Supertech st3593a oil-filter walmart
Howard
valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?
George Macdonald
>Is this good for my accord? someone mentioned an inferior leaf type bypass
>valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?
The trouble with store brands is that you don't know what you're buying nor
who made it with reliability. What may be made by a reputable mfr one week
can be some cheap import the next as has apparently happened with the
Supertech: http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml. I'd suggest
you buy a filter with the makers name on it:
http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html.
If I can't get the Honda filters made by Filtech, I use Purolator Pure One.
Rgds, George Macdonald
"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??
JM
> Is this good for my accord? someone mentioned an inferior leaf type bypass
> valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?
I've looked closely at this filter out of curiosity. It is probably
made by FRAM, which is crap. Get yourself a Wix or a Purolator for $4
to $6 from Pep Boys, Autozone, O'Reilly, etc.
JM
Wal-Mart Stockholder (but I won't lie to you)
Sean Dinh
Jim
"JM" <jma...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:de3b9c1b.04060...@posting.google.com...
It is made by Champion labs, not Fram. Please do not post on subject matter
you have no expertise in.
Tegger®
news:de3b9c1b.04060...@posting.google.com:
> "Howard" <How...@noyesnoaaa.com> wrote in message
> news:<yGlwc.4144$c76.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> Is this good for my accord? someone mentioned an inferior leaf type
>> bypass valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?
>
> I've looked closely at this filter out of curiosity. It is probably
> made by FRAM, which is crap.
Show us pics of the disassembled filter. FRAMs are distinctive and easily
identifiable.
And OEM filters made by FRAM are only "crap" to people who have no idea
what they are looking at.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html
How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com
SoCalMike
>
>>>Is this good for my accord? someone mentioned an inferior leaf type
>
> bypass
>
>>>valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?
>>
>>I've looked closely at this filter out of curiosity. It is probably
>>made by FRAM, which is crap. Get yourself a Wix or a Purolator for $4
>>to $6 from Pep Boys, Autozone, O'Reilly, etc.
>>
>>JM
>>Wal-Mart Stockholder (but I won't lie to you)
>
>
> It is made by Champion labs, not Fram. Please do not post on subject matter
> you have no expertise in.
no guarantee it still is, or that it isnt made my a champion subsidiary
in china.
Bebop
> no guarantee it still is, or that it isnt made my a champion subsidiary
> in china.
Then there would be a "made in China" printed on the filter.
George Macdonald
There's a note and picture here
http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml where they say it, and
the corresponding Bosch & STP are no longer a quality filter but are made
off-shore. Looks kinda meager to me, as a filter.
George Macdonald
<teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>jma...@attglobal.net (JM) spake unto the masses in
>news:de3b9c1b.04060...@posting.google.com:
>
>> "Howard" <How...@noyesnoaaa.com> wrote in message
>> news:<yGlwc.4144$c76.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>>> Is this good for my accord? someone mentioned an inferior leaf type
>>> bypass valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?
>>
>> I've looked closely at this filter out of curiosity. It is probably
>> made by FRAM, which is crap.
>
>
>
>
>Show us pics of the disassembled filter. FRAMs are distinctive and easily
>identifiable.
Pic is here http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml near the
bottom of the page.
>And OEM filters made by FRAM are only "crap" to people who have no idea
>what they are looking at.
That's an old sore.......
Tegger®
masses in news:irh5c05hv9qqfnsm7...@4ax.com:
> On 6 Jun 2004 00:59:29 GMT, "Tegger®"
> <teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>Show us pics of the disassembled filter. FRAMs are distinctive and
>>easily identifiable.
>
> Pic is here http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml near
> the bottom of the page.
Interesting that this page recommends the FRAM x2 for the Prelude
immediately above the pic you reference, but also makes the usual silly,
ignorant comment about the "cardboard" endcaps of other FRAMs.
>
>>And OEM filters made by FRAM are only "crap" to people who have no
>>idea what they are looking at.
>
> That's an old sore.......
Scratch scratch... ;)
JM
inspection of the exterior surfaces of both the FRAM and the STech, as
well as the interior valving area which was visualized through the
threaded hole, they looked virtually identical.
As to FRAM, I don't care if the ends are cardboard; cardboard doesn't
dissolve in oil. But they have a crappy anti-drainback valve, and are
short on a decent amount of high-quality filtering media. Just like
their crappy air filters.
Supertech is a $2 (two dollar) oil filter at walmart. Does ANYTHING
need to be said after that?
JM
George Macdonald
<teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> spake unto the
>masses in news:irh5c05hv9qqfnsm7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 6 Jun 2004 00:59:29 GMT, "Tegger®"
>> <teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>>Show us pics of the disassembled filter. FRAMs are distinctive and
>>>easily identifiable.
>>
>> Pic is here http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml near
>> the bottom of the page.
>
>
>
>Interesting that this page recommends the FRAM x2 for the Prelude
>immediately above the pic you reference, but also makes the usual silly,
>ignorant comment about the "cardboard" endcaps of other FRAMs.
Also interesting that the Fram X2 has err, metal endcaps... a mistake... or
outsource??;-)
>>
>>>And OEM filters made by FRAM are only "crap" to people who have no
>>>idea what they are looking at.
>>
>> That's an old sore.......
>
>
>Scratch scratch... ;)
Oooooh - ça me gratte!:-) All I can say is that I won't use them.
Tegger®
> On 6 Jun 2004 22:57:47 GMT, "Tegger®"
> <teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Also interesting that the Fram X2 has err, metal endcaps... a
> mistake... or outsource??;-)
Outsource, I suspect. Unless Honeywell also makes similar sized filters for
use in water-based applications, in which case they could not use gasket
materials for endcaps.
I cannot see them spending the money on steel end caps unless they are
buying them from China, where the per-piece cost can be as low as 15% of
what it would be here.
--
TeGGeR®
y_p_w
> George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> spake unto the
> masses in news:7018c0hpo3rde196j...@4ax.com:
>
> > On 6 Jun 2004 22:57:47 GMT, "Tegger®"
> > <teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Also interesting that the Fram X2 has err, metal endcaps... a
> > mistake... or outsource??;-)
>
>
>
> Outsource, I suspect. Unless Honeywell also makes similar sized filters for
> use in water-based applications, in which case they could not use gasket
> materials for endcaps.
>
> I cannot see them spending the money on steel end caps unless they are
> buying them from China, where the per-piece cost can be as low as 15% of
> what it would be here.
Outsourcing a few parts here or there isn't all that difficult. Even
New Balance, which still has some athletic shoe assembly plants in the
US, uses parts from the Far East. However - I could still imagine
stamping metal endcaps in the US.
As for cardboard, I remember the comments about the Fram cardboard endcaps
collapsing in some forced induction engines - most notably the supercharged
VW G60 engine in the Corrado. I've also taken apart a Fram filter after
a mere 500 miles use, and noticed that some carboard fibers had already
started separating. I started worrying about what might happen under the
heat and contant flexing from oil flow. Oil pumps more or less "pulse"
oil through. I've heard of cases where the lack of rigidity of the
cardboard endcaps have led to the filter media overly flexing and becoming
compromised.
K5
news:yGlwc.4144$c76.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
bypass
> valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?
fits, no warranty issues, no worries, etc. The online price is $5.31USD
where I get mine. Order online and pickup at the counter. $8.23 otherwise.
Not sure how they came up with these prices and policies but that's the way
they decided to do it. Even if you pay full price (8.23), it's still less
than $100 per 100k miles difference than the online price if you change your
oil and filter at 3k miles.
Sean Dinh
the filter would flatten out. Taking the filter element out of its protective case and then putting it on the table to exam its
structural strength point to major flaw in the observer's method. With the element on the table, you could flick your finger to
bend the cardboard end cap. Try doing that with the backing of the case against that cardboard end caps and tell me how your finger
feel.
As for the media flexing, that could occur with any material selected for end caps. When the media traps too much particles to a
point of clogging it, it will collapse no matter how much support there are at the end. That is the reason why there is a
perforated inner tube to support the media in the middle. In the case of collapsing media, the blame should be on the media being
too efficient, or that the oil contains too much suspended particle for the filter to trap effectively during its service life.
I've opened a used Fram filter. One of the fold had flatten out. I won't blame the end cap for inferior integrity to support the
media in the middle. It's nonsense to blame the end cap.
My point is that ALL authors of filter studies referenced on this NG lack basic engineering background. They all have major flaws
on their studies. Oil filtering is a complex process, involving oil pressure, flow rate, filter media, and bypass valve. All those
authors ever done with their studies are to express opinions on visual observation out of context. People need to differentiate
opinions from true scientific studies, and to not promote these opinions as facts.
I've used Fram before. I'm using Supertech now because it's cheaper and have a better O-ring.
Tegger®
news:10866486...@news-1.nethere.net:
<snip good rant>
>
> My point is that ALL authors of filter studies referenced on this NG
> lack basic engineering background. They all have major flaws on their
> studies. Oil filtering is a complex process, involving oil pressure,
> flow rate, filter media, and bypass valve. All those authors ever done
> with their studies are to express opinions on visual observation out
> of context. People need to differentiate opinions from true scientific
> studies, and to not promote these opinions as facts.
And the material used for FRAM end caps is
**************NOT**************
"cardboard", despite what it might look like to the untrained eye. Anybody
who says otherwise is an ignoramus.
Those "authors of filter studies" are contributing to that "Internet
wisdom" that will result in misinformation and nonsense acquiring
credibility just because it appears in a Google search 20,800 times.
I can see now how legends and myths get started.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html
How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com
Tegger®
news:591da479.04060...@posting.google.com:
>
> Outsourcing a few parts here or there isn't all that difficult.
Well no. Go to Wal-Mart and look down one of the aisles. Some 90% of the
stuff there was not made by the company whose name is on the package.
> However - I could still imagine
> stamping metal endcaps in the US.
You can "imagine" making the endcaps in the US? What does that mean? Please
explain.
>
> As for cardboard, I remember the comments about the Fram cardboard
> endcaps collapsing in some forced induction engines - most notably the
> supercharged VW G60 engine in the Corrado.
1) Were they OEM filters or some chepie picked up at Wal-Mart that may or
may not have been compatible with the stresses found in that engine?
2) If the endcaps had been steel instead of gasket material, would it be
better to have the pleat fold over or the medium separate from the
adhesive, as opposed to having the endcap fold?
> I've also taken apart a
> Fram filter after a mere 500 miles use, and noticed that some carboard
> fibers had already started separating.
How do you know they weren't that way before the filter was installed? How
many of these have you disassembled before installation?
Have you conducted an analysis of the filter and the oil to determine if
the fibers have actually been separating or just *look like they might do
so?
> I started worrying about what
> might happen under the heat and contant flexing from oil flow.
Obviously Honda, with millions of dollars in warranty claims at stake, does
not share your "worry".
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html
How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com
y_p_w
Sean Dinh wrote:
> The purposes of the end caps are to hold the filter media in the
> folded state, and to seal the inlet from the outlet. Without them,
> the filter would flatten out. Taking the filter element out of its
> protective case and then putting it on the table to exam its
> structural strength point to major flaw in the observer's method.
> With the element on the table, you could flick your finger to
> bend the cardboard end cap. Try doing that with the backing of the
> case against that cardboard end caps and tell me how your finger
> feel.
I've taken apart several oil filters myself. As far as I could tell,
the only thing that the case would add rigidity to is the center
tube. I've also seen that the epoxy that held a Fram element to the
endcap was spotty on some edges. Some have reported that they've
seen ones where the glue was incomplete in some areas to the point
where unfiltered oil could pass through. At the very least, I've
heard from one person who worked in oil filter manufacturing that
the standard canted metal design is far superior because the element
self-centers to the endcap/glue.
I'm also wary about Fram because they're the ONLY major manufacturer
that uses cardboard (or whatever paper composite they use) instead
of metal for the vast majority of their filters. When Fram sells an
exposed filter (like for several GM cars) they do use a metal end
cap, and sell it for about the same price as their other filters.
I've only heard of one other manufacturer that will use cardboard -
Purolator for a very limited number of their filters.
George Macdonald
wrote:
>The purposes of the end caps are to hold the filter media in the folded state, and to seal the inlet from the outlet. Without them,
>the filter would flatten out. Taking the filter element out of its protective case and then putting it on the table to exam its
>structural strength point to major flaw in the observer's method. With the element on the table, you could flick your finger to
>bend the cardboard end cap. Try doing that with the backing of the case against that cardboard end caps and tell me how your finger
>feel.
The endcaps are an important part of the structure of the cartridge and its
structural integrity. The endcap does *not* butt against the "backing of
the case", not fully anyway, otherwise there would be no way to allow a
bypass down the center tube of the filter. In fact it is held away from
the inside end of the case by a leaf spring in most filters.
>As for the media flexing, that could occur with any material selected for end caps. When the media traps too much particles to a
>point of clogging it, it will collapse no matter how much support there are at the end. That is the reason why there is a
>perforated inner tube to support the media in the middle. In the case of collapsing media, the blame should be on the media being
>too efficient, or that the oil contains too much suspended particle for the filter to trap effectively during its service life.
>I've opened a used Fram filter. One of the fold had flatten out. I won't blame the end cap for inferior integrity to support the
>media in the middle. It's nonsense to blame the end cap.
Quite obviously there could be several reasons for a collapsed endcap
and/or filter media.
>My point is that ALL authors of filter studies referenced on this NG lack basic engineering background. They all have major flaws
>on their studies. Oil filtering is a complex process, involving oil pressure, flow rate, filter media, and bypass valve. All those
>authors ever done with their studies are to express opinions on visual observation out of context. People need to differentiate
>opinions from true scientific studies, and to not promote these opinions as facts.
The authors of the filter studies are in no way trying to conceal or
pretend any info about themselves - there is no conspiracy or witch-hunt
here. It doesn't take an engineer to study the construction of something
as simple as an oil filter and for the chemical composition of the
materials and their behavior under operating conditions, it generally takes
*more* than an engineer to do a scientific analysis.
The point here is: given the choice of materials for endcaps of an oil
filter and observing worst case operating conditions of aging oil, who in
their right mind would choose a glued cardboard or reinforced fiber
material which is susceptible to attack by acids, water and any other
by-products from combustion which get into the oil, not to mention the
additives in the fresh oil in the first place?
The bottom line is: if you want a material with relatively good shape
retention and chemical inertness under the temperature, chemical and
pressure attack inside an oil filter, metal is kinda obvious as the choice.
If you want a surface against which you want an anti-drainback valve to
have a good seal, fiber material is umm, not good!
You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
somewhat more credence - my choice!
>I've used Fram before. I'm using Supertech now because it's cheaper and have a better O-ring.
Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
the NTPOG site?
alan
> You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
> employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
> somewhat more credence - my choice!
>
I don't mind paying $2 more every 6 months for a Purolator Pure One
filter. It has sparkly paint, and it makes me feel smug.
SoCalMike
> The authors of the filter studies are in no way trying to conceal or
> pretend any info about themselves - there is no conspiracy or witch-hunt
> here. It doesn't take an engineer to study the construction of something
> as simple as an oil filter and for the chemical composition of the
> materials and their behavior under operating conditions, it generally takes
> *more* than an engineer to do a scientific analysis.
arent they doing the equivalent of tearing into a house, stripping off
the wallboard/plaster/whateve, and making note of how the place is
framed (12" on center, 16" on center, etc), with what size wood, and how
the thing is nailed together?
just basic observations, but they can tell a lot.
SoCalMike
> The bottom line is: if you want a material with relatively good shape
> retention and chemical inertness under the temperature, chemical and
> pressure attack inside an oil filter, metal is kinda obvious as the choice.
> If you want a surface against which you want an anti-drainback valve to
> have a good seal, fiber material is umm, not good!
frams are a mid to low priced filter... now what would really piss me
off is seeing a K&N or equivalent with crappy construction.
>
> You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
> employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
> somewhat more credence - my choice!
>
>
>>I've used Fram before. I'm using Supertech now because it's cheaper and have a better O-ring.
>
>
> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
> the NTPOG site?
the last time i looked at a $2 supertech, they still had a rounded
o-ring, with a coil spring , metal end cap/anti-drainback valve inside.
Sean Dinh
Sean Dinh
bother to read the rest.
I just looked at the picture of the Supertech filter since you insisted again. There is an obvious difference in the bypass valve in
that picture than the one on I used last month. I can't comment on the actual function of the bypass valve at this time. I need further
analyzing. I find the author trashing the operation of the bypass valve highly suspicious. Walmart won't be dumb enough waste money on a
defective design. Imagine the litigations...I would not comment had the author did a pressure test.
George Macdonald
Yep, that's what I've used when Honda brand Filtechs were not available and
I can buy them till 9p.m. on a weekday.:-) It's till not clear to me if
we'll be able to buy Honda brand Filtechs in the new form factor, though
the part does appear to exist.
George Macdonald
<mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>I've used Fram before. I'm using Supertech now because it's cheaper and have a better O-ring.
>>
>>
>> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
>> the NTPOG site?
>
>the last time i looked at a $2 supertech, they still had a rounded
>o-ring, with a coil spring , metal end cap/anti-drainback valve inside.
See the pic and what they say here:
http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml near the bottom of the
page.
Rgds, George Macdonald
Tegger®
> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even
> look at the NTPOG site?
The NTPOG contains some silly comments. Silly enough to make me wonder how
qualified these guys really are.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html
How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com
Tegger®
news:10866785...@news-1.nethere.net:
> The first paragraph I skimmed through was the description of the
> bypass valve. Since the description was already flawed, I did not
> bother to read the rest.
>
> I just looked at the picture of the Supertech filter since you
> insisted again. There is an obvious difference in the bypass valve in
> that picture than the one on I used last month. I can't comment on the
> actual function of the bypass valve at this time. I need further
> analyzing. I find the author trashing the operation of the bypass
> valve highly suspicious.
One silly comment I found:
"It's possible that a hard enough impact at a sharp angle while the filter
was by-passing might cause it to jam open, but I suspect the fluid within
the filter would prevent this."
Talk about a stretch...
> Walmart won't be dumb enough waste money on a
> defective design. Imagine the litigations...I would not comment had
> the author did a pressure test.
That's part of the problem: Nobody is doing flow testing, media
effectiveness testing, particle counting, pressure testing or anything
else. Just visual observation based or erroneous ideas. "Cardboard" indeed.
And the pictures on NPOG are really crappy. Didn't the author have a
graphics program so he could lighten up the pictures a bit so you could
actually see some detail?
There is ONE organization that did *actual testing* on various filters:
Consumer Reports. It's dated, but just see what they say:
http://list.miata.net/miata/1996-01/1504.html
When the authors of all those "Internet wisdom" sites test their filters
according to the various SAE standard tests, then I will consider them
credible.
--
TeGGeR®
The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html
How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com
y_p_w
> y_...@hotmail.com (y_p_w) spake unto the masses in
> news:591da479.04060...@posting.google.com:
>
> >
> > Outsourcing a few parts here or there isn't all that difficult.
>
>
>
> Well no. Go to Wal-Mart and look down one of the aisles. Some 90% of the
> stuff there was not made by the company whose name is on the package.
>
>
> > However - I could still imagine
> > stamping metal endcaps in the US.
>
> You can "imagine" making the endcaps in the US? What does that mean? Please
> explain.
There are still manufacturing operations in the US that stamp sheet
metal and do so at competetive prices. That little piece of steel
costs mere cents whether it is made in the US, Far East, or Eastern
Europe.
> > As for cardboard, I remember the comments about the Fram cardboard
> > endcaps collapsing in some forced induction engines - most notably the
> > supercharged VW G60 engine in the Corrado.
>
> 1) Were they OEM filters or some chepie picked up at Wal-Mart that may or
> may not have been compatible with the stresses found in that engine?
It's been a while, but I suppose the standard part as specified in the
Fram applications manual. That's certainly what most people would
use.
> 2) If the endcaps had been steel instead of gasket material, would it be
> better to have the pleat fold over or the medium separate from the
> adhesive, as opposed to having the endcap fold?
I don't quite understand what you're getting at. My contention is
that the cardboard is less capable of handling extreme stresses.
There have been known cases where the cardboard has disintegrated
plugging up the media, followed by the bypass opening up and spewing
out the disintegrated cardboard.
My favorite is one guy who just wanted to test Fram vs Wix on an old
car ready for the scrapheap. He used both a Wix and a Fram for 16K
miles. The Wix was still intact after an extended period of time,
but the Fram had turned into a mess. He worked for Dana Corp (maker
of Wix), and said he sent the used Fram to their analysis lab "as a
joke". I know that's "abuse", but it certain highlights that Fram is
generally not a good choice for "robustness" of design/materials.
> > I've also taken apart a
> > Fram filter after a mere 500 miles use, and noticed that some carboard
> > fibers had already started separating.
>
>
> How do you know they weren't that way before the filter was installed? How
> many of these have you disassembled before installation?
Two, including a PH6811 and a PH3593A. The cardboard had no signs
of "flaking-off" when dry. I've also opened up an AC PF1127 (Champion
Labs design) and an AC PF47.
> Have you conducted an analysis of the filter and the oil to determine if
> the fibers have actually been separating or just *look like they might do
> so?
Some fibers were actually "flapping in the wind".
y_p_w
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:32:01 -0700, alan <no-long...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >George Macdonald wrote:
> >
> >> You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
> >> employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
> >> somewhat more credence - my choice!
> >>
> >
> >I don't mind paying $2 more every 6 months for a Purolator Pure One
> >filter. It has sparkly paint, and it makes me feel smug.
>
> Yep, that's what I've used when Honda brand Filtechs were not available and
> I can buy them till 9p.m. on a weekday.:-) It's till not clear to me if
> we'll be able to buy Honda brand Filtechs in the new form factor, though
> the part does appear to exist.
Well - I've moved on to my 2004 Subaru Impreza WRX, where the factory
oil filters are either made by Tokyo Roki (not to be confused with
Toyo Roki) in Japan, or Purolator in the US. I got a nice stash of
the former purchased mailorder.
However - I still have my '95 Integra GS-R, which I plan on changing
the oil and filter every 6 months with limited mileage. I exhausted
my supply of Filtech and Toyo Roki filters. I ended up using a
Hastings filter for my last oil change.
George Macdonald
<teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> spake unto the
>masses in news:vq9ac0dbmh14v37pr...@4ax.com:
>
>> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even
>> look at the NTPOG site?
>
>
>
>The NTPOG contains some silly comments. Silly enough to make me wonder how
>qualified these guys really are.
As already noted, they're not claiming to be "qualified" - just looking at
construction quality from an obvious eye-ball point. Interpret as your
needs dictate.
George Macdonald
wrote:
>The first paragraph I skimmed through was the description of the bypass valve. Since the description was already flawed, I did not
>bother to read the rest.
It might have been expressed better but I don't see anything seriously
flawed here - can you elaborate please?
>I just looked at the picture of the Supertech filter since you insisted again. There is an obvious difference in the bypass valve in
>that picture than the one on I used last month. I can't comment on the actual function of the bypass valve at this time. I need further
>analyzing. I find the author trashing the operation of the bypass valve highly suspicious. Walmart won't be dumb enough waste money on a
>defective design. Imagine the litigations...I would not comment had the author did a pressure test.
OK - trust Walmart and their auto expert buyer.<shrug>... who has
apparently decided, after gaining some repuatation for having a decent
moderately priced filter on the shelf, to switch a cheap import.
>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
>> the NTPOG site?
Rgds, George Macdonald
Tegger®
> On 8 Jun 2004 09:54:51 GMT, "Tegger®"
> <teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>
>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> spake unto the
>>masses in news:vq9ac0dbmh14v37pr...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even
>>> look at the NTPOG site?
>>
>>
>>
>>The NTPOG contains some silly comments. Silly enough to make me wonder
>>how qualified these guys really are.
>
> As already noted, they're not claiming to be "qualified" - just
> looking at construction quality from an obvious eye-ball point.
> Interpret as your needs dictate.
"Obvious eyeball" is not a credible method of evaluation for something that
operates unseen to the eye and operates on a microscopic level. Can your
eyes determine filtration characteristics?
To even suggest NPOG at all as a credible resource here is to contribute to
"Internet wisdom", as to suggest reading that Website is to suggest that
they are qualified to comment.
Sean Dinh
Bypass valve need like 10 psi to open. It does not need 'pressure spike' nor 'very high rpm' to open, nor does it need the filter media to be
clogged to function. Since the filter media is quite dense, and the oil's viscosity is quite high, the flow rate is not that high through a
filter. When the oil flow is raised, the pressure inside the filter rise exponentially. At a certain flow rate, the pressure inside the
filter rise to a point until the bypass valve open. Bypass valve could open at low rpm and bypass most oil at high rpm. Stating that bypass
valve only open at severe operating condition is flawed.
Certain web site has flow rate for their filters. Using info from that site to pick flow rate and bypass valve pressure, and oil flow rate
from a particular engine's oil pump, the rpm at which the bypass valve would open could be determined. It's been a long time since I
calculated, so my figure of the bypass valve beginning to open at 1300 rpm on the Odyssey could be off a bit.
There are vast number of particles suspended in the oil. Certain particle sizes affect wear, whereas very fine particles has little effect.
This critical size escape me at the moment. If the filter media is too dense, it traps fine particles well. This lead to clogged filter early
in its service life. Clogged filter will open the bypass valve all the time. This is not good.
Filter media has limited capacity to trap particles, that's why the media has to be selected carefully. Best filter media is the one that
only trap wear particles and last the service life. Selecting filter media to trap particles above critical size is a science. This requires
flow test. I doubt that most of us could determine a good filter media by merely looking at it with naked eyes.
There is a correlation between surface area of the media and its capacity. The more surface area the media has, the more particles it could
trap. However, there is no correlation as to its effectiveness when the comparison is between different media. All those filter tables are
nearly useless.
My point is that visual observation has little correlation to the performance of a bypass type oil filter.
George Macdonald
wrote:
>Let me elaborate beyond just the bypass valve;
>
>Bypass valve need like 10 psi to open. It does not need 'pressure spike' nor 'very high rpm' to open, nor does it need the filter media to be
>clogged to function. Since the filter media is quite dense, and the oil's viscosity is quite high, the flow rate is not that high through a
>filter. When the oil flow is raised, the pressure inside the filter rise exponentially. At a certain flow rate, the pressure inside the
>filter rise to a point until the bypass valve open. Bypass valve could open at low rpm and bypass most oil at high rpm. Stating that bypass
>valve only open at severe operating condition is flawed.
The mfr's specified bypass opening pressure is mentioned for each filter in
his spreadsheet... if you'd bothered to look at it, so I think he knows
that. The pressure here is a differential pressure across a filter medium
- only secondarily related to absolute oil pressure; in fact one normally
hopes that *most* of the pump's oil pressure makes it through the filter
media, otherwise you're going to have wrecked bearings or perpetual
by-pass... in which case the filter would be a waste of time. I don't see
anything particularly bad with his explanation of a bypass valve. IOW
you're nit-picking.
>Certain web site has flow rate for their filters. Using info from that site to pick flow rate and bypass valve pressure, and oil flow rate
>from a particular engine's oil pump, the rpm at which the bypass valve would open could be determined. It's been a long time since I
>calculated, so my figure of the bypass valve beginning to open at 1300 rpm on the Odyssey could be off a bit.
I dunno when or where you mentioned 1300rpm but think you're way off!
>There are vast number of particles suspended in the oil. Certain particle sizes affect wear, whereas very fine particles has little effect.
>This critical size escape me at the moment. If the filter media is too dense, it traps fine particles well. This lead to clogged filter early
>in its service life. Clogged filter will open the bypass valve all the time. This is not good.
>
>Filter media has limited capacity to trap particles, that's why the media has to be selected carefully. Best filter media is the one that
>only trap wear particles and last the service life. Selecting filter media to trap particles above critical size is a science. This requires
>flow test. I doubt that most of us could determine a good filter media by merely looking at it with naked eyes.
I think it's fair, given the application, to expect that, if the only
criterion was oil filter effectiveness, all the filter mfrs would use
almost identical filter media. The fact that there are palpable, visible
differences seems to indicate that the "science" is not the only
consideration being used in the manufacturing specs... maybe cost?:-)
>There is a correlation between surface area of the media and its capacity. The more surface area the media has, the more particles it could
>trap. However, there is no correlation as to its effectiveness when the comparison is between different media. All those filter tables are
>nearly useless.
Stating the obvious does not somehow seem to prove the point you want to
make about the "tables".
>My point is that visual observation has little correlation to the performance of a bypass type oil filter.
The point is that all the mfrs are selling a product for the same purpose:
same oil, same particles, same pressures. I see nothing wrong with looking
at the quality of the materials used to achieve that... especially when
there are glaring deficiencies.
George Macdonald
<teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> spake unto the
>masses in news:hludc0dihis0kqupm...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 8 Jun 2004 09:54:51 GMT, "Tegger®"
>> <teggerati...@changetheobvious.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> spake unto the
>>>masses in news:vq9ac0dbmh14v37pr...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even
>>>> look at the NTPOG site?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The NTPOG contains some silly comments. Silly enough to make me wonder
>>>how qualified these guys really are.
>>
>> As already noted, they're not claiming to be "qualified" - just
>> looking at construction quality from an obvious eye-ball point.
>> Interpret as your needs dictate.
>
>
>
>"Obvious eyeball" is not a credible method of evaluation for something that
>operates unseen to the eye and operates on a microscopic level. Can your
>eyes determine filtration characteristics?
When looking at several products which all have the same purpose and
operating parameters, you have to make certain assumptions about how the
product specs and materials were arrived at. Ideally one would think that
every filter would be identical in choice of materials and construction if
the science were the only criterion. I think one can make certain
judgements about the quality of materials and fitness for use by looking at
an oil filter before and after use.
>To even suggest NPOG at all as a credible resource here is to contribute to
>"Internet wisdom", as to suggest reading that Website is to suggest that
>they are qualified to comment.
Your insistence on declaring everything which doesn't fit your prejudices
as "Internet wisdom" is getting boring. Suggesting that people read a Web
site only means that I think it's worth reading... and IMO it *is*. It
does not mean that I endorse every single detail presented.
Rex B
||No, didn't cut it apart, but when I performed a close visual
||inspection of the exterior surfaces of both the FRAM and the STech, as
||well as the interior valving area which was visualized through the
||threaded hole, they looked virtually identical.
||
||As to FRAM, I don't care if the ends are cardboard; cardboard doesn't
||dissolve in oil. But they have a crappy anti-drainback valve, and are
||short on a decent amount of high-quality filtering media. Just like
||their crappy air filters.
||
||Supertech is a $2 (two dollar) oil filter at walmart. Does ANYTHING
||need to be said after that?
If it's made by Champ Labs, I'd use them. Much better than any Fram.
Champ Labs makes a lot of the ACDelco SKUs. Not that that's a quality
endorsement by any means ;)
Texas Parts Guy
Rex B
<fammacd=!SPAM^noth...@tellurian.com> wrote:
||On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:51:20 -0700, Sean Dinh <"seanny"@di...@znet.com>
||wrote:
||
||>The purposes of the end caps are to hold the filter media in the folded
state, and to seal the inlet from the outlet. Without them,
||>the filter would flatten out. Taking the filter element out of its protective
case and then putting it on the table to exam its
||>structural strength point to major flaw in the observer's method. With the
element on the table, you could flick your finger to
||>bend the cardboard end cap. Try doing that with the backing of the case
against that cardboard end caps and tell me how your finger
||>feel.
||
||The endcaps are an important part of the structure of the cartridge and its
||structural integrity. The endcap does *not* butt against the "backing of
||the case", not fully anyway, otherwise there would be no way to allow a
||bypass down the center tube of the filter. In fact it is held away from
||the inside end of the case by a leaf spring in most filters.
Leaf Spring is being generous. Actually, it most resembles a halloween clicker.
I've hung around sports cars most of my life. The only filters I have ever seen
to fail catastrophically have been Fram oil filters.
A lot of the dirt track guys used to use small-block Chevy's with the old
cartridge filter. The cardboard Frams would often come out squashed like a beer
can. Didn't take long for them to switch to Wix.
Texas Parts Guy
gjb...@cox.net
> Is this good for my accord? someone mentioned an inferior leaf type bypass
> valve as opposed to spring coil as found in OEM?