New Fram ToughGuard TG3387A Cut open.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
1,235
Location
Plattsburgh, NY
OK, here are some cut open photos of a Fram TG3387A. I nicked the top of the base-side fiber end cap, as I was cutting it open. Outside of my gaffe, you'll see the filter was completely normal. Pleats were pretty much evenly spaced, except the two pleats on either side of the retaining clip.

I apologize for the blurriness in some photos. My camera only has auto-focus and stinks at macro shooting.

The center tube was round, and perfectly aligned. The potting was excellent. In short, you'll find a good filter here, sacrificed for posting.

I decided to post the photos so lurkers of BITOG wouldn't get the impression that every ToughGuard they see posted here is somehow flawed.

OilNerdLicensePlateSmall.jpg



mmttp5.jpg


The base-side endcap:
2di50eb.jpg


The dome-side endcap:
2rxtlrs.jpg


Clip side of media cartridge:
34sozy8.jpg


Opposite side of media cartridge:
mtnlt0.jpg


Base plate and ADBV:
5bz4hu.jpg


Base plate and ADBV inside view:
xg9wcm.jpg
 
I thought the toughguard had metal endplates... when did they change that...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rand
I thought the toughguard had metal endplates... when did they change that...


Not sure if they ever had metal endcaps. I used to think that they did, but when I started cutting the used ones open, never found one with metal endcaps, so for at least the last three years, I can say the endcaps have been fiber based.
 
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Only one I knew of with metal endplates was the Xtended Guard,right?


Yep, and it successor the Ultra.
 
Quote:
I decided to post the photos so lurkers of BITOG wouldn't get the impression that every ToughGuard they see posted here is somehow flawed.


I would not say flawed, just engineered to a low cost minimum standard. Other than a silicone ADBV, nothing special about that filter.
 
I'd hardly call a 99% ISO 4548-12 efficiency across the three filter applications that make up 90% of the market, a "minimum standard", but I'll agree to disagree with you there.
 
Originally Posted By: OilNerd
I'd hardly call a 99% ISO 4548-12 efficiency across the three filter applications that make up 90% of the market, a "minimum standard", but I'll agree to disagree with you there.


Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night. FRAM does not build it that way because it is superior engineering.
 
Thanx for the contribution!

I was happy with the one I used and cut open. I will say that the two latest TG posts were not flattering. That said we have seen some quality issues from lots of companies.

I do really want to like this filter, the efficiency and cost are a good mix, up this way at least. This post and my own experience help, I haven't put them on my Do Not Use list yet.
 
There's nothing wrong with those at all for reasonable OCI's and the filtering efficiency is in high company, but they are poor values IMO in the States.
 
Originally Posted By: RiceCake
Probably fine for a basic OCI. Thanks for posting.


A cheapo Fram would be fine for that... Pretty silly comment if you have any idea what your talking about. All that and I'm not a Fram fan.
 
Originally Posted By: sw99
Pretty silly comment if you have any idea what your talking about. All that and I'm not a Fram fan.


Had to find something to say try to get noticed around here huh?
 
Originally Posted By: RiceCake

Had to find something to say try to get noticed around here huh?


That would be much more appropriate for your comment. 99% of the cheapest filters are fine for the "basic OCI." I'm no Fram fan but the TG filters are a very good filter w/ synthetic media.
 
With the better media and the silicon ADBV, I would have zero problems using this for 10K personally. Heck, the cheapo Microgard Fram's I got free did a fine job for 7K on my last OCI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top