Can't we all get along?
fram extended gaurd any good?
- Thread starter jdog
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: bobbob
Can't we all get along?
I would hope so. People should be conscious of making declarations. We're viewed by many and should have a traceable logic train to show how we formed our conclusions.
Tends to suggest ..leads me to believe .. as far as I can determine ... my current school of thought.. are all parts of opinion formation. They're usually an assembly of observations that are factual, but without withstanding peer review and being presented in a defensible package, they're just unqualified (as in undefined for limitations/exceptions/etc.) opinions.
Can't we all get along?
I would hope so. People should be conscious of making declarations. We're viewed by many and should have a traceable logic train to show how we formed our conclusions.
Tends to suggest ..leads me to believe .. as far as I can determine ... my current school of thought.. are all parts of opinion formation. They're usually an assembly of observations that are factual, but without withstanding peer review and being presented in a defensible package, they're just unqualified (as in undefined for limitations/exceptions/etc.) opinions.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
It (the M1 EP) will also filter smaller particles, and trap particles of any size faster.
Now while it "may" in a comparative way to other filters that are long drain filters, do we really know that it does any better for the 3k type of usage over other offerings?
I added several qualifiers:
"These are expensive, but as one who buys and uses them, I think they are worth the cost, especially when you average it out over the expected life of the filter (and throw in the peace of mind factor that you don't get with an OCOD).
Some will say they are over-priced and suggest some good alternatives. I don't necessarily disagree (they aren't to me, but this site would be pretty boring if we all had the same point of view)."
I didn't say it was the best filter on the market, provided the best bang for the buck, or imply it should be used for 3k.
I flat out stated it was expensive, that there were good alternatives I'd expect others to suggest, and the extra cost for M1 EP was (in my opinion) worth it when you averaged it out over its anticipated lifespan.
Which in no way suggests a recommendation for anything like a 3k drain interval. And while I had some fun with Fram's advertising, their XG is the only offering from them I would consider buying. I think its also a good filter, but as the price of these things varies from one place to another, the difference in price here between the M1 EP and the XG is negligible, so I go with the M1 EP.
-Spyder
Quote:
It (the M1 EP) will also filter smaller particles, and trap particles of any size faster.
Now while it "may" in a comparative way to other filters that are long drain filters, do we really know that it does any better for the 3k type of usage over other offerings?
I added several qualifiers:
"These are expensive, but as one who buys and uses them, I think they are worth the cost, especially when you average it out over the expected life of the filter (and throw in the peace of mind factor that you don't get with an OCOD).
Some will say they are over-priced and suggest some good alternatives. I don't necessarily disagree (they aren't to me, but this site would be pretty boring if we all had the same point of view)."
I didn't say it was the best filter on the market, provided the best bang for the buck, or imply it should be used for 3k.
I flat out stated it was expensive, that there were good alternatives I'd expect others to suggest, and the extra cost for M1 EP was (in my opinion) worth it when you averaged it out over its anticipated lifespan.
Which in no way suggests a recommendation for anything like a 3k drain interval. And while I had some fun with Fram's advertising, their XG is the only offering from them I would consider buying. I think its also a good filter, but as the price of these things varies from one place to another, the difference in price here between the M1 EP and the XG is negligible, so I go with the M1 EP.
-Spyder
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I have used Fram EG and Fram TG filters as a mid point filter for years.(no orange, never, ever)
The Mobil-1 place puts the M-1 filter on my vehicles at full change - and I do a filter spin + 1 qt myself mid way - use the EG/TG then - but in a longer can. This keeps the same particle specs with more net filter area for the extended period. The oil looks very good right after doing this (20% is fresh).
Used Mobil-1 since the late 80's - live in a hot region.
The Mobil-1 place puts the M-1 filter on my vehicles at full change - and I do a filter spin + 1 qt myself mid way - use the EG/TG then - but in a longer can. This keeps the same particle specs with more net filter area for the extended period. The oil looks very good right after doing this (20% is fresh).
Used Mobil-1 since the late 80's - live in a hot region.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Also in this class are the AMSOIL EaO filters, Royal Purple filters, and the Toyota TRD filters. There was also a Delco filter, but I cannot remember the name of it.
That would be the ACDelco "Ultragaurd" ... which actually came out almost 10 years ago and was probably one of the first full synthetic media filters to hit the streets.
Also in this class are the AMSOIL EaO filters, Royal Purple filters, and the Toyota TRD filters. There was also a Delco filter, but I cannot remember the name of it.
That would be the ACDelco "Ultragaurd" ... which actually came out almost 10 years ago and was probably one of the first full synthetic media filters to hit the streets.
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
I'm still awaiting the link to the comparative study showing the superiority of the XG to the M1. If you can't find one to back up your claim, then as far as I'm concerned its about as meaningful as claiming the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Did river_rat do the Fram XG and M1 for comparison?
The efficiency of the XG is claimed to be 97% @ 20 microns. Someone said the M1 filter was 99.2% ... but at what micron size? A efficiency percentage is useless without a corresponding particle size.
I'm still awaiting the link to the comparative study showing the superiority of the XG to the M1. If you can't find one to back up your claim, then as far as I'm concerned its about as meaningful as claiming the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Did river_rat do the Fram XG and M1 for comparison?
The efficiency of the XG is claimed to be 97% @ 20 microns. Someone said the M1 filter was 99.2% ... but at what micron size? A efficiency percentage is useless without a corresponding particle size.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
If you factor in things like the "Ford-style" threaded-end bypass and the like... then filters like the M1 and Royal Purple start to look even better.
I didn't think the M1 or RP filters had base/threaded end bypass valves(?).
If you factor in things like the "Ford-style" threaded-end bypass and the like... then filters like the M1 and Royal Purple start to look even better.
I didn't think the M1 or RP filters had base/threaded end bypass valves(?).
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
I didn't say it was the best filter on the market, provided the best bang for the buck, or imply it should be used for 3k.
No, I didn't say that you did ..and, kindly, don't assume a posture that I'm challenging you in an adversarial manner. Not all we do is a contest. I'm often (this is in regular daily life) "counter attacked" for stating observations that are presumed to be criticism. Even totally benign curiosity (I'm very critical/curious of/about my environment) gets me into trouble with "conditioned" defensive responses. There are a ton of topics that I haven't a clue about and when I can't see the point to something (I can't "add it up") ....I ask. ..and if someone wants to just plain do something for no good gosh darn reason ..I'm fine with that. I have a massive inventory/list of stuff I do for no other reason that I feel like it. I have a garage full of "fine junque~" to prove it.
..but back on topic or side topic..
The presumption that a long drain filter works better than a common filter "out of the box" is mostly unqualified. By that I don't mean YOU. I mean the data that most of us reference to support that belief.
(and this is not presented NECESSARILY for you - there are many others reading)
Let's go under a few (for the moment) reasonable assumptions under a few sensible qualifiers. Those qualifiers being that there are always exceptions, but that those exceptions typically fall outside any and all statistical standard deviations ..aka the fringe. They are not considered here.:
The OEM spec's the filter to handle all of the needs of the engine (in terms of capacity and efficiency) over the specified time/mileage recommendation.
Agree?
That the OEM spec for the filter includes a holding capacity that allows the filter to be viable over that time/mileage recommendation.
Agree?
That a filter's life span, in terms of efficiency, is over a "curve". That is, as the filter becomes more saturated and approaches its holding capacity, it will filter smaller and smaller particles.
Agree?
That for a filter to have a superior terminal efficiency (what gives you your marketed figures), the holding capacity has to be higher than the OEM spec's to allow it to last over JUST the OEM specified time/mileage span. That is, if it's going to trap more stuff, it has to have room for more stuff if it's going to last as long.
Agree?
Let's stop here for now. I think if we can settle (agree or further explore/debate) those (suggestive) "givens" ..we can get somewhere.
I didn't say it was the best filter on the market, provided the best bang for the buck, or imply it should be used for 3k.
No, I didn't say that you did ..and, kindly, don't assume a posture that I'm challenging you in an adversarial manner. Not all we do is a contest. I'm often (this is in regular daily life) "counter attacked" for stating observations that are presumed to be criticism. Even totally benign curiosity (I'm very critical/curious of/about my environment) gets me into trouble with "conditioned" defensive responses. There are a ton of topics that I haven't a clue about and when I can't see the point to something (I can't "add it up") ....I ask. ..and if someone wants to just plain do something for no good gosh darn reason ..I'm fine with that. I have a massive inventory/list of stuff I do for no other reason that I feel like it. I have a garage full of "fine junque~" to prove it.
..but back on topic or side topic..
The presumption that a long drain filter works better than a common filter "out of the box" is mostly unqualified. By that I don't mean YOU. I mean the data that most of us reference to support that belief.
(and this is not presented NECESSARILY for you - there are many others reading)
Let's go under a few (for the moment) reasonable assumptions under a few sensible qualifiers. Those qualifiers being that there are always exceptions, but that those exceptions typically fall outside any and all statistical standard deviations ..aka the fringe. They are not considered here.:
The OEM spec's the filter to handle all of the needs of the engine (in terms of capacity and efficiency) over the specified time/mileage recommendation.
Agree?
That the OEM spec for the filter includes a holding capacity that allows the filter to be viable over that time/mileage recommendation.
Agree?
That a filter's life span, in terms of efficiency, is over a "curve". That is, as the filter becomes more saturated and approaches its holding capacity, it will filter smaller and smaller particles.
Agree?
That for a filter to have a superior terminal efficiency (what gives you your marketed figures), the holding capacity has to be higher than the OEM spec's to allow it to last over JUST the OEM specified time/mileage span. That is, if it's going to trap more stuff, it has to have room for more stuff if it's going to last as long.
Agree?
Let's stop here for now. I think if we can settle (agree or further explore/debate) those (suggestive) "givens" ..we can get somewhere.
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
i'd say its not as good as a royal purple, but better then a mobil and bosch
I'd love to know what you base this on. Please provide a link to any source that's done a filter comparison and arrived at this conclusion.
-Spyder
lol, looks like youve already gotten quite a response, but i was just basing it on cut open pics ive seen of the 4 filters.
Originally Posted By: Jakegday
i'd say its not as good as a royal purple, but better then a mobil and bosch
I'd love to know what you base this on. Please provide a link to any source that's done a filter comparison and arrived at this conclusion.
-Spyder
lol, looks like youve already gotten quite a response, but i was just basing it on cut open pics ive seen of the 4 filters.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
I'm still awaiting the link to the comparative study showing the superiority of the XG to the M1. If you can't find one to back up your claim, then as far as I'm concerned its about as meaningful as claiming the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Did river_rat do the Fram XG and M1 for comparison?
The efficiency of the XG is claimed to be 97% @ 20 microns. Someone said the M1 filter was 99.2% ... but at what micron size? A efficiency percentage is useless without a corresponding particle size.
The M1 filter, from data I've seen but can't recall where or the specifics (so I don't post it), has different efficiency ratings (I think 3) for different particle sizes. The 99.2% efficiency most likely corresponds to the largest particles (this would be the logical conclusion anyway).
River rat's comparison pre-dated the XG, though he included the extra guard. Going from memory in a past thread, I had to eat to some humble when I posted a faulty conclusion based on a comparison between the "XG" and M1 EP, only to find after I posted it was the Extra Guard I'd been referring to, not the XG that was the subject of the thread. I readily admitted my mistake and suggested any comparative statements I made or anything on the XG in particular be dismissed as I'd used the wrong data.
I've since acknowledged that the XG is Fram's best offering by far, and that it can contend with the other heavy hitters. But that's as far as I'll go. I still personally prefer the M1 EP, but also admit that this influenced to a degree by my own preference, since I do pay more for it than I would for an XG (though not much more here).
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
I'm still awaiting the link to the comparative study showing the superiority of the XG to the M1. If you can't find one to back up your claim, then as far as I'm concerned its about as meaningful as claiming the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Did river_rat do the Fram XG and M1 for comparison?
The efficiency of the XG is claimed to be 97% @ 20 microns. Someone said the M1 filter was 99.2% ... but at what micron size? A efficiency percentage is useless without a corresponding particle size.
The M1 filter, from data I've seen but can't recall where or the specifics (so I don't post it), has different efficiency ratings (I think 3) for different particle sizes. The 99.2% efficiency most likely corresponds to the largest particles (this would be the logical conclusion anyway).
River rat's comparison pre-dated the XG, though he included the extra guard. Going from memory in a past thread, I had to eat to some humble when I posted a faulty conclusion based on a comparison between the "XG" and M1 EP, only to find after I posted it was the Extra Guard I'd been referring to, not the XG that was the subject of the thread. I readily admitted my mistake and suggested any comparative statements I made or anything on the XG in particular be dismissed as I'd used the wrong data.
I've since acknowledged that the XG is Fram's best offering by far, and that it can contend with the other heavy hitters. But that's as far as I'll go. I still personally prefer the M1 EP, but also admit that this influenced to a degree by my own preference, since I do pay more for it than I would for an XG (though not much more here).
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
River rat's comparison pre-dated the XG, though he included the extra guard.
river_rat's filter study was done less than a year ago, and I know the XG series Fram has been out way longer than that. If river_rat didn't do an XG it's probably because he didn't buy one or nobody donated one.
River rat's comparison pre-dated the XG, though he included the extra guard.
river_rat's filter study was done less than a year ago, and I know the XG series Fram has been out way longer than that. If river_rat didn't do an XG it's probably because he didn't buy one or nobody donated one.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
If you factor in things like the "Ford-style" threaded-end bypass and the like... then filters like the M1 and Royal Purple start to look even better.
I didn't think the M1 or RP filters had base/threaded end bypass valves(?).
Please see the pictures I posted. It clearly does. At least in the FL-1A size. The Royal Purple site shows the RP with having that style of bypass as well.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
If you factor in things like the "Ford-style" threaded-end bypass and the like... then filters like the M1 and Royal Purple start to look even better.
I didn't think the M1 or RP filters had base/threaded end bypass valves(?).
Please see the pictures I posted. It clearly does. At least in the FL-1A size. The Royal Purple site shows the RP with having that style of bypass as well.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
I'm still awaiting the link to the comparative study showing the superiority of the XG to the M1. If you can't find one to back up your claim, then as far as I'm concerned its about as meaningful as claiming the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Did river_rat do the Fram XG and M1 for comparison?
The efficiency of the XG is claimed to be 97% @ 20 microns. Someone said the M1 filter was 99.2% ... but at what micron size? A efficiency percentage is useless without a corresponding particle size.
They use the exact same test process, which includes the use of the same "test dust" from what I can tell. So both filters would have been tested at 20 microns using that test.
The cited test is meant to make comparing filters easier than the previous methods deployed.
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
I'm still awaiting the link to the comparative study showing the superiority of the XG to the M1. If you can't find one to back up your claim, then as far as I'm concerned its about as meaningful as claiming the earth is flat and the center of the universe.
Did river_rat do the Fram XG and M1 for comparison?
The efficiency of the XG is claimed to be 97% @ 20 microns. Someone said the M1 filter was 99.2% ... but at what micron size? A efficiency percentage is useless without a corresponding particle size.
They use the exact same test process, which includes the use of the same "test dust" from what I can tell. So both filters would have been tested at 20 microns using that test.
The cited test is meant to make comparing filters easier than the previous methods deployed.
Here is another Guru and his biased anti-bias opinion. As always, some things make sense, some are based on emotional perception of the moment.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: Shuttler
Here is another Guru and his biased anti-bias opinion. As always, some things make sense, some are based on emotional perception of the moment.
Well, I'll give him a D+ for pulling the oddball stuff he did out of his behind. I would not choose him as a spokesperson on some STOP FRAM BASHING advocacy group. I couldn't read past the first section about hole size.
Not that any of us pondered such stuff a whole lot before massing here for collective brain storming, but to publish it without verifying it...that's a mistake. I wonder if he just called some tech line at Fram and got a noob.
Here is another Guru and his biased anti-bias opinion. As always, some things make sense, some are based on emotional perception of the moment.
Well, I'll give him a D+ for pulling the oddball stuff he did out of his behind. I would not choose him as a spokesperson on some STOP FRAM BASHING advocacy group. I couldn't read past the first section about hole size.
Not that any of us pondered such stuff a whole lot before massing here for collective brain storming, but to publish it without verifying it...that's a mistake. I wonder if he just called some tech line at Fram and got a noob.
Hmmm? Gary, did you not read Oil Filter Studies linked above? I think the guy sounds pretty reasonable to me, even the thing about small holes in the center tube not being a problem--am I mistaken that even you have made that argument before? In any case, in summary I think his main points make sense: 1) the big determinant of filter quality is the nature of the media, and none of our amateur cutting open filters tells us anything about that unless we see a blowout or torn media. 2) the fiber end caps are probably OK for short OCIs, but not as durable as metal ones. 3.) same with nitrile vs. silicone ADBVs. 4) you can't tell just by looking at a bypass valve whether or not it performs its job well.
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
Hmmm? Gary, did you not read Oil Filter Studies linked above? I think the guy sounds pretty reasonable to me, even the thing about small holes in the center tube not being a problem--am I mistaken that even you have made that argument before? In any case, in summary I think his main points make sense: 1) the big determinant of filter quality is the nature of the media, and none of our amateur cutting open filters tells us anything about that unless we see a blowout or torn media. 2) the fiber end caps are probably OK for short OCIs, but not as durable as metal ones. 3.) same with nitrile vs. silicone ADBVs. 4) you can't tell just by looking at a bypass valve whether or not it performs its job well.
Is probably O.K. good enough for a $5K engine? Not for me it ain't. That guy is giving free advice and I can see why it's free.
Hmmm? Gary, did you not read Oil Filter Studies linked above? I think the guy sounds pretty reasonable to me, even the thing about small holes in the center tube not being a problem--am I mistaken that even you have made that argument before? In any case, in summary I think his main points make sense: 1) the big determinant of filter quality is the nature of the media, and none of our amateur cutting open filters tells us anything about that unless we see a blowout or torn media. 2) the fiber end caps are probably OK for short OCIs, but not as durable as metal ones. 3.) same with nitrile vs. silicone ADBVs. 4) you can't tell just by looking at a bypass valve whether or not it performs its job well.
Is probably O.K. good enough for a $5K engine? Not for me it ain't. That guy is giving free advice and I can see why it's free.
What concerns me is he doesn't truly understand how oil flows through an oil pump. He actually thinks the oil is squeezed through where the gear teeth mesh together.
Quote:
What concerns me is he doesn't truly understand how oil flows through an oil pump. He actually thinks the oil is squeezed through where the gear teeth mesh together.
He's got the concept of the pump wrong, but I think most of his comments on filter construction seem to be accurate. In any case, his summary is probably correct that all of us who cut open filters and just look at the innards aren't really analyzing in any scientific way what makes one filter better than another.
What concerns me is he doesn't truly understand how oil flows through an oil pump. He actually thinks the oil is squeezed through where the gear teeth mesh together.
He's got the concept of the pump wrong, but I think most of his comments on filter construction seem to be accurate. In any case, his summary is probably correct that all of us who cut open filters and just look at the innards aren't really analyzing in any scientific way what makes one filter better than another.
- Status
Similar threads
