Local towing company suing Fram
- Thread starter Milkman
- Start date
- Status
I've seen this happen to a Fram spin on fuel filter on an Isuzu NPR cab over truck. Then I heard the stories of the filter material coming apart in them on the 5.9 Cummins and clogging up the turbo oil supply line and piston cooling jets. Thats what finally turned me off to them.
i dont use frams...but in most cases of cases blowing apart it is not the filters fault
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
After reading all the documents available from the link it seems that Fram only admits that it manufactures and sells oil filters. They seem to deny the filter was defective in any way, and allege that poor maintenance, modifications, or other acts by the complaintant was the cause. I'm surprised no one blamed Dodge directly for bursting oil filters!
"Foreign Corporation" means they are incorporated in a STATE other than the state where the tow truck company is located. "Words of art" in the trade.
I liked how the documents characterised Fram as a foreign corporation. Did you see the plaintiffs 111 question interogatories? I think Fram got those narrowed in scope but it would've been interesting reading to see the answers. I don't think they were ever placed online. You almost have to have law training to fully understand all the mumbo jumbo.
Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue
After reading all the documents available from the link it seems that Fram only admits that it manufactures and sells oil filters. They seem to deny the filter was defective in any way, and allege that poor maintenance, modifications, or other acts by the complaintant was the cause. I'm surprised no one blamed Dodge directly for bursting oil filters!
"Foreign Corporation" means they are incorporated in a STATE other than the state where the tow truck company is located. "Words of art" in the trade.
I liked how the documents characterised Fram as a foreign corporation. Did you see the plaintiffs 111 question interogatories? I think Fram got those narrowed in scope but it would've been interesting reading to see the answers. I don't think they were ever placed online. You almost have to have law training to fully understand all the mumbo jumbo.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
And I'm sure that Fram is the ONLY oil filter manufacturer EVER to be sued for a failure.
LOL, i love this stuff, your point on jim! But you cant teach an old dog new tricks. "Grandpa thought this, so it must be true" LOL
And I'm sure that Fram is the ONLY oil filter manufacturer EVER to be sued for a failure.
LOL, i love this stuff, your point on jim! But you cant teach an old dog new tricks. "Grandpa thought this, so it must be true" LOL
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
And I'm sure that Fram is the ONLY oil filter manufacturer EVER to be sued for a failure. Also, it's totally certain they are the ONLY company whose oil filter has failed and lunched an engine.
Well of course they are. I mean, they were seemingly at fault in this case even though it was a Purolator filter, and it was ultimately the fault of the engine anyway and not the filter! The first responses were awesome: "maybe it was material left behind from a previous filter" and "maybe Fram made that Purolator filter...".
This certainly *could* have been causes by a defective filter; but given the headroom on filter burst pressure, it's a lot more likely to be caused by a problem w/the oil pump bypass or some other mechanical defect. I'm sure that NO OTHER filter mfg is going to automatically say "here's a new engine" unless they know that the filter is to blame. Point being, I don't know what happened, and I'm guessing that most blaming Fram for "ruining another engine" don't know either.
And I'm sure that Fram is the ONLY oil filter manufacturer EVER to be sued for a failure. Also, it's totally certain they are the ONLY company whose oil filter has failed and lunched an engine.
Well of course they are. I mean, they were seemingly at fault in this case even though it was a Purolator filter, and it was ultimately the fault of the engine anyway and not the filter! The first responses were awesome: "maybe it was material left behind from a previous filter" and "maybe Fram made that Purolator filter...".
This certainly *could* have been causes by a defective filter; but given the headroom on filter burst pressure, it's a lot more likely to be caused by a problem w/the oil pump bypass or some other mechanical defect. I'm sure that NO OTHER filter mfg is going to automatically say "here's a new engine" unless they know that the filter is to blame. Point being, I don't know what happened, and I'm guessing that most blaming Fram for "ruining another engine" don't know either.
eninges, certinally small engines have worked without filters for years, so unless someone can say an oil filter exploded, plugging oil journals, im calling [censored] here
Dodge actually had an old TSB stating that use of a Fram filter would VOID an engine warranty if the filter failed-the main problem being the piston cooling nozzles that spray oil up onto the bottom of the pistons. Still surprising that something else (oil filter seal, turbo oil lines/seals, etc.) wouldn't have let go before the filter can actually blows up-IF it was excessive pressure that caused the problem in the first place. I still say-brand new '09 5500 cab & chassis=well in excess of $50 Gs-should never have used Fram (or an Ecore, or any other cheapo filter) in the first place. On all 5 of my diesel vehicles, even the old, worn-out 300D which needs a rebuild anyway-no Fram would ever get put on one.
Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Dodge actually had an old TSB stating that use of a Fram filter would VOID an engine warranty if the filter failed-the main problem being the piston cooling nozzles that spray oil up onto the bottom of the pistons.
If you mean TSB 09-004-01, which came out in 2001, it wasn't specific to Fram but warned of the use of neoprene in the construction of any oil filter used on a Cummins engine. It also didn't say anything about VOIDED warranties if Fram filters were used. There was an approved list on the TSB... which did not include Fram. If you are going to cite evidence to support a point, please try harder to get it right.
This thread might be humorous if it wasn't so utterly STUPID! I don't use Fram filters, and haven't for decades but here I am defending them because of the utter and complete lack of analytical thought being displayed here.
Here is the TSB, followed by a letter from Fram.
"May 18, 2001
Models: 1989 -1993 (AD), 1994 - 2001 (BR/BE) Ram Truck
NOTE: THIS BULLETIN INVOLVES 1989 - 201 MY 2500 AND 3500 RAM TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH A 5.9L CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINE.
Discussion:
Customer may complain of high oil consumption, grey oil smoke coming out of the exhaust or breather tube, or mechanical knocking. Neoprene compounds used internally in the manufacture of oil filters not recommended by DaimlerChrysler may separate from the filter, lodge in the piston cooling nozzle, and can fail the engine.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN ENGINE DEFECT.
(See the table below for a list of filters recommended by DaimlerChrysler for use with the 5.9L Cummins diesel engine.)
NOTE: SECTION 2.7 OF THE TRUCK WARRANTY MANUAL STATES DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILURES RESULTING FROM IMPROPER REPAIR OR THE USE OF PARTS WHICH ARE NOT GENUINE DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION / MOPAR OR DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION / MOPAR APPROVED PARTS. DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE USE OF OIL FILTER NOT APPROVED BY DAIMLERCHRYSLER MAY NOT BE COVERED BY THE NEW VEHICLE WARRANTY. DAIMLERCHRYSLER RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING OIL FILTERS. DO NOT USE ANY OIL FILTER CONTAINING NEOPRENE. PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS.
RECOMMENDED OIL FILTERS FOR USE WITH CUMMINS 5.9L DIESEL ENGINE:
Part Number Manufacturer
05016547AC Mopar
LF3894 Fleetguard Stratopore
LF3552 Fleetguard Microglass
LF3949 Fleetguard Cellulose
3937695 Cummins Cellulose
FL896 MotorCraft Cellulose
L45335 Purolator Cellulose
PF1070 AC Delco Cellulose
Policy: Information Only"
FRAM'S TSB:
"TECHNICAL INFORMATION
It has been brought to our attention that a few DaimlerChrysler service technicians are recommending that the FRAM PH3976 filter not be used on DaimlerChrysler vehicles with the Cummins 5.9L Turbo Diesel engine and that use of these filters can cause damage to the engine. DaimlerChrysler has informed us that they released a Technical Service Bulletin to their dealerships communicating a potential contamination issue and recommending the use of Fleetguard manufactured filters.
FRAM has been selling PH3976 filter for this engine application since the engine platform launch and it has maintained an extremely reliable service record.
Late in 2000, Cummins and DaimlerChrysler brought to our attention a low incidence failure mode in their Cummins 5.9L Turbo Diesel engine of the piston cooling nozzle plugging, resulting in engine failure. The plugging was caused by contaminates lodging in the nozzle. The contaminants included metal chips, calcium carbonate, polyethylene, and styrene butadiene that are not associated with filter manufacture, and a neoprene compound, which is used as a sealant on the tapping plate of the filter. There were also several other engine warranty issues determined unrelated to the piston cooling nozzle plugging that were part of the engine failure sample. A small amount of neoprene rubber was used in the FRAM filter as a sealant. Throughout our investigation with Cummins & DaimlerChrysler on various engine failures, no conclusive evidence was found to assign cause to filters or other contamination sources. However, driven to satisfy our customers, the FRAM engineering team made modifications to the design eliminating the neoprene and expedited development and manufacturing to release a revised filter model number to PH3976A.
With the design change on the PH3976A completely removing the use of neoprene, there is absolutely no validity in comments that the Fram filter should not be used for this application or that it may cause engine failures associated with plugged nozzles. The Honeywell Consumer Products Group warranty policy also protects the consumer if it is determined that a FRAM filter is responsible for damage to an engine due to defects in design or workmanship. This information should be openly conveyed to our customers if they have any concerns or apprehension about using a FRAM filter for this application."
Dodge actually had an old TSB stating that use of a Fram filter would VOID an engine warranty if the filter failed-the main problem being the piston cooling nozzles that spray oil up onto the bottom of the pistons.
If you mean TSB 09-004-01, which came out in 2001, it wasn't specific to Fram but warned of the use of neoprene in the construction of any oil filter used on a Cummins engine. It also didn't say anything about VOIDED warranties if Fram filters were used. There was an approved list on the TSB... which did not include Fram. If you are going to cite evidence to support a point, please try harder to get it right.
This thread might be humorous if it wasn't so utterly STUPID! I don't use Fram filters, and haven't for decades but here I am defending them because of the utter and complete lack of analytical thought being displayed here.
Here is the TSB, followed by a letter from Fram.
"May 18, 2001
Models: 1989 -1993 (AD), 1994 - 2001 (BR/BE) Ram Truck
NOTE: THIS BULLETIN INVOLVES 1989 - 201 MY 2500 AND 3500 RAM TRUCKS EQUIPPED WITH A 5.9L CUMMINS DIESEL ENGINE.
Discussion:
Customer may complain of high oil consumption, grey oil smoke coming out of the exhaust or breather tube, or mechanical knocking. Neoprene compounds used internally in the manufacture of oil filters not recommended by DaimlerChrysler may separate from the filter, lodge in the piston cooling nozzle, and can fail the engine.
NOTE: THIS IS NOT AN ENGINE DEFECT.
(See the table below for a list of filters recommended by DaimlerChrysler for use with the 5.9L Cummins diesel engine.)
NOTE: SECTION 2.7 OF THE TRUCK WARRANTY MANUAL STATES DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FAILURES RESULTING FROM IMPROPER REPAIR OR THE USE OF PARTS WHICH ARE NOT GENUINE DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION / MOPAR OR DAIMLERCHRYSLER MOTORS CORPORATION / MOPAR APPROVED PARTS. DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE USE OF OIL FILTER NOT APPROVED BY DAIMLERCHRYSLER MAY NOT BE COVERED BY THE NEW VEHICLE WARRANTY. DAIMLERCHRYSLER RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING OIL FILTERS. DO NOT USE ANY OIL FILTER CONTAINING NEOPRENE. PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH YOUR CUSTOMERS.
RECOMMENDED OIL FILTERS FOR USE WITH CUMMINS 5.9L DIESEL ENGINE:
Part Number Manufacturer
05016547AC Mopar
LF3894 Fleetguard Stratopore
LF3552 Fleetguard Microglass
LF3949 Fleetguard Cellulose
3937695 Cummins Cellulose
FL896 MotorCraft Cellulose
L45335 Purolator Cellulose
PF1070 AC Delco Cellulose
Policy: Information Only"
FRAM'S TSB:
"TECHNICAL INFORMATION
It has been brought to our attention that a few DaimlerChrysler service technicians are recommending that the FRAM PH3976 filter not be used on DaimlerChrysler vehicles with the Cummins 5.9L Turbo Diesel engine and that use of these filters can cause damage to the engine. DaimlerChrysler has informed us that they released a Technical Service Bulletin to their dealerships communicating a potential contamination issue and recommending the use of Fleetguard manufactured filters.
FRAM has been selling PH3976 filter for this engine application since the engine platform launch and it has maintained an extremely reliable service record.
Late in 2000, Cummins and DaimlerChrysler brought to our attention a low incidence failure mode in their Cummins 5.9L Turbo Diesel engine of the piston cooling nozzle plugging, resulting in engine failure. The plugging was caused by contaminates lodging in the nozzle. The contaminants included metal chips, calcium carbonate, polyethylene, and styrene butadiene that are not associated with filter manufacture, and a neoprene compound, which is used as a sealant on the tapping plate of the filter. There were also several other engine warranty issues determined unrelated to the piston cooling nozzle plugging that were part of the engine failure sample. A small amount of neoprene rubber was used in the FRAM filter as a sealant. Throughout our investigation with Cummins & DaimlerChrysler on various engine failures, no conclusive evidence was found to assign cause to filters or other contamination sources. However, driven to satisfy our customers, the FRAM engineering team made modifications to the design eliminating the neoprene and expedited development and manufacturing to release a revised filter model number to PH3976A.
With the design change on the PH3976A completely removing the use of neoprene, there is absolutely no validity in comments that the Fram filter should not be used for this application or that it may cause engine failures associated with plugged nozzles. The Honeywell Consumer Products Group warranty policy also protects the consumer if it is determined that a FRAM filter is responsible for damage to an engine due to defects in design or workmanship. This information should be openly conveyed to our customers if they have any concerns or apprehension about using a FRAM filter for this application."
Jim thank you for the information. I have used Fram before would I again yeah if the $ was right, and fellow BITOG members I would not lose any sleep using a Fram oil filter.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Jim thank you for the information. I have used Fram before would I again yeah if the $ was right, and fellow BITOG members I would not lose any sleep using a Fram oil filter.
Well, I certainly wouldn't lose any more sleep over Fram than I would over any other filter in a comparable price range.
Jim thank you for the information. I have used Fram before would I again yeah if the $ was right, and fellow BITOG members I would not lose any sleep using a Fram oil filter.
Well, I certainly wouldn't lose any more sleep over Fram than I would over any other filter in a comparable price range.
I'm always surprised that Fram or another company in a similar situation doesn't just pay up and replace the engine with no questions asked. The customer would be happy, there would be less negative publicity, and the expensive lawyers fees wouldn't come into play. I suppose the negative to the company is that it would be akin to admitting their product failed, which might open them up to more claims from other people. I think of other products I have returned and when the company made good I continued to do business with them, and spent more money in the long run than they lost by replacing the product. Think Sears and their replacement tool guarantees. I've replaced a few tools over the years with no questions asked.
Going back to the original post, why would the pressure bypass valve be a factor on a filter burst at highway speed? Theoretically, the engine should be warmed or getting warmer at that point, making the usage of the pressure release valve unnecessary.
As another poster pointed out with his BMW, cold start seems to be the most likely time for a canister burst...
As another poster pointed out with his BMW, cold start seems to be the most likely time for a canister burst...
Originally Posted By: Brons2
Going back to the original post, why would the pressure bypass valve be a factor on a filter burst at highway speed?
What causes over pressure in the can is a faulty oil pump pressure regulator (not the filter's bypass valve). If the oil pump pressure relief goes hay wire even with hot oil, it could possibly still cause too much oil pressure in the can and eventually filter failure.
But yes, a faulty relieve valve with cold oil has the potential to cause a much more extreme over pressure condition.
Going back to the original post, why would the pressure bypass valve be a factor on a filter burst at highway speed?
What causes over pressure in the can is a faulty oil pump pressure regulator (not the filter's bypass valve). If the oil pump pressure relief goes hay wire even with hot oil, it could possibly still cause too much oil pressure in the can and eventually filter failure.
But yes, a faulty relieve valve with cold oil has the potential to cause a much more extreme over pressure condition.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Well, I certainly wouldn't lose any more sleep over Fram than I would over any other filter in a comparable price range.
Want to hear a real rib tickler about Fram pricing? We have a parts website up here in Canada that, about two years ago, would offer free shipping on any order, no matter how small. Of course, their prices were correspondingly much higher than those that offered free shipping only if you bought more than $75 (the Canadian standard, rather than the U.S. $50 standard). Now, they've gone to the $75 purchase for free shipping policy, yet their OCODs still cost - get this - $16 each.
Well, I certainly wouldn't lose any more sleep over Fram than I would over any other filter in a comparable price range.
Want to hear a real rib tickler about Fram pricing? We have a parts website up here in Canada that, about two years ago, would offer free shipping on any order, no matter how small. Of course, their prices were correspondingly much higher than those that offered free shipping only if you bought more than $75 (the Canadian standard, rather than the U.S. $50 standard). Now, they've gone to the $75 purchase for free shipping policy, yet their OCODs still cost - get this - $16 each.
I have a Cummins powered RAM, and I would use a FRAM 3976A on it if I had to. Note the "A" at the end of the part number. The 3976 was the original design from Fram that caused the issues. The 3976A is the redesign that no longer has any glue in it.
Here is a thread I posted at RV.net about the oil filters for the Cummins 5.9L and the Duramax 6.6L (including pics of filters cut apart).
http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/20340758/srt/pa/pging/1/page/1
My opinion, the FRAM for the Duramax application = junk. The FRAM 3976A for the Cummins = OK, the Fleetgaurd Stratopore for the Cummins = superior.
Here is a thread I posted at RV.net about the oil filters for the Cummins 5.9L and the Duramax 6.6L (including pics of filters cut apart).
http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/20340758/srt/pa/pging/1/page/1
My opinion, the FRAM for the Duramax application = junk. The FRAM 3976A for the Cummins = OK, the Fleetgaurd Stratopore for the Cummins = superior.
Originally Posted By: ib516
The 3976A is the redesign that no longer has any glue in it.
I read some of the info in the links you gave ... but since the 3976A went with metal end caps, I'd think there's still some kind of glue on the metal end caps (?). Maybe they just changed the glue formulation?
The 3976A is the redesign that no longer has any glue in it.
I read some of the info in the links you gave ... but since the 3976A went with metal end caps, I'd think there's still some kind of glue on the metal end caps (?). Maybe they just changed the glue formulation?
AuthorEditor wrote:
"I'm always surprised that Fram or another company in a similar situation doesn't just pay up and replace the engine with no questions asked. The customer would be happy, there would be less negative publicity, and the expensive lawyers fees wouldn't come into play."
Very simple reason. From the defendant's perspective, quickly settling out of court without fighting at all lowers the bar for future lawsuits. It opens the door to other potential lawsuits once people realize the last suit was quickly settled with little or no resistance. Thus, while it may cost them more to fight the current suit in terms of dollars and some to their reputation, others will think twice before suing them, unless they have a *really* strong case. This saves them money in the long run. I speak from experience.
"I'm always surprised that Fram or another company in a similar situation doesn't just pay up and replace the engine with no questions asked. The customer would be happy, there would be less negative publicity, and the expensive lawyers fees wouldn't come into play."
Very simple reason. From the defendant's perspective, quickly settling out of court without fighting at all lowers the bar for future lawsuits. It opens the door to other potential lawsuits once people realize the last suit was quickly settled with little or no resistance. Thus, while it may cost them more to fight the current suit in terms of dollars and some to their reputation, others will think twice before suing them, unless they have a *really* strong case. This saves them money in the long run. I speak from experience.
Also an example from my home.
My Dad donated blood at the red Cross. within a few days, his elbow was inflamed, and ridiculously sore, and later diagnosed with staph infection directly in the joint...the joint in which he'd donated blood.
Antibiotics didn't work,and had to be injected directly into the mass.
Australia's foremost infection Professor was adamant that it was the blood donation that did it.
Self employed, 2 weeks off work in hospital, he approached the Red Cross, and was told to go jump.
He threatened legal action, and was told that he would go broke a long, long time before they did.
They couldn't afford a settlement, on even an obvious case,as that would open all the other infection cases.
And they were quite right...the average punter WILL go broke before they do !
And FRAm is a for profit organisation rather than a charity.
My Dad donated blood at the red Cross. within a few days, his elbow was inflamed, and ridiculously sore, and later diagnosed with staph infection directly in the joint...the joint in which he'd donated blood.
Antibiotics didn't work,and had to be injected directly into the mass.
Australia's foremost infection Professor was adamant that it was the blood donation that did it.
Self employed, 2 weeks off work in hospital, he approached the Red Cross, and was told to go jump.
He threatened legal action, and was told that he would go broke a long, long time before they did.
They couldn't afford a settlement, on even an obvious case,as that would open all the other infection cases.
And they were quite right...the average punter WILL go broke before they do !
And FRAm is a for profit organisation rather than a charity.
- Status
