowest micron size tested? Please also explain how the multi pass efficiency test compares to real world driving. My theory is engines aren't adding many hard particles during real driving and even a 50% efficiency filter in the lab will clean 100% of the oil to the micron limit of the media, given the oil is circulating many many times per minute.
The more efficient a filter is at 20 microns, means it's also more efficient at 10 and 5 microns than a filter that is less efficient at 20 microns.
Sure, in theory a filter that is rated 50% @ 20 microns may eventually clean up the oil with many passed through the filter, but if it takes 10 passes to catch a potentially harmful particle vs 1 pass, then in theory there should be more wear potential with a less efficient oil filter. This table represents what I'm talking about.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Looking at the pictures of opened TG and EG here, the fiber end caps and wide uneven pleats aren't impressive, why not just make the Ultra? I just bought some Ultras for less than $6. From the people here discussing them, looks like a nice filter. Why would I buy a TG or EG for $5?
Fram has basically 3 levels of oil filters products to try and cover the whole range of customer needs. If they just sold the Ultra it wouldn't be good business practice to limit your available products. If you can get Ultras at a discount, the what more could you ask for?
Can you give the efficiency ratings of the Ultra starting with the lowest micron size tested? Please also explain how the multi pass efficiency test compares to real world driving. My theory is engines aren't adding many hard particles during real driving and even a 50% efficiency filter in the lab will clean 100% of the oil to the micron limit of the media, given the oil is circulating many many times per minute.
The more efficient a filter is at 20 microns, means it's also more efficient at 10 and 5 microns than a filter that is less efficient at 20 microns.
Sure, in theory a filter that is rated 50% @ 20 microns may eventually clean up the oil with many passed through the filter, but if it takes 10 passes to catch a potentially harmful particle vs 1 pass, then in theory there should be more wear potential with a less efficient oil filter. This table represents what I'm talking about.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Looking at the pictures of opened TG and EG here, the fiber end caps and wide uneven pleats aren't impressive, why not just make the Ultra? I just bought some Ultras for less than $6. From the people here discussing them, looks like a nice filter. Why would I buy a TG or EG for $5?
Fram has basically 3 levels of oil filters products to try and cover the whole range of customer needs. If they just sold the Ultra it wouldn't be good business practice to limit your available products. If you can get Ultras at a discount, the what more could you ask for?
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: geeman789
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I watched a PH8A almost cost my friend his (brand new) engine when it burst....!
When a filter BURSTS... something else has gone seriously wrong... ! The filter failure is just a symptom ...
After swapping to a different filter (and cleaning up a gallon of oil that went everywhere), the engine ran 15,000+ miles and MANY drag runs without a problem. I recall it spun to 6000RPM on the strip. What went wrong was the filter sucked.
Doesn't mean the oil pump pressure regulator couldn't have had a failure at some time.
Originally Posted By: geeman789
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
I watched a PH8A almost cost my friend his (brand new) engine when it burst....!
When a filter BURSTS... something else has gone seriously wrong... ! The filter failure is just a symptom ...
After swapping to a different filter (and cleaning up a gallon of oil that went everywhere), the engine ran 15,000+ miles and MANY drag runs without a problem. I recall it spun to 6000RPM on the strip. What went wrong was the filter sucked.
Doesn't mean the oil pump pressure regulator couldn't have had a failure at some time.
- Status
