Imo bigger holds more oil and would help
with overfill as bottles come in standard sizes. Eg 4.4 qts/4.0qts
with overfill as bottles come in standard sizes. Eg 4.4 qts/4.0qts
TG6607 vs TG7317
- Thread starter Rat407
- Start date
- Status
I like the idea of a larger filter on say a mower. I have no proof to back it up, but an overkill in dirt holding capacity certainly isn't a bad thing especially if the small vs. the large is the same price or cheaper.
I would shy away from it being the none spec'd filter because of warranty purposes, but the suggested equivalent for the Kubota is $12 while the much larger car filter is a third the price.
*The Kubota dealer sells 2 sized filters for it too. One is the size of the 6607 (spec'd size) while the other is the size/ equivalent of the 9688 and they suggest it if there is room. Hence another reason I run the larger filter worry free.
I would shy away from it being the none spec'd filter because of warranty purposes, but the suggested equivalent for the Kubota is $12 while the much larger car filter is a third the price.
*The Kubota dealer sells 2 sized filters for it too. One is the size of the 6607 (spec'd size) while the other is the size/ equivalent of the 9688 and they suggest it if there is room. Hence another reason I run the larger filter worry free.
Last edited:
the 6607 is the cross reference for my Honda Shadow motorcycle and I have used the 'Autolite commercial variant' in the past for shorter OCI's to clean out the engine shortly after buying the bike; where my filter mounts I have a crossmember of the frame to contend with; not sure if I can squeeze a 7317 under there...currently using Napa ProSelect filter (?Wix product?) that is longer than a 6607
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
First prove to me that the 6607 is somehow inadequate, then I'll accept the question. Otherwise, this is just a "bigger is better" mentality rehash of the age old question so typical of BITOG mainstream.
Fram is not always correct in recommending filter size for all vehicles in USA.
Fram printed catalog and online recommends these filter for Honda S2000. The OEM oil filter is PCX-004 for all model years from 2000 to 2009.
XG3593A for MY 2000-2001 - This filter is similar in size with PCX-004
XG7317 for MY 2002-2003
XG6607 for MY 2004-2009
I'm not going to go with what is Fram recommending for 2004 S2000, this tiny XG6607 isn't going anywhere near my car. I bought a few XG3593A when it was on sale with 30% discount code at Pep Boys.
From this experience I say to heck with filter manufacture recommendation, I choose appropriate filter for my cars, if it is larger than recommended then be it. I am not downsizing oil filter for any reason.
First prove to me that the 6607 is somehow inadequate, then I'll accept the question. Otherwise, this is just a "bigger is better" mentality rehash of the age old question so typical of BITOG mainstream.
Fram is not always correct in recommending filter size for all vehicles in USA.
Fram printed catalog and online recommends these filter for Honda S2000. The OEM oil filter is PCX-004 for all model years from 2000 to 2009.
XG3593A for MY 2000-2001 - This filter is similar in size with PCX-004
XG7317 for MY 2002-2003
XG6607 for MY 2004-2009
I'm not going to go with what is Fram recommending for 2004 S2000, this tiny XG6607 isn't going anywhere near my car. I bought a few XG3593A when it was on sale with 30% discount code at Pep Boys.
From this experience I say to heck with filter manufacture recommendation, I choose appropriate filter for my cars, if it is larger than recommended then be it. I am not downsizing oil filter for any reason.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Fram has a great look up tool on their site, and also shows you every filter it crosses to, including OEM. So you can use it to look up most anything, very handy.
I have used it but my point is that they are not the vehicle manufacturer and their recommendation does not mean a whole lot when a warranty claim comes into question.
Fram has a great look up tool on their site, and also shows you every filter it crosses to, including OEM. So you can use it to look up most anything, very handy.
I have used it but my point is that they are not the vehicle manufacturer and their recommendation does not mean a whole lot when a warranty claim comes into question.
dnewton3
Staff member
The filter makers offer their own limited warranty; what the OEM would not cover, the filter maker will, AS LONG AS you use their recommended filter for the specific application. If you don't the burden of proof shifts upon you; good luck with that in arbitration against their reams of data, mounds of money and team of lawyers.
Regardless if you believe their selection is correct or not, they offer their limited warranty as a means of protection providing you follow their recommendation. They offer NO ASSURANCES if you choose to venture off the reservation.
It would behoove you and others to go read and educate yourselves on the M/M act at the FTC website. Written limited warranties are not for the consumer's protection; they are for the manufacturer's protection! Limited warranties are a means of (as the title suggests) limiting the warranty provisions to stated terms so as to not offer a limitless warranty. Hence, the conditions stated in a limited written warranty can exclude consumer-driven choices to act outside the limitations. This shifts the burden of proof of proper application from the maker to the consumer.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law
In short, if you follow their recommendation (even if it's a bad one), they are easily compelled to honor their warranty. If you do not, they have the grounds to outright deny your coverage, or at least force you into a proceeding that will take months, if not years, and cost you tons of time, effort and money. It would likely be cheaper for you to buy a new engine than win the arbitration/case. And because it would be YOU taking THEM to court (arbitration), the burden of proof is upon YOU to prove your selection was not in error; against all their hours of engineering data, experts witnesses, etc. And whom do you have in your corner? A handful of BITOGers who guestimate applications with no data to back it up.
And what's your reward for that risk?
No proven benefit whatsoever.
Here's what irritates me; this is why I'm "wound tight" about this topic ...
We have newbies that come here, and people that lurk, and accept much of this "advice" from BITOGers as sound, sage wisdom. That is a very poor, nearly irresponsible approach for we BITOGers to take.
I have no objection if you run what makes you feel good; nothing wrong with that at all.
But DO NOT offer this as if it were sound, reasoned, proven selection criteria, because it's not.
- There is no proof that slightly upsizing a filter has any true, tangible benefit
- There is every expectation that if you do use a "non-approved" filter, you risk no warranty coverage.
The risk is real and the reward is imagined.
THAT is the message we should be providing people.
Regardless if you believe their selection is correct or not, they offer their limited warranty as a means of protection providing you follow their recommendation. They offer NO ASSURANCES if you choose to venture off the reservation.
It would behoove you and others to go read and educate yourselves on the M/M act at the FTC website. Written limited warranties are not for the consumer's protection; they are for the manufacturer's protection! Limited warranties are a means of (as the title suggests) limiting the warranty provisions to stated terms so as to not offer a limitless warranty. Hence, the conditions stated in a limited written warranty can exclude consumer-driven choices to act outside the limitations. This shifts the burden of proof of proper application from the maker to the consumer.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law
In short, if you follow their recommendation (even if it's a bad one), they are easily compelled to honor their warranty. If you do not, they have the grounds to outright deny your coverage, or at least force you into a proceeding that will take months, if not years, and cost you tons of time, effort and money. It would likely be cheaper for you to buy a new engine than win the arbitration/case. And because it would be YOU taking THEM to court (arbitration), the burden of proof is upon YOU to prove your selection was not in error; against all their hours of engineering data, experts witnesses, etc. And whom do you have in your corner? A handful of BITOGers who guestimate applications with no data to back it up.
And what's your reward for that risk?
No proven benefit whatsoever.
Here's what irritates me; this is why I'm "wound tight" about this topic ...
We have newbies that come here, and people that lurk, and accept much of this "advice" from BITOGers as sound, sage wisdom. That is a very poor, nearly irresponsible approach for we BITOGers to take.
I have no objection if you run what makes you feel good; nothing wrong with that at all.
But DO NOT offer this as if it were sound, reasoned, proven selection criteria, because it's not.
- There is no proof that slightly upsizing a filter has any true, tangible benefit
- There is every expectation that if you do use a "non-approved" filter, you risk no warranty coverage.
The risk is real and the reward is imagined.
THAT is the message we should be providing people.
Last edited:
I always understood that if the insoluble level is high on a UOA, that means the filter is getting loaded, or stuck in bypass. So to me that is one way to keep track of how your filter is performing. Kind of makes sense and in all the UOA's on here, I really have not seen many that had a high insoluble level to point to a loaded filter.
I have seen a TSB that came out on the GM Lambda platform 3.6l engine that it was assembled with the short version filter do to plant processing limited clearnancs but you are supposed start using the longer PF63 version filter when the oil is changed.
I have seen a TSB that came out on the GM Lambda platform 3.6l engine that it was assembled with the short version filter do to plant processing limited clearnancs but you are supposed start using the longer PF63 version filter when the oil is changed.
dnewton3
Staff member
I see no real correlation between UOA insoluble counts and true filtration efficiency. While it may be inferred, there's no real tangible link I can define.
In theory, though, you statement is flawed ...
If a filter is "getting loaded" as you state, then it should be actually getting MORE efficient as it loads. The more insolubles, the more loading, the more efficient. Only after the media is blinded off would the insoluble count start going up. Additionally, insolubles are generally made of up soot and oxidization components; these are often very small when they start out and would typically not be caught by the typical OEM spec filter. Soot starts out sub-micron in size, and stays small until the add-pack (anti-agglomerates) were overwhelmed. Since the "insolubles" are small, the filter isn't going to catch them anyway (not most of them at least). Any soot/ox byproduct that gets big enough to be caught with regularity (10-15um in size) is scary!
A UOA is really not a good judge of filtration; not in a quantifiable term. When you see a Blackstone UOA state an insoluble count, it's a subjective rating against a visual reference chart, and it's more a statement as to how the oil oxidized and how much soot was produced, than how the filter did.
If you want to know how well a filter is performing, get a PC.
In theory, though, you statement is flawed ...
If a filter is "getting loaded" as you state, then it should be actually getting MORE efficient as it loads. The more insolubles, the more loading, the more efficient. Only after the media is blinded off would the insoluble count start going up. Additionally, insolubles are generally made of up soot and oxidization components; these are often very small when they start out and would typically not be caught by the typical OEM spec filter. Soot starts out sub-micron in size, and stays small until the add-pack (anti-agglomerates) were overwhelmed. Since the "insolubles" are small, the filter isn't going to catch them anyway (not most of them at least). Any soot/ox byproduct that gets big enough to be caught with regularity (10-15um in size) is scary!
A UOA is really not a good judge of filtration; not in a quantifiable term. When you see a Blackstone UOA state an insoluble count, it's a subjective rating against a visual reference chart, and it's more a statement as to how the oil oxidized and how much soot was produced, than how the filter did.
If you want to know how well a filter is performing, get a PC.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: slacktide_bitog
...Many if not most of the jobber filters have consolidated anyway, so they'd use the 6607 for both 6607 and 7317 applications (and 3593A as well)
True, but just because quick lubes and some indies used downsized filters doesn't mean the knowledgeable diy guy has to. While I'll admit that it may not mean much, I'm not enamored with the practice of downsizing(sometimes two application sizes) filters from spec.
I do find it ironic though that quick lubes and some indies use 'downsized from spec' filters as SOP, while it's often debated/discussed here whether upsizing is ok.
To the specific topic, when to comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/14610, out of vehicle warranty and where access allows, I do it without hesitation. Same spec, just ~1" longer and more media area. Same for SAE cousins, 4967/14476 to 4386/14477. Just me.
BTW, Nissan seems noted for specing the shorty 6607 application where the longer 7317/14610 will easily fit.
...Many if not most of the jobber filters have consolidated anyway, so they'd use the 6607 for both 6607 and 7317 applications (and 3593A as well)
True, but just because quick lubes and some indies used downsized filters doesn't mean the knowledgeable diy guy has to. While I'll admit that it may not mean much, I'm not enamored with the practice of downsizing(sometimes two application sizes) filters from spec.
I do find it ironic though that quick lubes and some indies use 'downsized from spec' filters as SOP, while it's often debated/discussed here whether upsizing is ok.
To the specific topic, when to comes to the 6607/14612 to the 7317/14610, out of vehicle warranty and where access allows, I do it without hesitation. Same spec, just ~1" longer and more media area. Same for SAE cousins, 4967/14476 to 4386/14477. Just me.
BTW, Nissan seems noted for specing the shorty 6607 application where the longer 7317/14610 will easily fit.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The filter makers offer their own limited warranty; what the OEM would not cover, the filter maker will, AS LONG AS you use their recommended filter for the specific application. If you don't the burden of proof shifts upon you; good luck with that in arbitration against their reams of data, mounds of money and team of lawyers.
Regardless if you believe their selection is correct or not, they offer their limited warranty as a means of protection providing you follow their recommendation. They offer NO ASSURANCES if you choose to venture off the reservation.
If Fram recommends 2 different filters for the same car by 2 different search methods then which one is valid recommendation ? If Fram recommends 1 filter, if it is wrong application and cause damage to the engine then Fram will be liable for it. When out of car warranty using filter manufacture recommendation is safer then other sizes.
I do the following searches:
Search by Application for 2000 Honda S2000; Recommend filter is 3593A(all varieties: XG, TG, HM and PH)
Search by Application for 2002 Honda S2000; Recommend filter is 7317(all varieties: XG, TG, HM and PH)
Search by Application for 2004 Honda S2000; Recommend filter is 6607(varieties: XG, TG and PH)
Search by Cross Reference to 15400-PCX-004; Recommend filter is PH6607(no Ultra or Tough Guard or High Mileage)
There are no consistence in Fram catalog. You may get correct filter or you may not.
Of the 2 companies, car manufacture and filter manufacture, I trust car manufacture more than filter manufacture. Especially when Honda recommends 1 filter for all model years S2000 and another filter for all other vehicles, they know what the heck they're doing. They know more than anyone about their S2000 needs.
The filter makers offer their own limited warranty; what the OEM would not cover, the filter maker will, AS LONG AS you use their recommended filter for the specific application. If you don't the burden of proof shifts upon you; good luck with that in arbitration against their reams of data, mounds of money and team of lawyers.
Regardless if you believe their selection is correct or not, they offer their limited warranty as a means of protection providing you follow their recommendation. They offer NO ASSURANCES if you choose to venture off the reservation.
If Fram recommends 2 different filters for the same car by 2 different search methods then which one is valid recommendation ? If Fram recommends 1 filter, if it is wrong application and cause damage to the engine then Fram will be liable for it. When out of car warranty using filter manufacture recommendation is safer then other sizes.
I do the following searches:
Search by Application for 2000 Honda S2000; Recommend filter is 3593A(all varieties: XG, TG, HM and PH)
Search by Application for 2002 Honda S2000; Recommend filter is 7317(all varieties: XG, TG, HM and PH)
Search by Application for 2004 Honda S2000; Recommend filter is 6607(varieties: XG, TG and PH)
Search by Cross Reference to 15400-PCX-004; Recommend filter is PH6607(no Ultra or Tough Guard or High Mileage)
There are no consistence in Fram catalog. You may get correct filter or you may not.
Of the 2 companies, car manufacture and filter manufacture, I trust car manufacture more than filter manufacture. Especially when Honda recommends 1 filter for all model years S2000 and another filter for all other vehicles, they know what the heck they're doing. They know more than anyone about their S2000 needs.
dnewton3
Staff member
If you ask me, you are not getting more than one filter recommendation for the cars. You searched by year, and they offer a filter, by year. Therefore, depending upon what year car you have, there is only one recommended filter per Fram.
Yes - I get what you are saying; Fram's logic is hapless and silly. I don't disagree. But that does NOT mean they have more than one filter for the car; they have ONE filter recommendation for each specific application. You are "blending" the applications because it makes sense to you; all the cars are the "same" essentially. So you see it as multiple filters for one car series. But Fram is only recommending ONE filter for any SPECIFIC YEAR application. Why they flip-flop about by year is beyond me. But your interpretation is not a fair statement; they do only show one filter per application according to the data you posted. As to WHY Fram does this, you'd have to ask them.
I will also note that after researching Fram's written warranty, it is very vague and full of avoidance. I have emailed them asking specific questions, and have yet to hear their reply. But I can tell you, based upon the written warranty statement, that they do NOT cover "consequantial" damage, which would include engine damage; read it for yourself here:
http://www.fram.com/media/7096/warranty_0.pdf
Additionally, they specifically do NOT address the misapplication of a filter in their consumer warranty... All the competitors specifically do eliminate coverage due to this usage.
If they cannot adequately asnwer my questions, then I've bought my last Fram product. The other big brands (Wix, Purolator, Amsoil, B/H,) all specifically state that engine damage directly resulting from their filter failure is covered. However Fram specifically states it is not covered. And further, Fram's statement about "New vehicle warranties" is vague; what is that about? How is that defined, and by whom?
And why is the commercial warranty differently written from the consumer warranty? At least in that commercial warranty they specifically state "engine" in the coverage.
I've been using TG filters for a while now, but given this revelation, I may just go back to Wix unless I get a solid, trustworthy answer directly from them.
Yes - I get what you are saying; Fram's logic is hapless and silly. I don't disagree. But that does NOT mean they have more than one filter for the car; they have ONE filter recommendation for each specific application. You are "blending" the applications because it makes sense to you; all the cars are the "same" essentially. So you see it as multiple filters for one car series. But Fram is only recommending ONE filter for any SPECIFIC YEAR application. Why they flip-flop about by year is beyond me. But your interpretation is not a fair statement; they do only show one filter per application according to the data you posted. As to WHY Fram does this, you'd have to ask them.
I will also note that after researching Fram's written warranty, it is very vague and full of avoidance. I have emailed them asking specific questions, and have yet to hear their reply. But I can tell you, based upon the written warranty statement, that they do NOT cover "consequantial" damage, which would include engine damage; read it for yourself here:
http://www.fram.com/media/7096/warranty_0.pdf
Additionally, they specifically do NOT address the misapplication of a filter in their consumer warranty... All the competitors specifically do eliminate coverage due to this usage.
If they cannot adequately asnwer my questions, then I've bought my last Fram product. The other big brands (Wix, Purolator, Amsoil, B/H,) all specifically state that engine damage directly resulting from their filter failure is covered. However Fram specifically states it is not covered. And further, Fram's statement about "New vehicle warranties" is vague; what is that about? How is that defined, and by whom?
And why is the commercial warranty differently written from the consumer warranty? At least in that commercial warranty they specifically state "engine" in the coverage.
I've been using TG filters for a while now, but given this revelation, I may just go back to Wix unless I get a solid, trustworthy answer directly from them.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
If you ask me, you are not getting more than one filter recommendation for the cars. You searched by year, and they offer a filter, by year. Therefore, depending upon what year car you have, there is only one recommended filter per Fram.
Yes - I get what you are saying; Fram's logic is hapless and silly. I don't disagree. But that does NOT mean they have more than one filter for the car; they have ONE filter recommendation for each specific application. You are "blending" the applications because it makes sense to you; all the cars are the "same" essentially. So you see it as multiple filters for one car series. But Fram is only recommending ONE filter for any SPECIFIC YEAR application. Why they flip-flop about by year is beyond me. But your interpretation is not a fair statement; they do only show one filter per application according to the data you posted. As to WHY Fram does this, you'd have to ask them.
Fram is recommending 2 different filters for same model year Honda S2000, it depends on how you do a search, application or cross reference.
Let say, for model year 2000 Honda S2000 Fram recommends 3593A(all varieties: XG, TG, HM and PH) if you do an application search.
Now if you do cross reference search for 15400-PCX-004 which is Honda OEM filter for 2000 S2000, Fram recommends PH6607(not XG 6607 nor TG6607 ...).
Isn't it 2 filters for 1 model year ?
If you don't believe this, you can do a quick search for 2000-2001 Honda S2000, also you can Google the OEM filter for those model years and it will be 15400-PCX-004.
I had another experience with filter manufacture has wrong part on their website. MANN has wrong air filter for 2000 MB E430, that air filter is for 1998-1999 E430, 2000 E430 air filter is 3/4" shorter, so the air filter for 1998-1999 E430 is too long to fit the air box. But when I did the cross reference with OEM part# MANN shows correct filter.
Filter manufactures not always have correct part for an application in their catalog. One has correct part if you do application search for a particular model year, another has correct part with cross reference.
But I must confess that the errors are very small, I just happen to have 2 cars that I found filter manufactures didn't have correct parts for it.
If you ask me, you are not getting more than one filter recommendation for the cars. You searched by year, and they offer a filter, by year. Therefore, depending upon what year car you have, there is only one recommended filter per Fram.
Yes - I get what you are saying; Fram's logic is hapless and silly. I don't disagree. But that does NOT mean they have more than one filter for the car; they have ONE filter recommendation for each specific application. You are "blending" the applications because it makes sense to you; all the cars are the "same" essentially. So you see it as multiple filters for one car series. But Fram is only recommending ONE filter for any SPECIFIC YEAR application. Why they flip-flop about by year is beyond me. But your interpretation is not a fair statement; they do only show one filter per application according to the data you posted. As to WHY Fram does this, you'd have to ask them.
Fram is recommending 2 different filters for same model year Honda S2000, it depends on how you do a search, application or cross reference.
Let say, for model year 2000 Honda S2000 Fram recommends 3593A(all varieties: XG, TG, HM and PH) if you do an application search.
Now if you do cross reference search for 15400-PCX-004 which is Honda OEM filter for 2000 S2000, Fram recommends PH6607(not XG 6607 nor TG6607 ...).
Isn't it 2 filters for 1 model year ?
If you don't believe this, you can do a quick search for 2000-2001 Honda S2000, also you can Google the OEM filter for those model years and it will be 15400-PCX-004.
I had another experience with filter manufacture has wrong part on their website. MANN has wrong air filter for 2000 MB E430, that air filter is for 1998-1999 E430, 2000 E430 air filter is 3/4" shorter, so the air filter for 1998-1999 E430 is too long to fit the air box. But when I did the cross reference with OEM part# MANN shows correct filter.
Filter manufactures not always have correct part for an application in their catalog. One has correct part if you do application search for a particular model year, another has correct part with cross reference.
But I must confess that the errors are very small, I just happen to have 2 cars that I found filter manufactures didn't have correct parts for it.
Did Honda ever have a different recommendation during a specific model year, and simply consolidate things later? Alternatively, filter makers sometimes do weird things and change their catalog in a way that doesn't make a pile of sense. Fram isn't the only one to do that. Wix has done it. When you have a catalog as big as those two entities, there are bound to be some strange cases.
dnewton3
Staff member
As long as one chooses a recommended filter from the approved list for the specific application, you should be fine. I do see the overlap you refer to. Wix has this same condition for a couple of Kubota tractor applications. I actually use the smaller (shorter) of the two, because it "fits" easier during installation. But as long as I use one of the two they recommend, I'm covered by their warranty. And the UOAs show there's nothing wrong with the smaller filter.
I will say that my conversation with the Fram "prodeval" team (from their warranty claim link on their site), is less than stellar. I am awaiting yet another reply. They are adamant that they will discuss any warranty claim, but their written warranty is lame (at best it is vague) and technically in violation of the Warranty Act in that it is not correctly specified for basis (full or limited) and does not properly state it's provisions.
I like the TG filters; good performance and features for the money. But their warranty sucks, despite their assurances otherwise. I will probably move back to Wix after my garage stock is depleted. IMO Wix has a much better, clearer warranty statement.
I will say that my conversation with the Fram "prodeval" team (from their warranty claim link on their site), is less than stellar. I am awaiting yet another reply. They are adamant that they will discuss any warranty claim, but their written warranty is lame (at best it is vague) and technically in violation of the Warranty Act in that it is not correctly specified for basis (full or limited) and does not properly state it's provisions.
I like the TG filters; good performance and features for the money. But their warranty sucks, despite their assurances otherwise. I will probably move back to Wix after my garage stock is depleted. IMO Wix has a much better, clearer warranty statement.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Garak
Did Honda ever have a different recommendation during a specific model year, and simply consolidate things later? Alternatively, filter makers sometimes do weird things and change their catalog in a way that doesn't make a pile of sense. Fram isn't the only one to do that. Wix has done it. When you have a catalog as big as those two entities, there are bound to be some strange cases.
No, Honda specs 15400-PCX-004 for all model years S2000 from 2000 to 2009. They never specs this filter for any other model under Honda or Acura name.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As long as one chooses a recommended filter from the approved list for the specific application, you should be fine. I do see the overlap you refer to. Wix has this same condition for a couple of Kubota tractor applications. I actually use the smaller (shorter) of the two, because it "fits" easier during installation. But as long as I use one of the two they recommend, I'm covered by their warranty. And the UOAs show there's nothing wrong with the smaller filter.
I will say that my conversation with the Fram "prodeval" team (from their warranty claim link on their site), is less than stellar. I am awaiting yet another reply. They are adamant that they will discuss any warranty claim, but their written warranty is lame (at best it is vague) and technically in violation of the Warranty Act in that it is not correctly specified for basis (full or limited) and does not properly state it's provisions.
I like the TG filters; good performance and features for the money. But their warranty sucks, despite their assurances otherwise. I will probably move back to Wix after my garage stock is depleted. IMO Wix has a much better, clearer warranty statement.
As you already know and see that 6607 is extremely small compares with either 7317 or 3593A, and 3593A is closest to Honda PCX-004. There is no reason to use 6607 on any model year S2000, regardless of filter manufacture warranty.
It's not proven benefit of using larger filter than car manufacture recommended, and there is no proven benefit of using smaller filter either.
As I posted earlier, I happened to check oil filter for my 2004 S2000 and Fram didn't do good job on that car.
About filter warranty, I didn't and don't care much about warranty because there is extremely rare an oil filter malfunction will cause damage to the engine. To me oil filter is not as importance as air filter in keeping the dust out of the engine.
Disclosure: I don't agree with Fram catalog in specifying wrong filter for 2002-2009 Honda S2000, but I have 6 Fram Ultra oil filters in my stash, 2 XG3593A for S2000 and 4 XG7317 for Accord. I believe Fram Ultra is the best spin-on filter for less than $10. I intend to use it for 15k miles or longer.
Happy July 4 everyone.
Did Honda ever have a different recommendation during a specific model year, and simply consolidate things later? Alternatively, filter makers sometimes do weird things and change their catalog in a way that doesn't make a pile of sense. Fram isn't the only one to do that. Wix has done it. When you have a catalog as big as those two entities, there are bound to be some strange cases.
No, Honda specs 15400-PCX-004 for all model years S2000 from 2000 to 2009. They never specs this filter for any other model under Honda or Acura name.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As long as one chooses a recommended filter from the approved list for the specific application, you should be fine. I do see the overlap you refer to. Wix has this same condition for a couple of Kubota tractor applications. I actually use the smaller (shorter) of the two, because it "fits" easier during installation. But as long as I use one of the two they recommend, I'm covered by their warranty. And the UOAs show there's nothing wrong with the smaller filter.
I will say that my conversation with the Fram "prodeval" team (from their warranty claim link on their site), is less than stellar. I am awaiting yet another reply. They are adamant that they will discuss any warranty claim, but their written warranty is lame (at best it is vague) and technically in violation of the Warranty Act in that it is not correctly specified for basis (full or limited) and does not properly state it's provisions.
I like the TG filters; good performance and features for the money. But their warranty sucks, despite their assurances otherwise. I will probably move back to Wix after my garage stock is depleted. IMO Wix has a much better, clearer warranty statement.
As you already know and see that 6607 is extremely small compares with either 7317 or 3593A, and 3593A is closest to Honda PCX-004. There is no reason to use 6607 on any model year S2000, regardless of filter manufacture warranty.
It's not proven benefit of using larger filter than car manufacture recommended, and there is no proven benefit of using smaller filter either.
As I posted earlier, I happened to check oil filter for my 2004 S2000 and Fram didn't do good job on that car.
About filter warranty, I didn't and don't care much about warranty because there is extremely rare an oil filter malfunction will cause damage to the engine. To me oil filter is not as importance as air filter in keeping the dust out of the engine.
Disclosure: I don't agree with Fram catalog in specifying wrong filter for 2002-2009 Honda S2000, but I have 6 Fram Ultra oil filters in my stash, 2 XG3593A for S2000 and 4 XG7317 for Accord. I believe Fram Ultra is the best spin-on filter for less than $10. I intend to use it for 15k miles or longer.
Happy July 4 everyone.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
the reward is imagined.
Incorrect. Humans are emotional. We buy stuff to make us feel better abt whatever. I'm sure you've not allowed emotion to factor into even one of your past purchases, right?
the reward is imagined.
Incorrect. Humans are emotional. We buy stuff to make us feel better abt whatever. I'm sure you've not allowed emotion to factor into even one of your past purchases, right?
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
No, Honda specs 15400-PCX-004 for all model years S2000 from 2000 to 2009. They never specs this filter for any other model under Honda or Acura name.
Did they specify that model not only for 2000 to 2009 model years, but also without interruption during those calendar years?
No, Honda specs 15400-PCX-004 for all model years S2000 from 2000 to 2009. They never specs this filter for any other model under Honda or Acura name.
Did they specify that model not only for 2000 to 2009 model years, but also without interruption during those calendar years?
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
No, Honda specs 15400-PCX-004 for all model years S2000 from 2000 to 2009. They never specs this filter for any other model under Honda or Acura name.
Funny how the filter mfrs differ here.
When you cross-list that part number
under... you get...
Fram 6607
Wix 51334 (eq to Fram 3593A)
Purolator 14459 (also eq to 3593A)
If you search by make/model on Wix's site, it also says 51334 for all model years of the s2000. Same for Purolator.
So why does Fram switch around?
No, Honda specs 15400-PCX-004 for all model years S2000 from 2000 to 2009. They never specs this filter for any other model under Honda or Acura name.
Funny how the filter mfrs differ here.
When you cross-list that part number
under... you get...
Fram 6607
Wix 51334 (eq to Fram 3593A)
Purolator 14459 (also eq to 3593A)
If you search by make/model on Wix's site, it also says 51334 for all model years of the s2000. Same for Purolator.
So why does Fram switch around?
We're asking some pretty philosophical BITOG questions, you know.
Why does Wix have a 51358 and a 51356 when Hastings, M1, Purolator, and everyone else I can think up has only one?
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
...As you already know and see that 6607 is extremely small compares with either 7317 or 3593A, and 3593A is closest to Honda PCX-004......
Agreed. While the XG6607 posted here yesterday looked good at 15k miles, the element itself appears tiny imo. And 'if' the 15400-PCX-004 filter is Honda spec for all years, then the Fram 6607 recommendation is downsized 'two' application sizes. 'That being the case', seems their application look up for whatever reason(s) just flat out has it wrong as compared to the spec recommendation.
Otoh, as noted Wix and Purolator both spec the larger 51334 and 14459 respectively.
If I owned the S2000 and wanted to use an XG, I too would use the 3593A and not be concerned about any filter warranty. (Good luck collecting anyway). As I said, if access permitted I'd always use the 7317/14610 application size instead of the shorty 6607, and have for that matter.
...As you already know and see that 6607 is extremely small compares with either 7317 or 3593A, and 3593A is closest to Honda PCX-004......
Agreed. While the XG6607 posted here yesterday looked good at 15k miles, the element itself appears tiny imo. And 'if' the 15400-PCX-004 filter is Honda spec for all years, then the Fram 6607 recommendation is downsized 'two' application sizes. 'That being the case', seems their application look up for whatever reason(s) just flat out has it wrong as compared to the spec recommendation.
Otoh, as noted Wix and Purolator both spec the larger 51334 and 14459 respectively.
If I owned the S2000 and wanted to use an XG, I too would use the 3593A and not be concerned about any filter warranty. (Good luck collecting anyway). As I said, if access permitted I'd always use the 7317/14610 application size instead of the shorty 6607, and have for that matter.
- Status
Similar threads
