FRAM explains why they use cardboard...
- Thread starter rcy
- Start date
- Status
And I want a filter that doesn't fail:
http://www.lesabret.com/filters/filter.html
And one that doesn't flow poorly, AND have a larger pore size.
http://home.earthlink.net/~memphis3/mercfilters/merc.htm
-T
Here's a filter recommendation: Anything BUT Fram.
Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
OK, I am Putting Up.......
Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
Even a 'Fram Hater' like me cannot see this happening, after all, if the FRAM killed 2 motors, how stupid was this guy who ran it the second time? Even as much as I cannot stand the 'quality' of a Fram, I can't see it causing an actual engine failure. I can, however see maybe the engine not lasting as long, due to the effectivness of said filter, but I ask, where is the facts that the FRAM actually caused the failure, and whyso would a person reuse a filter brand that caused a failure like that? I am NOT defending FRAM, as you can see that in my earlier postings on this thread, but lets stick with the facts on this.
Well that wouldn't be completely true. I do know some things about this filter. I know it came off a GM vehicle, I know where it had been changed, I know it came off a vehicle that was well maintained, and I know it doesn't have 20,000 miles on it. However, I don't know the exact mileage, that's the reason for the disclaimer. I wasn't meant as a scientific test, it's simply as an example of the fact that filters can and do fail. Now we know how they fail, did you see the part about the cardboard end caps? I stated that they did not fail as popular belief would suggest. The filter failed because the media and ADBV failed.
If your not impressed, I don't care.
If you want I can send you a Supertech filter to try on your vehicle for 20,000 miles as you suggested. I would like to see if and how it would fail.
-T
A few facts:
1) Both cardboard and mild steel are very inexpensive construction materials.
2) Comparing surface area and the number of pleats is meaningless unless the filter material is identical.
3) I don’t know anyone who can tell how good a filter element filters or flows by looking at it.
4) Flow and pressure data are good for comparison only if they represent a real world scenario.
5) Use caution when comparing construction, media area, etc. between brands. For example, Brand X may have more surface area then Brand Y in one application, but just the opposite may be true in a different application. Also keep in mind # 2 above.
6) I seldom use Fram oil filters, though I did use an X2 recently with good results.
Other considerations:
Some Purolator filters have cardboard endcaps.
Most oil filters contain paper (media), even if they don’t have cardboard endcaps.
My opinions and observations:
Cardboard is OK for endcaps except for one thing. Using them to center the filter element and ADBV as in the Fram design is a poor practice. It’s too easy to distort the tips of the cardboard on the inlet/outlet end of the filter element and allow misalignment of the ADBV. The result can be an ADBV that leaks, and if the misalignment of the ADBV is excessive, some oil can flow directly from inlet to outlet. The Purolator filters I’ve seen with cardboard endcaps don’t use the endcap tips for ADBV alignment.
Though I’m not a big fan of Fram’s bypass valve, it may seal just as well as the metal to metal of the Champion deflecting disk and the button used on many Purolator filters (ref. L14670). (The beauty of the Champion deflecting disk bypass is it’s simplicity and the fact that there are no small parts that can break and/or separate and enter the engine).
Several filters I’ve sawed open have had poorly aligned ADBVs. Some appeared to be aligned poorly enough to allow oil to drain back with the engine off, including Amsoil, Fram, and Purolator. As noted above, cardboard endcap Frams are the most vulnerable in this regard, and if alignment is poor enough, it appears a Fram could bypass oil from inlet to outlet. Fram’s use of metal endcaps in the X2 filters greatly improves the ADBV alignment in that design.
Of the filters I’ve sawed open, the Wix/Napa Gold filters appear to have the best alignment of the ADBV. However, they have such a strong spring, the sealing surface of the ADBV around the outlet is highly compressed, to the point where it appears it could be cut in some cases. If cut, the ADBV would probably leak.
1) Both cardboard and mild steel are very inexpensive construction materials.
2) Comparing surface area and the number of pleats is meaningless unless the filter material is identical.
3) I don’t know anyone who can tell how good a filter element filters or flows by looking at it.
4) Flow and pressure data are good for comparison only if they represent a real world scenario.
5) Use caution when comparing construction, media area, etc. between brands. For example, Brand X may have more surface area then Brand Y in one application, but just the opposite may be true in a different application. Also keep in mind # 2 above.
6) I seldom use Fram oil filters, though I did use an X2 recently with good results.
Other considerations:
Some Purolator filters have cardboard endcaps.
Most oil filters contain paper (media), even if they don’t have cardboard endcaps.
My opinions and observations:
Cardboard is OK for endcaps except for one thing. Using them to center the filter element and ADBV as in the Fram design is a poor practice. It’s too easy to distort the tips of the cardboard on the inlet/outlet end of the filter element and allow misalignment of the ADBV. The result can be an ADBV that leaks, and if the misalignment of the ADBV is excessive, some oil can flow directly from inlet to outlet. The Purolator filters I’ve seen with cardboard endcaps don’t use the endcap tips for ADBV alignment.
Though I’m not a big fan of Fram’s bypass valve, it may seal just as well as the metal to metal of the Champion deflecting disk and the button used on many Purolator filters (ref. L14670). (The beauty of the Champion deflecting disk bypass is it’s simplicity and the fact that there are no small parts that can break and/or separate and enter the engine).
Several filters I’ve sawed open have had poorly aligned ADBVs. Some appeared to be aligned poorly enough to allow oil to drain back with the engine off, including Amsoil, Fram, and Purolator. As noted above, cardboard endcap Frams are the most vulnerable in this regard, and if alignment is poor enough, it appears a Fram could bypass oil from inlet to outlet. Fram’s use of metal endcaps in the X2 filters greatly improves the ADBV alignment in that design.
Of the filters I’ve sawed open, the Wix/Napa Gold filters appear to have the best alignment of the ADBV. However, they have such a strong spring, the sealing surface of the ADBV around the outlet is highly compressed, to the point where it appears it could be cut in some cases. If cut, the ADBV would probably leak.
The Merc 35-802885T crosses to a Fram PH8873 on Fram's site, but it is incorrect for this application. The PH8873 is too short. The Merc 35-802885T is also known as the Merc/Quicksilver 14957. If you cross the 14957 to Fram it is the PH6606 -- which is the correct length. If you read the study in its completion you will find why I didn't use the PH6606 -- I couldn't bear to spend $10 on an Extra Guard. Ironically, it would have fared even worse (or last or "not the best" as you like to say) than the PH5 because it is smaller.
The above scenario is why you can't just blindly do cross references and think you are good to go. You have to check and double check all aspects of the filter: gasket, length, OD, filter area, filter medium type, thread, ADBV, by-pass, and by-pass psi. You also have to not only do a cross reference, but do an application check -- what does the manufacturer recommend in the first place. You really get into trouble when you double cross.
Being somewhat OCD and AR, I accept that as a complement. Maybe that medicine is working
A) They used fram because they don't care. As far as they see it, FRAM did replace their engine free of charge. They don't care so they continue to use the stupid thing.
B) when the filter element is torn to shreds and little peices of FRAM goodness are distributed around the motor is how the engine failures occured.
C) I have pictures of the other fram filter failure. I'll upload those after class.
Posted by Ray H:
In all the filters I've cut open, the springs and crimps used appear to hold the various filter pieces firmly in place and help prevent element float or shift after assembly. Most filters I've examined have a feature on the element's front endcap that fits over a lip formed from the threaded outlet hole, aligning the ADBV and front of the filter element inside the filter canister.
The Wix/Napa Gold filters have the tightest tolerances on this alignment feature. Purolators and Champions are much looser. And, as stated in my previous post, Fram uses the tips of the cardboard endcaps (metal endcaps in the X2) against the inside of the canister for this alignment.
In some cases, ADBV's misalignment can be seen through the inlet holes. I've personally seen this on at least one Purolator. Whether or not they still work properly when misaligned this much, I don't know.
I was referring to filter element alignment during the manufacturing process, not movement from oil circulation during use.
In all the filters I've cut open, the springs and crimps used appear to hold the various filter pieces firmly in place and help prevent element float or shift after assembly. Most filters I've examined have a feature on the element's front endcap that fits over a lip formed from the threaded outlet hole, aligning the ADBV and front of the filter element inside the filter canister.
The Wix/Napa Gold filters have the tightest tolerances on this alignment feature. Purolators and Champions are much looser. And, as stated in my previous post, Fram uses the tips of the cardboard endcaps (metal endcaps in the X2) against the inside of the canister for this alignment.
In some cases, ADBV's misalignment can be seen through the inlet holes. I've personally seen this on at least one Purolator. Whether or not they still work properly when misaligned this much, I don't know.
Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
I would LOVE to see those!! Email them to me if for some reason they wont upload to the site, People NEED to see these!!
I can see your point on the people not caring, I guess I cannot relate to that...after all, I am here! But even a moron (I would think) after the hassle of getting FRAM to pay for an engine would be smart enough not to want to go through that hassle again and NOT use another one? Just find it strange.... But hten again, I bet certain other posters on this board would do the same and still defend the little orange filters.....
Grease,
If Fram does not recomend the PH5 for your application, then it serves no purpose to test it. Obviously, this calls into question your entire study.
In your report, you are asking us to believe that this tester, that by the manufacturers own admission can only determine the largest pore size in any given sample, is an accurate representation of the pore size for the entire filter. Then you ask us to believe that pore size is directly relateable to filtering efficacy. But then you choose to ignore Fram's recomendation and make an unauthorized substitution. Doesn't sound like your judgement can be trusted.
I have test results derived from actually pushing oil through filters and measuring the filtering ability of Fram filters. They test good. Why would I place any credance in your tests when you blatenly ignore correct testing proceedures.
KCTOM
If Fram does not recomend the PH5 for your application, then it serves no purpose to test it. Obviously, this calls into question your entire study.
In your report, you are asking us to believe that this tester, that by the manufacturers own admission can only determine the largest pore size in any given sample, is an accurate representation of the pore size for the entire filter. Then you ask us to believe that pore size is directly relateable to filtering efficacy. But then you choose to ignore Fram's recomendation and make an unauthorized substitution. Doesn't sound like your judgement can be trusted.
I have test results derived from actually pushing oil through filters and measuring the filtering ability of Fram filters. They test good. Why would I place any credance in your tests when you blatenly ignore correct testing proceedures.
KCTOM
The fact that you may have pictures of Fram failures only proves that Fram filters do sometimes fail. What's the point. Every manufacturer has made filters that have failed. It wouldn't surprise me if Fram has one of the highest numbers of failures, they manufacturer one of the largest number of filters.
Also, in all fainess, the examination of failures must occur on a level playing field. That means that the samples examined must be chosen radomly. Seconly, they must be evaluated by an expert to determine that the failure was caused by a manufacturing or design error. Finally, all failures must be report.
Only an idot would believe that Fram is treated with fairness. People home in on the Fram filters hoping to find a failure. Therefore Frams are examined much more often then other filters. It's also "in" to criticize Fram. A failed Fram is therefore more likely to be reported.
Many alleged failures are not actually filter failures at all. Just visit the Oil Filter Manufacurer's concil's WEB site. They represent all filter manufacturers. So, without an expert, you cannot even verify a failure. A picture proves nothing.
It may be a shame, but I don't believe that we have the capability of determining the relative quality of various oil filters. We cannot afford the expensive testing equipment to get accurate Beta figures for various filters at various particle sizes. Is flow more important then filtering or is it the other way around? What particle size is most damaging to an engine? Is this size the same for all engines? Maybe the type of driving determines the best filter. Who knows. But by god, everyone here has an opinion, right or wrong.
I have used Fram for years, over 30 in fact. Never a problem. I keep my cars forever. Never an engine that suffered any type of oil related failure or early retirement. I have seen studies that show that Fram's filters filter well, both over 300 miles and over 3000 miles. They compare well with filters selling for much more.
Do I thik that everyone should use Fram? Emphatically no. That will drive the price of my filters up. Keep using whatever makes you happy. But remember that most of the crap posted here does not reflect badly on Fram, just on the poster.
KCTOM
Also, in all fainess, the examination of failures must occur on a level playing field. That means that the samples examined must be chosen radomly. Seconly, they must be evaluated by an expert to determine that the failure was caused by a manufacturing or design error. Finally, all failures must be report.
Only an idot would believe that Fram is treated with fairness. People home in on the Fram filters hoping to find a failure. Therefore Frams are examined much more often then other filters. It's also "in" to criticize Fram. A failed Fram is therefore more likely to be reported.
Many alleged failures are not actually filter failures at all. Just visit the Oil Filter Manufacurer's concil's WEB site. They represent all filter manufacturers. So, without an expert, you cannot even verify a failure. A picture proves nothing.
It may be a shame, but I don't believe that we have the capability of determining the relative quality of various oil filters. We cannot afford the expensive testing equipment to get accurate Beta figures for various filters at various particle sizes. Is flow more important then filtering or is it the other way around? What particle size is most damaging to an engine? Is this size the same for all engines? Maybe the type of driving determines the best filter. Who knows. But by god, everyone here has an opinion, right or wrong.
I have used Fram for years, over 30 in fact. Never a problem. I keep my cars forever. Never an engine that suffered any type of oil related failure or early retirement. I have seen studies that show that Fram's filters filter well, both over 300 miles and over 3000 miles. They compare well with filters selling for much more.
Do I thik that everyone should use Fram? Emphatically no. That will drive the price of my filters up. Keep using whatever makes you happy. But remember that most of the crap posted here does not reflect badly on Fram, just on the poster.
KCTOM
My filter write-up and I think most posted here, all present facts. Whether or not you believe they are important, fair, or mean, that's what they are. The interperitation is mostly left up to the reader. Take it as you may, like I said your never going to make everyone happy.
People have discussed their reasons, told their accounts, and even showed proof, but you discount it all with vague statements and impractical demands. This can go on forever.
How about we agree to disagree. You can keep using Fram filters, everyone else can keep not using them. And if someone asks we can all state our opinions and what facts we have gathered.
-T
People have discussed their reasons, told their accounts, and even showed proof, but you discount it all with vague statements and impractical demands. This can go on forever.
How about we agree to disagree. You can keep using Fram filters, everyone else can keep not using them. And if someone asks we can all state our opinions and what facts we have gathered.
-T
KC,
Are your for real? Or are you a Frammie mole? If so, go back to Honeywell and tell them that everything is fine. The user community loves $3 Fram filters and isn't batting an eye over cardboard endcaps.
I contend that your arguments above are so weak I'm not even going to rebuttle them. I'll let the reader decide. To do otherwise would waste their time and mine.
Here are the images. Please feel free to save them.
The car was a 240sx with an ultra babied ka24de motor. The car was not raced nor was it abused. The guy spends a whole lot of time polishing his car and changes his oil quite often.
http://www.bergware.net/tmbwww/framblows1.jpg
http://www.bergware.net/tmbwww/framblows2.jpg
http://www.bergware.net/tmbwww/framblows3.jpg
The reason fram gave was that the oil pressure got to be too high and caused the FRAM filter to implode on itself. Upon removal and disection of the motor nothin odd was found except for the damage FRAM had done. By this time FRAM already had the filter in their possesion and made their ruling. He could not get the filter back and was basically SOL.
Personally, I occasionally used to use FRAM on my beater with the slight hope that it would blow up my engine and they would pay for a new one. After my friend told me about his FRAM story I'm pretty much going to refuse to use them.
BTW, I think we are being fair to FRAM. They are telling us that they don't have a good product, but that their product is the best out there. In reality, their product is only mediocre. Much better can be had for the same or at even less of a price. Now, why are you trying to bring emotion into an argument?
[ February 25, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Pyrek ]
The car was a 240sx with an ultra babied ka24de motor. The car was not raced nor was it abused. The guy spends a whole lot of time polishing his car and changes his oil quite often.
http://www.bergware.net/tmbwww/framblows1.jpg
http://www.bergware.net/tmbwww/framblows2.jpg
http://www.bergware.net/tmbwww/framblows3.jpg
The reason fram gave was that the oil pressure got to be too high and caused the FRAM filter to implode on itself. Upon removal and disection of the motor nothin odd was found except for the damage FRAM had done. By this time FRAM already had the filter in their possesion and made their ruling. He could not get the filter back and was basically SOL.
Personally, I occasionally used to use FRAM on my beater with the slight hope that it would blow up my engine and they would pay for a new one. After my friend told me about his FRAM story I'm pretty much going to refuse to use them.
BTW, I think we are being fair to FRAM. They are telling us that they don't have a good product, but that their product is the best out there. In reality, their product is only mediocre. Much better can be had for the same or at even less of a price. Now, why are you trying to bring emotion into an argument?
[ February 25, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Thomas Pyrek ]
Kctom........How was the test unfair? Because the PH5 is not a direct cross-reference to the mercruiser filter?........well OK, let's forget the mercruiser filter. The PH5 does cross reference to the other filters,........and guess what......Fram is still subpar. If you want to use fram filters on everything you own, or build a 5 foot orange canister in your living room, and worship it as a god........well, that is your own business, and you don't have to justify yourself to us. But just don't expect everyone else to follow along blindly.
I think that most of us on here believe that there are oil filters available that are both cheaper and better made than Frams available almost anywhere that oil filters are sold (except Kmart, too bad they discontinued the Wix for their house brand..). It seems like most of us will use "anything but Fram" now that we have either experienced problems ourselves, or cut them open ourselves, or seen any of the tests that did any comparisons...
KCTOM, it sounds like you really want Fram to be a better product than it looks like it is. Maybe one day they will update the product to current standards and they will be competitive (on quality AND price). Hats off to you for being a champion for the "OTHER" side. Good luck in your crusade for Fram, I'm sure they appreciate you standing up for them.
KCTOM, it sounds like you really want Fram to be a better product than it looks like it is. Maybe one day they will update the product to current standards and they will be competitive (on quality AND price). Hats off to you for being a champion for the "OTHER" side. Good luck in your crusade for Fram, I'm sure they appreciate you standing up for them.
- Status
Similar threads
