A letter from FRAM (from another site)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
1,856
Location
PA
A Letter from Fram

Mr. Lawrence:

Thank you for the e-mail regarding the construction and micron rating of Fram oil filters. We welcome the opportunity to be of service.

Fram filters meet the requirements of the original equipment filter designed for a specific engine. Our filter applications follow the recommendations of the vehicle manufacturer for form, fit, and function. Fram filters follow internally targeted design guidelines to meet the functional requirements of a given filter. Fram filters are tested against SAE standards to ensure uniform product quality and performance. Material construction will vary between filter manufacturers. We believe Fram filters have a proven record for providing reliability, superior quality, and engine protection over the service life of the filter.

A common misunderstanding among our customers concerns the end disks in the oil filter. These disks 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. One common myth is that only metal end disks can adequately seal and have enough strength in the hot oil environment. For this reason, Fram filters are criticized for having cardboard end disks. The issue is, the material doing the sealing is the adhesive, regardless of the material of the end disk. 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. By using cardboard end disks, Fram filter engineers are able to specify adhesives with excellent strength and sealing properties, and strong adhesion to the disk (intuitively, it is easy to make a strong glue bond with cardboard). Moreover, just as paper media itself is able to withstand the hot oil environment, so too is the end disk designed of fibers engineered to be strong and inert in hot oil. The thickness and strength of the adhesive also stiffens the end disk considerably.

Fram engineers perform hot oil circulation tests on the filter element and also regularly cut open used filters to examine how well they have withstood the rigors of actual use on a vehicle. For over 38 years, Fram end disks have stood up to hot oil and their adhesives have sealed off the dirty oil.

Fram's latest entry in the automotive oil filter market is the X2 Extended Guard oil filter. The Fram X2 Extended Guard filter uses a filter media that includes a reinforced mesh screen for maximum pleat integrity, durability, and oil flow. The inclusion of the metal screen increased the glue tolerances or thickness required for proper adhesion to the end disk. The original X2 prototype development specified the cardboard end disk technology. However, the increased amount of adhesive required to join the cardboard end disk to the screened media resulted in prototypes that did not conform to design standards. We had no choice but to use a steel end disk with the X2 filter media to provide uniform Extended Guard oil filter construction.

Fram automotive oil filters, including the standard Extra Guard and premium X2 Extended Guard filters, have a micron rating of 10 micron.

If you require further assistance with Fram filter construction, please contact the Fram Engineering Department directly at 1-419-661-6700.

Thank you for your interest in Fram filters.

Cordially, Scott Jacobs, Catalog/Technical Service Representative


------------------

I thought you'd all like that. 10 microns, and no problems, according to Fram
smile.gif
 
Well, we at least know it has been that way the last 38 years. Does that go back to when Fram started making spin ons? What were the other brands using then? I still am much more concerned about the lack of media between the end caps, than the cardboard end caps. Occasionally there are pictures here of good looking filters without metal end caps. None of them have orange cans.
 
Your underware is rated at 10 microns if you stuff it in a can and use it to filter oil...

What they never mentioned is the efficiency at 10 micron. Is it 10%, 25%, 50%, 70 %, 98.7 %..or what?
 
So are you saying that Fram isn't using some fantastic media that allows a third to half as much to do the same job as other filters?
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:
So are you saying that Fram isn't using some fantastic media that allows a third to half as much to do the same job as other filters?

With all the other high quality workmanship and components that are visible in a Fram filter, they must be using superior filter media.
grin.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
Your underware is rated at 10 microns if you stuff it in a can and use it to filter oil...

What they never mentioned is the efficiency at 10 micron. Is it 10%, 25%, 50%, 70 %, 98.7 %..or what?


Well, it would be Fram to rewrite the Beta notation method. So far, I haven't seen a fractional beta number...50% is as low as you can go.

I'm quite sure that they don't offer a passenger car filter that has a nominal 10um rating.

Frams are junk in most ways you can measure it.
 
Got this from amsoil... like theyre to be trusted
patriot.gif
128.gif


 -
 -


I find that interesting.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dominic:
This is great, Fram also has this whitepaper on how "micron ratings are bunk"
...


In other words, filter manufacturers have no more scruples than used car salesmen.
grin.gif
 
I just love it when Scott Jacobs writes

"We had no choice but to use a steel end disk with the X2 filter media to provide uniform Extended Guard oil filter construction"

You can just feel the dissapointment in his writing about the lack of cardboard in the X2.
Im glad to see a company respond to customers Inquiries though.
 
Well I don't have a problem with what Fram ( Scott Jacobs) wrote. Until he goes on to mention their filter is a 10 micron filter.

Then there is the link on Fram's "technical Information".

Again, nothing wrong there either.

Micron ratings are harder to compare because of the variance of testing.

And Beta Ratios are the preferred method of testing.

But if Fram wants to send out information and mention 10 microns..at least they can provide at what efficiency. Especially after they have a bulletin about Beta testing. That's the only problem I have.


However, I have mentioned numerous times-- either Beta testing or "micron" ratings are subjective. As SAE and ISO only give the guidelines for the test procedure to be run. Neither have specific test parameters. So Filter Companies or Engine Manufacturers can modify the flow rate, type of contaminant to be used, termination point, the amount of contaminant added to the stream of fluid, and the time interval to add the contaminant.

.........So all Beta tests are not equal.....
 
quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:
However, I have mentioned numerous times-- either Beta testing or "micron" ratings are subjective. As SAE and ISO only give the guidelines for the test procedure to be run. Neither have specific test parameters. So Filter Companies or Engine Manufacturers can modify the flow rate, type of contaminant to be used, termination point, the amount of contaminant added to the stream of fluid, and the time interval to add the contaminant.

.........So all Beta tests are not equal.....


According to the FRAM tech bulletin:

A True Measure of Filter Performance
The multi-pass test has developed from the on-going work of Dr. Ernest Fitch
and his staff at the fluid power research center of Oklahoma State University’s
Engineering Department. Working under a grant from the U.S. Army’s MERDC
(Mobile Equipment Research and Development Command) in the early 1960s,
Dr. Fitch was commissioned to study the ways in which contamination affects
fluid system performance.
The multi-pass test was developed initially as a means of assessing
hydraulic fluid filters. This information was made available to the industry
through Dr. Fitch’s close affiliation with the National Fluid Power Association
which adopted the multi-pass test as a test procedure, as did the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) and finally the International Standards
Organization (ISO). The multi-pass test has also been adapted to other types
of liquid filters, most notably, those for lube oil.
As a means of evaluating filter efficiency, the multi-pass test answers the
major deficiencies found with micron ratings:
1. The multi-pass test is repeatable. In order to perform this test, strict procedures
must be followed using only validated test equipment. Therefore,
multi-pass test data is generally comparable from one filter manufacturer
to another.
2. The multi-pass test provides a true indication of filter efficiency because
an entire filter is tested, not just a sheet of filter media.
3. The test does account for what happens to a filter over time because
measurements are taken at multiple intervals during the filter’s effective
test life. The drop in a filter’s efficiency during multi-pass testing is
analogous to what will happen to a filter under field conditions.


So is FRAM lying to us? He says the test is repeatable. So is it repeatable but filter manufacturers choose to still obfuscate by cheating on the test?
 
The multi-pass test is repeatable.

I believe they are saying that the test results will be the same after testing in the same manner.

Fram may choose to add 2 grams of contaminent an hour on their test and Wix 5 grams during the same time period. Both are repeatable but might yield different results.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TurboJim:
The multi-pass test is repeatable.

I believe they are saying that the test results will be the same after testing in the same manner.

Fram may choose to add 2 grams of contaminent an hour on their test and Wix 5 grams during the same time period. Both are repeatable but might yield different results.


Then all the filter manufacturers CHOOSE to bamboozle their customers. SAE J1858 has been around since at least 1988. They could agree on adding a certain amount a standardized test dust at a proscribed rate until a specified psi differential is reached. The particle counting aspect looks to be well defined. They can report the results.

But as I said, they choose not to. Smoke and mirrors from an industry that has no scruples.
 
Smoke and mirrors from an industry that has no scruples.

Well I agree with you it sure would be nice if we had some national / international standardization on the way the "repeatable" tests are conducted.

I'm not so sure why you are saying that the filter industry lacks scruples? Would that be the American filter industry or are you thinking in global terms? Because the published efficiency percentages are suspect? How many people know what kind of oil filter is on their car? How many people care? Until oil filters become headline news I don't think anything is going to change anytime soon.
 
quote:

Originally posted by TurboJim:
I'm not so sure why you are saying that the filter industry lacks scruples? Would that be the American filter industry or are you thinking in global terms? Because the published efficiency percentages are suspect? How many people know what kind of oil filter is on their car? How many people care? Until oil filters become headline news I don't think anything is going to change anytime soon.

OK...look at it the other way. Since oil filters don't make headline news and because most people don't know or care about their oil filters, why not just reveal the performance specs when asked?

Afterall, this isn't rocket science. Well...maybe for Mel it is.
wink.gif
grin.gif
 
427Z06..

Your a pain in the..

Just becuase YOU think every engine or filter manufacturer should test filtration the exact same way..

Why don't you explain why engine manufacturers all don't run the same cubic inch or X liter engines?


Why don't you explain how a Cummins or Detroit Diesel engine should run their filters to the exact same testing standards as a Hyundai or Mini Cooper?

Why don't you explain why a Volvo marine engine should be run to the same tests as a Caterpillar stationary engine.

Why don't you explain why a Corvette filter should be tested the same as a Prius?

You want 1 beta test run to 1 set of parameters and that is it.

Well that isn;t the case.

And it is not smoke and mirrors by manufacturers.

Ford doesn't run their tests the same way Honda does.

So quit your whinging.

When 1 filter fits all engines, then you can have 1 test.

And quit trying to implicate me in your posts. If you can't understand what is easily understandable, it's not my fault.
 
Chill Filterguy. It's too easy to push your button.

You mix big rig diesels in with regular gasoline automobile engines and hybrids. I never said those divergent uses have to use the same test. However, whether it's a Corvette, an Accord or a Supra, I don't see why a standardized test can't be applied to those similar gasoline applications. If gasoline engine applications are so different, why can I take a filter spec'd for a Ford and put it on my Toyota and get virtually identical results?

Look here, seems like it's not so difficult to do when it's a selling point:

www.baldwinfilters.com/lit/form186.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top