FRAM oil filters are JUNK
Windsor Fox
> Take a look at this site....
> http://minimopar.simplenet.com/oilfilterstudy.html
Old news....
Van Tully
Cripes, I've know that for 15 years of being in the auto parts business. By
the way, guess who makes Fords/Motorcraft filters? Purolator does :)
Another junk filter, go figure.
<nothing> wrote in message news:s8p7ce...@corp.supernews.com...
Jonah Wicky
Charlie
bit more than AC Delco.
BTW, The Penske Filters I bought from Kmart look frighteningly similar
to Wick filters, except they cost about $3. Can anyone else confirm
this?
Van Tully wrote:
>
> Cripes, I've know that for 15 years of being in the auto parts business. By
> the way, guess who makes Fords/Motorcraft filters? Purolator does :)
> Another junk filter, go figure.
>
> <nothing> wrote in message news:s8p7ce...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Take a look at this site....
> > http://minimopar.simplenet.com/oilfilterstudy.html
> >
> >
--
--------------------------------
Charlie B. Han
era...@cybernex.net
ch...@alpha.fdu.edu
Visit my page @ http://www2.cybernex.net/~eraser
'81 Ford Thunderbird, 302 V8, 4-speed AOD, 180 hp, 2-bbl
Nort...@geoserve.com.net
filtration. Featuring a nice, heavy case,
all of the vendors have dropped the line
in my (SE MA) area.
I use Wix on all of my diesel accounts.
David
e-frog
: So what oil filters does the group like/recommend?
A guy in our AutoX club took the time to disect a bunch of filters.
(Another guy also does this regularly and posts it on the web).
The conclusion from both sources was that, believe it or not, the Honda
OEM filters are best.
Some debate as to whether the Purolators are good or not, but expensive.
Unanimous decision that the Fram's are crap.
Isaac
Bill S.
Why bother to cross post drivvle like this in the first place
rm
>OEM filters are best.
ditto....
BTW, I sent a Honda filter to the guy who runs the minimopar site so
he could dissect it....hopefully we'll see some update from russ
sometime soon.
he...@primus.ca
e-frog wrote:
> Jonah Wicky (jonah...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> : So what oil filters does the group like/recommend?
>
> A guy in our AutoX club took the time to disect a bunch of filters.
> (Another guy also does this regularly and posts it on the web).
>
> The conclusion from both sources was that, believe it or not, the Honda
> OEM filters are best.
> Some debate as to whether the Purolators are good or not, but expensive.
> Unanimous decision that the Fram's are crap.
>
> Isaac
Which oil filter is the best? Which oil filters do they Recommend ?
Dean A. Irwin
versed in these things tell if their oil filter is a piece of junk? I use
Fram in my race car and my daily driver, and Motorcraft exclusively in every
Ford I've ever owned (3). I've never had an oil-related or oil-filter
related problem. Some people have way too much time on their hands. Change
your oil and filter regularly and put an end to the long thread that will
surely erupt from the original post.
Dean
<Nort...@geoserve.com.net> wrote in message
news:388de4d6...@news.geoserve.net...
Joe Way
-----
It's been a long time since I've seen a post from Daniel Stern on this
subject or any other, but I was so impressed by his last one that I
saved it. Mr. Stern is very knowledgeable, and very careful in his
writings and recommendations. Following is his response to essentially
the same question, posted to rec.autos.antique on 9/28/98.
************
On 30 Sep 1998, GLIPSS wrote:
> Daniel
> I have a question. What is your opinion of the fram oil filter
Extremely low.
> which filter would you use.??
I answered both of these questions in the original post:
> change the oil and filter regularly using good oil and a *quality*
> (non-Fram) filter. I use Chrysler MoPar Severe Duty oil filter part
> number 53020311.
More info:
I'll admit it right out: I'm *really* particular about whose parts I
buy
and whose I don't. I find faults with parts others consider perfectly
fine. I dissect and inspect various brand parts to compare them in
detail.
A Matt Joseph article in "Skinned Knuckles" magazine prompted me to
cut
open and examine competing oil filters. Joseph's article depicted
doing
that, and some of the indifferent construction, shoddy materials and
extraneous trash/rust in the fram filters he copened were pretty
upsetting. I found the same sloppy construction (incomplete gluing of
filter to end caps), and chintzy materials (smaller element of thinner
paper, crimped-foil element gasket, etc.), so swore off Frams.
When all the dust settled, Wix (NAPA Gold) , Hastings, and MoPar were
on
my "OK to use" list. Fram, AC, Purolator and Baldwin were on the
"DON'T"
list.
Examinations of those makers' air filters gave the same results
except Purolator's air filters seem fine to me.
Fram stays off the OK lists. I find they market inferior products.
(And
no, I don't particularly care to hear who has had "no problems" with
Frams. Use 'em if you think they're OK. I don't, so I don't.)
Since I last cut filters open, Purolator has introduced some new
filter
types, a few new names have come on the line, and availability has
expanded of filters that once had limited availability in the USA.
My current favorite is Chrysler MoPar Severe Duty Oil Filter, Chrysler
P/N
53020311
It's the filter used on Dodge Rams and Dodge Vipers with the V-10
engine.
Anti-drainback valve is the least-restrictive, most positive-sealing
item
I've found.
Nice positive-action overpressure bypass valve.
comparatively huge, well-glued and thick element.
Good metal in the can.
Good attention to detail in construction--haven't found a
sloppily-built
one yet.
Made in Canada by Dana Corp, who also make Wix filters (but I haven't
found a Wix that looks and works like this)
List price is spendy, but they drop to around $4.20/filter when I buy
'em
by the case of 12. It fits both Slant-6 cars, my 2.2 Dodge Spirit R/T
and
the 2.5 LeBaron...as well as anything else that will take a long MoPar
filter (Fram PH-8a, Motorcraft FL-1a, Purolator L30001, Wix 51515,
NAPA
1515, etc.), which includes a huge number of passenger cars and
pickups.
> Brad
> Detroit
--Daniel
Ann Arbor
**********************
Heather & Joe Way
Sierra Specialty Automotive
Brake cylinders sleeved with brass
Delco alternator One-Wire conversions
http://www.restoresource.com
Marcus Toups
C E White wrote:
>
SNIP
but there is no way, no how I will use them on my farm
> equipment.
>
> As always just my opinion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
A Wix man, eh?
C E White
oil filters. I wish there was a current, authoritative, independent
test of filters available. Consumer Reports did publish a report, but
it was so long ago that it is not in the on-line Consumer Reports
database and many of the filters have changed since the report (around
1992).
I was a satisfied Fram user for many years . One of my current vehicles,
a 1997 Ford Expedition seems to be particularly sensitive to the
anti-drain back valve. The filter specified by Ford (Motorcraft FL-820S)
uses a silicone anti-drain back valve. By mistake I used a Motorcraft
Filter without the silicone valve (FL-820) and got some significant
chain rattle on start-up a couple of times. There is no way that I can
prove that this was related to the anti-drain back valve, but it has
never happen since I started making sure I only use the correct filter.
The Fram filter equivalent to the FL-820 (an "Extra Guard Filter") does
not include a silicone anti-drain back valve. Fram does make a line of
filters that includes the silicone anti-drain back valve (the "Tough
Guard"). These cost more than the correct Motorcraft Filters for my
Expedition, so I don't buy them. If they cost the same, I would not
hesitate to buy them.
It does trouble me that Fram markets several lines of filters. I always
felt that a filter was either good enough or not. I never felt that more
filter than was necessary was really worth paying for. If the Extra
Guard line is good enough, I am not sure why Fram feels the need to
market the Tough Guard and Double Guard lines. If the Tough Guard Line
is what is needed, then how can Fram justify the Extra Guard line?
There are lots of studies done by individuals available available
on-line. A few I have read are listed below:
http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~davel/volvo/faq/oilsfilters.html#filter
http://www.tech2tech.net/library/oilfiltr.htm
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/8384/filter.html
http://www.li.net/~rsalerno/oilfilter.htm
http://www.c-edge.com/shotimes/SHO3oilfilter.html
http://members.xoom.com/minimopar/oilfilters.html
http://www.mr2.com/TEXT/oil_filter_test.html
http://www.amsoil.com/products/sdf.html
Only the last two ( the last one an Amsoil ad) have any figures that
compare filtering efficiency and capacity. Fram filters did not do
particularly well in the comparisons, but they were not the worst
either. None of the references listed above really tell me what I need
to know...What is required to protect my engine? How much filtering
efficiency is needed? How much capacity is necessary for my vehicle? It
seems to me that removing particles too small to damage my engine is not
an advantage and having filtering capacity that I never need is just a
waste of money. More is not necessarily better. All the talk about what
looks good (thicker cans, paper end caps, etc.) does not persuade me
that the filters are necessarily better, at least in terms of what is
really required to do the job.
I believe that FRAM filters when used properly according to FRAM's
application guide will meet the vehicle manufacturer's specifications.
If you change your oil and filter according to the vehicle
manufacturer's recommendation, I think Fram filters will be just fine in
almost all applications.
Having said all this, I will add one caveat, I have no problem using
Fram filters on my everyday cars and trucks (as long as they are price
competitive), but there is no way, no how I will use them on my farm
Poida
who used a non genuine filter on his Toyota. It burst and, obviously, pumped
all the oil out of the engine. When he complained to the manufacturer he was
told they would arrange to rebuild the engine, but with non-genuine parts.
His local Toyota dealer told him if it was a genuine filter that had burst
then they would rebuild entirely with new, GENUINE parts.
*that's* why I use only genuine oil filters...
"Marcus Toups" <stro...@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:3896747F...@cox-internet.com...
>
>
> C E White wrote:
> >
> SNIP
>
> but there is no way, no how I will use them on my farm
> > equipment.
> >
> > As always just my opinion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed White
>
> A Wix man, eh?
C. E. White
>
> C E White wrote:
> >
> SNIP
>
> but there is no way, no how I will use them on my farm
> > equipment.
> >
> > As always just my opinion.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ed White
>
> A Wix man, eh?
For my farm tractors I always buy from the tractor dealer. I do use Wix
Air Filters on my old Dodge Dump Truck. In fact I have even used Fram
oil filters on the Dodge. Of course it only goes about 200 miles a
years...although they are all incredibly dusty miles.
I have no idea who manufacturer's the tractor filters. My larger tractor
has 4 oil filters for the hydraulic system, two fuel filters and a water
separator for the fuel system, 1 coolant filter for the cooling system,
1 oil filter for the engine and 2 air filters and a dirt separator for
the engine. Until recently they were all incredibly cheap (at least I
thought so) when purchased from the dealer. The engine oil filter when
purchased from the dealer used to be only $6.00. It was at least three
times the size of a PH-8A. Recently the prices have all gone up, but not
outrageously so. I think the engine filter is still under $10.00.
Regards,
Ed
RGM
says...
> If the Extra
> Guard line is good enough, I am not sure why Fram feels the need to
> market the Tough Guard and Double Guard lines. If the Tough Guard Line
> is what is needed, then how can Fram justify the Extra Guard line?
>
It's the ones construction workers should use. You know, out there all
day sweating and then driving them big burly trucks over dirt and all....
That's the only sense I've made of frams line even while I was using
fram. Went back to the Motorcraft.. .same one you mentioned.
--
Rich - StoneCry
#sawhorse On Undernet.org IRC
stonecrie.P...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~stonecrie
C. E. White
>
> I would still rather use a genuine filter on any of my cars. I had a friend
> who used a non genuine filter on his Toyota. It burst and, obviously, pumped
> all the oil out of the engine. When he complained to the manufacturer he was
> told they would arrange to rebuild the engine, but with non-genuine parts.
> His local Toyota dealer told him if it was a genuine filter that had burst
> then they would rebuild entirely with new, GENUINE parts.
> *that's* why I use only genuine oil filters...
If the filter that burst was not defective and was the correct one for
the application, then the dealer cannot refuse warranty service because
it is not an OEM filter. If the dealer implied that he was going to
repair my engine with sub-standard parts because I used an after market
filter, I would definitely contact the manufacturer and start thinking
about hiring a lawyer. I see five possibilities:
1) The filter meet the vehicle manufacturer's specifications and failed
because of an engine problem (maybe a stuck relief valve). In this case
the dealer is responsible for carrying out the warranty repairs
according to the normal procedures.
2) The filter was designed to meet the vehicle manufacturer's
specifications but failed because it was defective. In this case the
dealer might refuse to do the repairs and the filter manufacturer would
be responsible for the damages. You would need a statement from the
dealer in writing that the filter was defective and it might get messy
with the filter company (i.e., you'd need a lawyer).
3) The filter meet the vehicle manufacturer's specifications and failed
because you used the wrong weight oil. A failure like this would be the
vehicle owner's fault and he alone would be responsible for the cost of
repairs. Of course a "smart" owner would make sure no one got any of the
oil actually used in the engine at the time of the failure so nothing
could be proved. In this case 1 or 2 above would apply.
4) The vehicle owner used the wrong filter. A failure like this would be
the owner's fault and they alone would be responsible for the cost of
repairs.
5) The filter manufacturer specified a filter which does not meet the
vehicle manufacturer's specifications. The filter manufacturer would be
responsible for the damages. You would need a statement from the vehicle
manufacturer in writing that the filter did not meet OEM specifications
and it might get messy with the filter company.
For more information on warranties take a look at:
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/warranty/undrstnd.htm .
Regards,
Ed White
Bill Funk
> Poida wrote:
> >
> > I would still rather use a genuine filter on any of my cars. I had a friend
> > who used a non genuine filter on his Toyota. It burst and, obviously, pumped
> > all the oil out of the engine. When he complained to the manufacturer he was
> > told they would arrange to rebuild the engine, but with non-genuine parts.
> > His local Toyota dealer told him if it was a genuine filter that had burst
> > then they would rebuild entirely with new, GENUINE parts.
> > *that's* why I use only genuine oil filters...
>
> If the filter that burst was not defective and was the correct one for
> the application, then the dealer cannot refuse warranty service because
> it is not an OEM filter. If the dealer implied that he was going to
> repair my engine with sub-standard parts because I used an after market
> filter, I would definitely contact the manufacturer and start thinking
> about hiring a lawyer. I see five possibilities:
...
> Ed White
That's what I thought when I first read the post.
However, closer reading says his friend contacted the Manufacturer, not Toyota,
and the manufacturer put the limitations on rebuilding the engine. That would be
the manufacturer of the filter, not the car.
Note, the friend then went to Toyota, and was told that if a *Toyota* filter had
burst, they would have rebuilt the engine using genuine Toyota parts (DOH!).
--
Bill Funk
Doesn't a lightning rod
on a church steeple
show a lack of faith?
C. E. White
You are right. At least the filter manufacturer did agree to rebuild the
engine. I would think they have the responsibility to return the engine
to a condition equivalent to what is was when the filter failed. I don't
think this means using Toyota parts, but the parts should at least be
equivalent in quality. I guess this could lead to a long argument like
people have with Insurance Companies who decide to use non-OEM parts. I
wonder if you could not win this argument if you really pressed your
case. On the other hand, if the engine had a lot of miles on it, a
rebuild with new parts (even non-Toyota parts) would probably be a good
thing. By the way, buying parts at the Toyota dealership does not
guarantee that they were manufactured the same as the original parts.
Last time I bought parts for my ex-wife's Toyota they were marked made
in USA. I doubt the original parts in Her Japanese built Cressida were
made in the USA.
Regards,
Ed White
Tony W.
will start to put AC oil filter on my car . That seems like the best
filter for the money. I change my oil every 3000 miles or sooner. So
this aftermarket filter should be good...All the tests indicate that the
AC oil filters are good.
Lmvine1
>AC oil filters are good.
Please let us know whose tests?
This site shows Honda filters to appear pretty good
http://www.tech2tech.net/library/oilfiltr.htm
Achim Nolcken Lohse
<cewh...@interpath.com> wrote:
...
> By the way, buying parts at the Toyota dealership does not
>guarantee that they were manufactured the same as the original parts.
And not only Toyota. While my '95 Geo Tracker was being serviced under
warranty a couple of years ago, the dealer crossthreaded the
transmission oil drain plug (and claimed no such thing had happened).
Last year I went to another dealer and finally got the proof after
replacing the plug (not that it did any good, the new dealer
maintained it was "just overtorqued, not crossthreaded"). The
interesting part is that neither GM nor Suzuki carry the stock
transmission drain plugs, which have a magnetic core, and routinely
replace these plugs with filler plugs, which have none.
Sometimes this kind of substitution can be life-threatening for the
user. I encountered such a situation some years back when I ordered
replacement front axle bolts for my Honda XL600 motorbike from the
largest Honda MC dealer in western Canada. I had to wait two weeks
and pay through the nose to get these four bolts through the mail from
Calgary, since no-one in town had any high-grade bolts of the right
dimensions. When I bolted them on with my micrometer torque wrench at
10 ft-lbs, the bolts lost their threads and took the fork threads with
them.
When I phoned the Honda parts person in Calgary with blood in my eye,
and asked what the hell he'd sent me (I'd specified the exact part
number from the Honda parts fiche), he replied that he'd sent Honda
lawnmower bolts (without asking or advising me of the substitution)
because the original MC parts were too pricey to stock!!
I ended up having to get the fork bolt holes rethreaded and bolts
custom made for them, and consider myself lucky the threads didn't
hold until I got on the highway doing 100km/hr!
Achim
Captain Nemo
filters for their ability to screen out various sized
particles. As I recall, Fram was rated best or nearly best
of all, including both the automakers' branded filters and
the various labels carried in your parts store. This was
the older Fram filters, before their new premium higher-
priced line was available. I think the CR report was 10
years ago, so things may have changed -- but it's still
more concrete than someone's opinion that "such-and-such is
junk".
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
mred
Poida <fredp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6CBl4.216$ur5....@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
> I would still rather use a genuine filter on any of my cars. I had a
friend
> who used a non genuine filter on his Toyota. It burst and, obviously,
pumped
> all the oil out of the engine. When he complained to the manufacturer he
was
> told they would arrange to rebuild the engine, but with non-genuine parts.
> His local Toyota dealer told him if it was a genuine filter that had burst
> then they would rebuild entirely with new, GENUINE parts.
> *that's* why I use only genuine oil filters...
about using OEM filters or oil.
ed/ontario.kanada
Bror Jace
find that AC filters were rated highest by that dude. I
hacked one apart several years ago and after seeing its
guts I wouldn't put one on my car if you GAVE it to me.
Fram filters were just as bad. The insides had a very cheap
feel and the internal canister end caps were CARDBOARD
while better filters used steel. Also, some filters have a
real coiled spring in them to hold everything in place
while the cheapies (like AC and Fram) used a bent piece of
spring steel. Some REAL cheap filters (Group 7?) don't even
have the required anti-drain-back valve. Not good.
So, if the Fram filters did well in a Consumer Reports
test, I couldn't care less. If those cardboard seams give,
the pump will only be circulating dirty oil. I doubt the
C.U. test gave the filter surges, cold start ups, etc ...
they probably only tested under very controlled
circumstances and with a steady flow.
I use mostly OEM filters with the occasional WIX or NAPA
Gold (they are the same thing) which are the best of the
aftermarket filters that I have examined.
--- Bror Jace
Tony W.
say something different. One guy says AC is a very good filter and has
metal end caps and another say they are basically same as Fram. I have
saw about 4 independent tests on oil filters and most of them say AC and
Purolator are the better 3 dollar filters. I guess you have to make a
decision for yourself when it concerns oil filters. My mother has
220,000 miles on her accord and it has only seen FRAM filters and
Castrol GTX. I believe if you change oil regular it really don't matter
what kind oil filters you use.
David Cooley
Poida wrote:
>
> I don't think I made myself clear, the manufacturer he complained to was the
> manufacturer of the oil filter.
> If he had used a genuine Toyota oil filter and it had burst then Toyota
> would rebuild the engine with new parts.
> The manufacturer of the oil filter was not compelled to do so. They only to
> had to repair the engine, but were not required to use new, genuine parts.
> Toyota obviously were not obligated to repair the engine free of charge as a
> non-genuine oil filter had caused the engine failure.
> If it can be proven that a non-genuine part caused a failure then the
> manufacturer has the right to refuse a warranty claim on the failed
> component
Federal law says they cannot!
If the aftermarket part is the proper one for the vehicle/engine etc,
the manufacturer of the vehicle *HAS* to honor their warranty. If the
part used that failed is not listed as the proper part for the vehicle,
then the owner would be liable.
Why don't you just go to http://www.sema.org/ and read it for yourself.
It's Federal law!
C. E. White
> Federal law says they cannot!
> If the aftermarket part is the proper one for the vehicle/engine etc,
> the manufacturer of the vehicle *HAS* to honor their warranty. If the
> part used that failed is not listed as the proper part for the vehicle,
> then the owner would be liable.
> Why don't you just go to http://www.sema.org/ and read it for yourself.
> It's Federal law!
The direct link is http://www.sema.org/fedleg/warranty/warranty.html .
Also look at http://www.sema.org/fedleg/warranty/atta.html . I don't
things are quite as straight forward as you think they are. I am not a
lawyer, but the act certainly seems to have enough wiggle room for the
manufacturer's that they can make things uncomfortable for you if your
vehicle fails and there is a non-OEM part that can be related to the
failure.
Bill Funk
> Poida wrote:
> >
> > I don't think I made myself clear, the manufacturer he complained to was the
> > manufacturer of the oil filter.
> > If he had used a genuine Toyota oil filter and it had burst then Toyota
> > would rebuild the engine with new parts.
> > The manufacturer of the oil filter was not compelled to do so. They only to
> > had to repair the engine, but were not required to use new, genuine parts.
> > Toyota obviously were not obligated to repair the engine free of charge as a
> > non-genuine oil filter had caused the engine failure.
> > If it can be proven that a non-genuine part caused a failure then the
> > manufacturer has the right to refuse a warranty claim on the failed
> > component
>
> Federal law says they cannot!
> If the aftermarket part is the proper one for the vehicle/engine etc,
> the manufacturer of the vehicle *HAS* to honor their warranty. If the
> part used that failed is not listed as the proper part for the vehicle,
> then the owner would be liable.
> Why don't you just go to http://www.sema.org/ and read it for yourself.
> It's Federal law!
Nope, not if it's the non-genuine part that *caused* the failure.
In this case, it was a non-genuine (non-Toyota_ filter that burst, causeing the
engine damage.
The SEMA site says (in part):
" SPECIALTY AUTO PARTS
CONSUMERS BILL OF RIGHTS
Your Rights to Personalize Your Vehicle
ARTICLE ONE:
You have the Right to buy high-quality, reliable
aftermarket performance and specialty parts,
accessories and styling options.
ARTICLE TWO:
You have the Right to use high-quality
aftermarket parts and know that your new car
warranty claims will be honored. In fact, your
vehicle dealer may not reject a warranty claim
simply because an aftermarket product is
present. A warranty denial under such
circumstances may be proper only if an
aftermarket part caused the failure being
claimed. "
Read that Article Two carefully, and you will see that it's saying that a warranty
claim can't be denied because of the *presence* of an aftermarket part, but it can
be denied if the aftermarket part *caused* the failure, as in the case being
discussed.
David Cooley
Bill Funk wrote:
>
>
> Read that Article Two carefully, and you will see that it's saying that a warranty
> claim can't be denied because of the *presence* of an aftermarket part, but it can
> be denied if the aftermarket part *caused* the failure, as in the case being
> discussed.
And it also says further down that if a Non-OEM, but proper aftermarket
part causes a failure, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to
repair/replace the damaged component. It doesn't say it gives them the
right to use Non-OEM parts to rebuild the engine that they destroyed.
Bill Funk
It also doesn't say that the consumer has the right to OEM parts in such a case.
Poida
parts....Thats my point.
I think its fairly simple, I use a genuine oil filter, but use a high
quality synthetic oil (Amsoil).
That, I believe, is the safest option for a car under
manufacturers warranty.
"David Cooley" <n5...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:389A1635...@bellsouth.net...
Poida
certification. Check facts, not newsgroups.....
Anyway, it would only void the warranty if the oil
*caused* a failure.
"Mr. Fun" <gri...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:r2pk9sk56430nma1r...@4ax.com...
> Yet many have posted that Amsoil is NOT API certified, which
> would void your warranty.
Robert Charron
wrote:
>Actually, Consumer Reports some years back studied oil
>filters for their ability to screen out various sized
>particles. As I recall, Fram was rated best or nearly best
>of all, including both the automakers' branded filters and
>the various labels carried in your parts store. This was
>the older Fram filters, before their new premium higher-
>priced line was available. I think the CR report was 10
>years ago, so things may have changed -- but it's still
>more concrete than someone's opinion that "such-and-such is
>junk".
>
FYI,
When that report came out, all the manufacturer (Except FRAM of course) asked
Consumer Reports to provide details on the methods used to test the oil filters
but Consumer Reports never responded.
Fram has not changed the way they make their filters since late 1981. Their
distinctive marks are the use of cardboard end plates to both end of the
filtering cartridge compared to the others who use metal or synthethics(molded)
end plates. To see this you have to cut open the filter canister on spin-on
types.
Please Note that the type of filtering media used in a filter is not a warranty
of performance (Synthetic versus Cellulose filtering media) any more than the
quantity of media used.
The performance of a filter cannot be evaluated by just cutting open a filter.
Expensive lab equipment and strict procedures are the only way to compare apples
to apples.
There are 2 test that were designed by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers)
to evaluate the filtering performances of full flow oil filter. Those were
designed to simulate the working conditions of an oil filters on an engine. Both
tests are widely used an accepted by the industry.
SAE J806 Oil filter testings procedures
Single pass
1 Covers all aspects of oil filter testing procedures
2 The most important aspects and the most reported data relates to
filtration performance.
3 Filter Capacity and Contaminant Removal Characteristics of Full Flow
filters.
3a Oil is circulated through the filter at a prescribe rate.
3b Contaminants (AC Fine test Dust or Soft C2A) is added to the oil
continuously at a controlled rate.
3c Oil samples are taken every 4 hours.
3d Test is terminated when the pressure drop across the filter reaches a
predetermined value (normally the filter by-pass valve setting).
3e The oil samples taken during and at the end of the test are filtered to
determine the weight of contaminant in the oil. As the weight of the
contaminant added to the oil is known, we are able to determine the
weight of contaminant remove by the filter at each 4 hour sample point
and at the end of the test. This allows the filter efficiencies and
average efficiency to be calculated.
SAE J1858 Oil filter testing procedures
1 Multi pass procedure for lube oil filters covers filtration and life
performance only.
2 Review of procedure.
2a Similar to J806 with respect to oil circulation and contaminant
addition.
2b The test is concluded, as is J806, when the pressure drop across the
filter reaches a predetermined value (normally the filter by-pass valve
setting).
2c The contaminant used is usually AC Fine Test Dust.
2d The contaminant capacity reported is the weight added to the oil sump.
2e However, rather than sampling and weighing the contaminant to determine
filtration efficiency, particles in the fluid streams ahead and after
the test filter are counted and measured.
2f The filtration efficiency reported from this procedure is called the
Beta Ratio. It is the ratio of the number of particles of a given size
and larger in the fluid on the inlet side of the filter divided by the
number of particles of the same size on the outlet side of the filter.
Best regards from Montreal, Canada
Poida
Amsoil IS 'certified', as I stated, they were the first.
check out this page from the American Petroleum Institute (API).
This may help the confusion as to what is 'certified' and whats not.
http://www.api.org/cgi-bin/eolcs_li.cgi?o=C&b=amsoil
"Mr. Fun" <gri...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:veqk9ssucu7gal1jc...@4ax.com...
> Their site does NOT say "Certified". It says "rated". It
> is not the same thing. Their lack of certification has been
> pointed out many times.
Bill S.
Bror Jace
Well, I haven't cut up an AC Delco filter in a few years
but the ones I've looked at recently in parts stores didn't
SEEM to be put together any better than they used to. Ditto
for Fram.
After you've dealt with cars, car parts, tools and other
machines and mechanisms, you get a 'feel' for what's good
and what's not just by handling and them while performing a
close, visual inspection. Sure, this is not a perfect way
of judging quality and performance but my instincts in this
regard have served me very well over the years.
So, I trust things that look and feel as though they were
put together properly more than some test that proclaims a
chinsy-feeling filter with cardboard innards the best.
Besides, those 'better built' filters (WIX/NAPA Gold) have
different tests to show that they perform better overall
and I've heard some other folks 'pooh pooh' the single
bypass tests as not terribly indicative of real-world
performance. I tend to agree.
Anyway, filters, like buying better oil, is a matter of
extra insurance. Your car MAY get by fine on the cheap
stuff. Me? I like to be a little extra careful with my ride
and I don't mind spending a little bit more on some things.
Ron Margalit
"Bror Jace" <brorjace...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:070dbf92...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com...
> I saw that Minimopar site a while back and was surprised to
> find that AC filters were rated highest by that dude. I
> hacked one apart several years ago and after seeing its
> guts I wouldn't put one on my car if you GAVE it to me.
> Fram filters were just as bad. The insides had a very cheap
> feel and the internal canister end caps were CARDBOARD
> while better filters used steel. Also, some filters have a
> real coiled spring in them to hold everything in place
> while the cheapies (like AC and Fram) used a bent piece of
> spring steel. Some REAL cheap filters (Group 7?) don't even
> have the required anti-drain-back valve. Not good.
>
> So, if the Fram filters did well in a Consumer Reports
> test, I couldn't care less. If those cardboard seams give,
> the pump will only be circulating dirty oil. I doubt the
> C.U. test gave the filter surges, cold start ups, etc ...
> they probably only tested under very controlled
> circumstances and with a steady flow.
>
> I use mostly OEM filters with the occasional WIX or NAPA
> Gold (they are the same thing) which are the best of the
> aftermarket filters that I have examined.
>
Windsor Fox
> For my farm tractors I always buy from the tractor dealer. I do use Wix
> Air Filters on my old Dodge Dump Truck. In fact I have even used Fram
> oil filters on the Dodge. Of course it only goes about 200 miles a
> years...although they are all incredibly dusty miles.
>
> I have no idea who manufacturer's the tractor filters. My larger tractor
> has 4 oil filters for the hydraulic system, two fuel filters and a water
> separator for the fuel system, 1 coolant filter for the cooling system,
> 1 oil filter for the engine and 2 air filters and a dirt separator for
> the engine. Until recently they were all incredibly cheap (at least I
> thought so) when purchased from the dealer. The engine oil filter when
> purchased from the dealer used to be only $6.00. It was at least three
> times the size of a PH-8A. Recently the prices have all gone up, but not
> outrageously so. I think the engine filter is still under $10.00.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed
Wix is a pretty good filter. Well made and exceeds oem specs. If you used
an Edelbrock or Amsoil 2 stage foam air filter, you could clean and reuse
them.
Windsor Fox
> I would still rather use a genuine filter on any of my cars. I had a friend
> who used a non genuine filter on his Toyota. It burst and, obviously, pumped
> all the oil out of the engine. When he complained to the manufacturer he was
> told they would arrange to rebuild the engine, but with non-genuine parts.
> His local Toyota dealer told him if it was a genuine filter that had burst
> then they would rebuild entirely with new, GENUINE parts.
> *that's* why I use only genuine oil filters...
>
Interestingly, in the filtration tests, the Toyota "GENUINE" filter did the
worst over all. LOL
Windsor Fox
> mred wrote:
> >
>
> > Seems strange: why would they say that.?there`s nothing in the owners manual
> > about using OEM filters or oil.
> >
>
> Plus,
> The Magnusson-Moss warranty act states that the manufacturer cannot
> place conditions on the warranty based on whether you use factory or
> aftermarket replacement parts, unless they are willing to give the
> factory parts to you for free.
> (check out http://www.sema.org/ for more info)
Also the "genuine" parts used at a dealer are made by the same companies that make
the parts anywhere else. Ford doesn't make their own oil filters...
Windsor Fox
> Yet many have posted that Amsoil is NOT API certified, which
> would void your warranty.
>
No, it does not void your warranty, and all Amsoil products far exceed API
specs, Amsoil does not choose to pay API to give them <the API> their secret
formulas to have the star burst symbol on thier top shelf oil. Red line Synergen
etc. do not have API star bursts either, all for the same obvious reasons.
Windsor Fox
> Their site does NOT say "Certified". It says "rated". It
> is not the same thing. Their lack of certification has been
> pointed out many times.
XL 7500 is certified. It has the star burst and You and I both know why the 2000
is not certified. You work for Chevron?
Dean
SAE/API requirements and will not invalidate car manufactures warranty if
used per their maintenance schedule.
Dean
> would void your warranty.
>
>
Dean
construction, I suggest AMSOIL oil filters. They are expensive but very much
worth their price and more considering the cost of engines and repairs.
(However, they are designed to work best with synthetic engine oils).
Ron Margalit <rmar...@pcstar.com> wrote in message
news:s9m00h...@corp.supernews.com...
Dilip Khatri
Initially I used to get my oil change from dealer. Now it I go
local franchises for oil change just because you don't need a
appt. and is quick as opposed to dealer. Once the dealer
told me if you want get your oil changed some where
else just buy the filter from us. The filter the dealer
sell is made in japan by honda and it cost like $13 or so ?
Any analysis for those made in japan oil filters ?
Thanks.
DK.
C E White wrote:
> I am always amazed how passionate people can be about simple things like
> oil filters. I wish there was a current, authoritative, independent
> test of filters available. Consumer Reports did publish a report, but
> it was so long ago that it is not in the on-line Consumer Reports
> database and many of the filters have changed since the report (around
> 1992).
>
> I was a satisfied Fram user for many years . One of my current vehicles,
> a 1997 Ford Expedition seems to be particularly sensitive to the
> anti-drain back valve. The filter specified by Ford (Motorcraft FL-820S)
> uses a silicone anti-drain back valve. By mistake I used a Motorcraft
> Filter without the silicone valve (FL-820) and got some significant
> chain rattle on start-up a couple of times. There is no way that I can
> prove that this was related to the anti-drain back valve, but it has
> never happen since I started making sure I only use the correct filter.
> The Fram filter equivalent to the FL-820 (an "Extra Guard Filter") does
> not include a silicone anti-drain back valve. Fram does make a line of
> filters that includes the silicone anti-drain back valve (the "Tough
> Guard"). These cost more than the correct Motorcraft Filters for my
> Expedition, so I don't buy them. If they cost the same, I would not
> hesitate to buy them.
>
> It does trouble me that Fram markets several lines of filters. I always
> felt that a filter was either good enough or not. I never felt that more
> filter than was necessary was really worth paying for. If the Extra
> Guard line is good enough, I am not sure why Fram feels the need to
> market the Tough Guard and Double Guard lines. If the Tough Guard Line
> is what is needed, then how can Fram justify the Extra Guard line?
>
> There are lots of studies done by individuals available available
> on-line. A few I have read are listed below:
>
> http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~davel/volvo/faq/oilsfilters.html#filter
>
> http://www.tech2tech.net/library/oilfiltr.htm
>
> http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/8384/filter.html
>
> http://www.li.net/~rsalerno/oilfilter.htm
>
> http://www.c-edge.com/shotimes/SHO3oilfilter.html
>
> http://members.xoom.com/minimopar/oilfilters.html
>
> http://www.mr2.com/TEXT/oil_filter_test.html
>
> http://www.amsoil.com/products/sdf.html
>
> Only the last two ( the last one an Amsoil ad) have any figures that
> compare filtering efficiency and capacity. Fram filters did not do
> particularly well in the comparisons, but they were not the worst
> either. None of the references listed above really tell me what I need
> to know...What is required to protect my engine? How much filtering
> efficiency is needed? How much capacity is necessary for my vehicle? It
> seems to me that removing particles too small to damage my engine is not
> an advantage and having filtering capacity that I never need is just a
> waste of money. More is not necessarily better. All the talk about what
> looks good (thicker cans, paper end caps, etc.) does not persuade me
> that the filters are necessarily better, at least in terms of what is
> really required to do the job.
>
> I believe that FRAM filters when used properly according to FRAM's
> application guide will meet the vehicle manufacturer's specifications.
> If you change your oil and filter according to the vehicle
> manufacturer's recommendation, I think Fram filters will be just fine in
> almost all applications.
>
> Having said all this, I will add one caveat, I have no problem using
> Fram filters on my everyday cars and trucks (as long as they are price
> competitive), but there is no way, no how I will use them on my farm
> equipment.
>
> As always just my opinion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
rm
No. The filter manufacturer Honda uses, 'Filtech' may be owned my
FRAM at a corporate level, but the blue Honda filter is NOT the same
POS orange filter you can buy at walmart.
Just comparing the two, side by side:
Honda filter is bigger
Honda filter is heavier
Honda filter uses moulded gasket (vs cheap o-ring)
And if you cut the filter open, you would find that the honda filter
has more filter area, more folds, and does not use the cheap cardboard
end-caps that fram does in their orange filters.
That's like saying that 'chevy cavalier uses corvette engine'...it
may be the same company, but the technology is waaay different.
C E White
Windsor Fox wrote:
One of those K&N Filters would not last one day when we are picking peanuts. I
would never consider using one on any on my farm eqipment. I suppose people
cruising down paved roads can take a chance with a third rate filter. I can't.
This is my opinion and you are free to feel otherwise as long as you don't
expect me to pay for your ruined engine.
Regards,
Ed White
C E White
Windsor Fox wrote:
> David Cooley wrote:
>
> Also the "genuine" parts used at a dealer are made by the same companies that make
> the parts anywhere else. Ford doesn't make their own oil filters...
I don't see what this has to do with anything. I assume Ford has specifications for
the filters it sells and has them manufactureed to those specs.
Regards,
Ed White
C E White
and AMSOIL, Superior, WI 54880 are as follows:
API Service Symbol
Licensee is authorized to display the API Service Symbol on the following
products:
Energy Conserving may be displayed only on products noted with an asterisk (*).
BRAND NAME SAE VISCOSITY GRADE SERVICE CATEGORY
AMSOIL PCO 15W-40 SJ/CH-4
AMSOIL XL-7500 10W-30 SJ/CF*
AMSOIL XL-7500 5W-30 SJ/CF*
*Energy Conserving
License No. 0995
Schedule A - License Agreement (Click here to see entire license.)
The Certification Marks referred to and licensed under the agreement between API
and AMSOIL, Superior, WI 54880 are as follows:
API Certification Mark
Licensee is authorized to display the API Certification Mark on the following
products:
BRAND NAME SAE VISCOSITY GRADE
AMSOIL XL-7500 10W-30
AMSOIL XL-7500 5W-30
For more information, send e-mail to: eo...@api.org
Tony W.
filter manufacturer that makes filters for Honda. Fram also makes them
for Honda. Fram sent me a letter concerning Filtech and how in no way
they are associated with Fram. I can FWD the letter to anyone who wants.
Max MitEclipse
better than FRAM?
Windsor Fox
> What Oil filter are recommended for Acuras ? I have Acura Legend ?
> Initially I used to get my oil change from dealer. Now it I go
> local franchises for oil change just because you don't need a
> appt. and is quick as opposed to dealer. Once the dealer
> told me if you want get your oil changed some where
> else just buy the filter from us. The filter the dealer
> sell is made in japan by honda and it cost like $13 or so ?
> Any analysis for those made in japan oil filters ?
>
> Thanks.
> DK.
>
> C E White wrote:
The filter at the Acura dealer is identical to the one at the Honda dealer
which is made by Fram....
Windsor Fox
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:16:17 GMT, Windsor Fox
> <windsorf...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >David Cooley wrote:
> >
> >> mred wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Seems strange: why would they say that.?there`s nothing in the owners manual
> >> > about using OEM filters or oil.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Plus,
> >> The Magnusson-Moss warranty act states that the manufacturer cannot
> >> place conditions on the warranty based on whether you use factory or
> >> aftermarket replacement parts, unless they are willing to give the
> >> factory parts to you for free.
> >> (check out http://www.sema.org/ for more info)
> >
> >Also the "genuine" parts used at a dealer are made by the same companies that make
> >the parts anywhere else. Ford doesn't make their own oil filters...
> >
>
> But, the Ford filter made XX will be made to different specifications
> than the off-the-shelf filter from Fram.
>
> Cut open a Honda filter and a Fram (Fram makes some of the Honda
> filters). There are night and day differences. Such as cardboard end
> caps for the Fram, metal for the Honda; Overall you can tell the
> Honda is a more quality filter.
>
> -
> --
> -----------------------------------
> Curtis Newton
> cnewton<remove-me>@akamail.com
> http://cnewton.home.mindspring.com
> -----------------------------------
>
> Due to USENET spamming, I had to modify
> my reply to email address.
>
> Please delete "remove-me" to reply.
>
> By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
> the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
> unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
> Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
> punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
> is greater, for each violation.
Maybe this is why Fram has the good gooder and goodest filters now. Someone read the
minimopar site and said "Oh shit, everyone knows our product is crap now" and that is
the begaining of damage control. In which case thaey will phase out the card board end
caps. Just a thought.
Windsor Fox
> Windsor Fox wrote:
>
> > David Cooley wrote:
> >
> > Also the "genuine" parts used at a dealer are made by the same companies that make
> > the parts anywhere else. Ford doesn't make their own oil filters...
>
> I don't see what this has to do with anything. I assume Ford has specifications for
> the filters it sells and has them manufactureed to those specs.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
We hope...
Windsor Fox
> One of those K&N Filters would not last one day when we are picking peanuts. I
> would never consider using one on any on my farm eqipment. I suppose people
> cruising down paved roads can take a chance with a third rate filter. I can't.
> This is my opinion and you are free to feel otherwise as long as you don't
> expect me to pay for your ruined engine.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
So you are saying that a K&N is a 3rd rate filter?? K&N is the filter used by
most of the Baja racers. They use them for that very reason so they can clean
them every day or more often if needed rather than replacing it. I doubt you kick
up much if any more dust than following someone at 80MPH in the desert...
Windsor Fox
> Don't work for Chevron or any other oil company and have no idea why
> they would not invest in the certification for the regular line of
> oil. What do you think the reason is?
A small company like Red Line or Amsoil is not going to give their secret formula to
the API. And if you don't know why you need to go figure it out for yourself.
C E White
Dilip Khatri wrote:
> What Oil filter are recommended for Acuras ? I have Acura Legend ?
> Initially I used to get my oil change from dealer. Now it I go
> local franchises for oil change just because you don't need a
> appt. and is quick as opposed to dealer. Once the dealer
> told me if you want get your oil changed some where
> else just buy the filter from us. The filter the dealer
> sell is made in japan by honda and it cost like $13 or so ?
> Any analysis for those made in japan oil filters ?
>
> Thanks.
> DK.
It might be interesting to cut open the filter from the Acura dealer and
compare it to Fram's recommended replacement. Looks can be deceiving, but at
least you might get an idea why the dealer's filter costs $13. I have been
using NAPA Gold (made by WIX) filters on my sisters Honda Civc. So far so good
(50,000 miles, oil changed whenever she asks me to, which means when the
service indicator turns yellow). There is no Honda dealer near my farm. I
have a friend who runs a garage and he stocks the NAPA Filters for many
applications. He also stocks Motorcraft and AC Filters, but only has a Honda
filter in the NAPA Gold Line. He doesn't stock many Fram Filters but doesn't
really have a reason why. Maybe he is secretly reading this news group.
Regards,
Ed White
C E White
Windsor Fox wrote:
I guess you have to hope wherever you buy your filters. You have to hope the OEM specs are
good enough, hope that the filter manufacturer actually tries to meet those spec, hope
that you did not buy a defective filter and hope that you actually installed the filter
properly.
Regards,
Ed White
C E White
Windsor Fox wrote:
I don't care what Baja racers use. They can afford to rebuild there engines after
every race or two. I cannot. I expect my tractors to last for years. Come help me
pick peanuts sometime, I'll show you some real dust. And it is not that easy to remove
sand, it is fine stuff. Sometimes when the wind blows the wrong way you can spend
hours riding in a cloud of dust so thick you can't see the end of the hood of the
tractor (thank god for cabs). All the tractors have pre-cleaners. They can get filled
up in one half a day of running. I wish I had a picture of the last main fileter I
tried to clean. Before the advent of modern paper filters, most tractors used oil bath
type filters. You were lucky if you made 1/2 a day with one of those. The oil would
litterally turn to mud and stop doing anything. I was very happy to see the last one
of those go. Interesestingly, if was also the last tractor engine we actually had to
have rebuilt.
Regards,
Ed White
Captain Nemo
be inclined to trust test results based on SAE criteria.
But where can I get these results? I give a lot of weight
to Consumer Reports tests (sneer at me if you like, my wife
will sneer with you) because I have found them generally
reliable. But I'd certainly like to see a comparison of
filters based on the SAE tests.
C E White
Windsor Fox wrote:
> A small company like Red Line or Amsoil is not going to give their secret formula to
> the API. And if you don't know why you need to go figure it out for yourself.
Secret formula? Oh man, this is a lame excuse. Amsoil buys their base stock from one of
those evil big oil companies. If they really wanted to know what was in the Amsoil,
don't you think they have chemist that can figure it out?
From http://www.api.org/programs_services/quality/enginoil.htm :
"The American Petroleum Institute's (API) Quality Marks - the API Service Symbol
("donut") and the API Certification Mark ("starburst") - help consumers identify
quality engine oils for their gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
"API's Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System (EOLCS) is a voluntary licensing
and certification program that authorizes engine oil marketers who meet specified
requirements to use the API Marks on their containers. This program is a cooperative
effort between the oil industry and the vehicle and engine manufacturers represented by
the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, the Japan Automobile Manufacturers
Association, and the Engine Manufacturers Association. Performance requirements, test
methods, and limits are cooperatively established by API, vehicle and engine
manufacturers, and technical societies like the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Oils meeting these
requirements are recommended by vehicle manufacturers.
"The Engine Oil program is backed by an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to
ensure licensees adhere to industry technical specifications. Additionally, the program
ensures that the API registered symbols are properly displayed on containers and convey
accurate information to consumers. Since the inception of this program, more than 500
marketers in 48 countries are using the symbols on more than 5,000 products."
I am sure that Amsoil has reasons for not having API certification on some of their
products that have nothing to do with secret formulas. I personally would not want to
use those particular products. Amsoil does have several products that are API certified
(AMSOIL PCO, AMSOIL XL-7500).
Regards,
Ed White
Chris V
Very true, but for your average joe that is trying to get a little better
filtration (and maybe a little more HP) the K&N is about 15 times better
than a stock filter. For some applications (my GS-R) it is the *ONLY*
aftermarket filter that is "drop in." Quite frankly I don't want to have to
use a filter on a stick in Houston, it is a very good way to suck water
directly into an engine, and that isn't a rebuild it's a replacement.
As always my .02
--Chris
Windsor Fox
> Windsor Fox wrote:
>
> > A small company like Red Line or Amsoil is not going to give their secret formula to
> > the API. And if you don't know why you need to go figure it out for yourself.
>
> Secret formula? Oh man, this is a lame excuse. Amsoil buys their base stock from one of
> those evil big oil companies. If they really wanted to know what was in the Amsoil,
> don't you think they have chemist that can figure it out?
Amsoil does not buy their base stock from any major oil company. Show me the "link" where
you got that info from. The mixture of base stocks are a secret and there is no way that
they are going to release it, and no I do not think a chemist could "figure it out" as
easily as you say. I asked a petrochemist. The only thing I see here that is lame is the
info you have provided. The XL7500 oil does NOT have the same base stock as the series
2000. Are you the guy that said "ATF is nothing more than vegetable oil and alcohol" ? If
not, you missed a good chance...
C E White
Windsor Fox wrote:
You never heard me say what was in ATF. I did not think the API information was lame at all.
It gave a rationale for thinking that buying oil with the porper API certification is a good
thing. You are free to think it is meaningless as long as you are paying the repair bills.
I have nothing against (or for) Amsoil. I have had decent results with the oils I have been
using over the years, but I don't think I would be concerned about using the XL7500 oil. I
would be concerned about using the Amsoil Products that are not API certified.
I am very confident that the chemists at one of the major oil companies could figure out what
is in Amsoil products. I am also very confident that Amsoil buys their base stocks from other
companies. If you read the information on Amsoil's facilities you'll see they don't even own a
refinery. I assume they by base stock made to their specifications from some of the big boys,
blend it and add their special additive package. I would guess the only "seceret" is how
similar their oil is to everyone elses synthetic lubricants. This is not necessarily a bad
thing. Unfortunately not having API certification woul ddefinitely keep me from using the oil
in my engines.
Regards,
Ed White
rm
thanks for the correct information......
Natural Born Cynic
Mr. Fun wrote in message ...
peanuts. I
>>> would never consider using one on any on my farm eqipment. I suppose
people
>>> cruising down paved roads can take a chance with a third rate filter. I
can't.
>>> This is my opinion and you are free to feel otherwise as long as you
don't
>>> expect me to pay for your ruined engine.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ed White
Hell, I'm in Potato Farming Country and one of those K&N filters wouldnt
last a half day in
our neck of the woods. I dont even want to hear anything more about these
Sissy filters
being passed off for everyday use.
You people dont know what GOOD is!
David Cooley
Windsor Fox wrote:
>
> Amsoil does not buy their base stock from any major oil company. Show me the "link" where
> you got that info from. The mixture of base stocks are a secret and there is no way that
> they are going to release it, and no I do not think a chemist could "figure it out" as
> easily as you say. I asked a petrochemist. The only thing I see here that is lame is the
> info you have provided. The XL7500 oil does NOT have the same base stock as the series
> 2000. Are you the guy that said "ATF is nothing more than vegetable oil and alcohol" ? If
> not, you missed a good chance...
First off, I have searched the net and found no reference to any
drilling operations or refining operations that are owned partially or
in full by AMSOIL. Therefore, AMSOIL buys their base stock from someone
that has a drilling/refining plant.
Oil doesn't just materialize at their doorstep.
David Cooley
Windsor Fox wrote:
>
> Maybe this is why Fram has the good gooder and goodest filters now. Someone read the
> minimopar site and said "Oh shit, everyone knows our product is crap now" and that is
> the begaining of damage control. In which case thaey will phase out the card board end
> caps. Just a thought.
They need to phase out the engine destroying teflon filled filters as
well.
Even DuPont states that Teflon particles have no place in an engines
lubrication system.
Stuart & Janet
WANT AND LIVE WITH IT! CEERIPES! Sorry for shouting!
StuK
--
Thunder Snake #11
Remove SPAMATRON9000 to reply by email
Curtis Newton @akamail.com> <cnewton<remove-me> wrote in message
news:r25r9soe5e04vuf1t...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 15:07:13 -0500, C E White <cewh...@interpath.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Dilip Khatri wrote:
> >
> >> What Oil filter are recommended for Acuras ? I have Acura Legend ?
> >> Initially I used to get my oil change from dealer. Now it I go
> >> local franchises for oil change just because you don't need a
> >> appt. and is quick as opposed to dealer. Once the dealer
> >> told me if you want get your oil changed some where
> >> else just buy the filter from us. The filter the dealer
> >> sell is made in japan by honda and it cost like $13 or so ?
> >> Any analysis for those made in japan oil filters ?
> >>
>
>
> p.s. I have an Integra, so perhaps there is a huge difference, but I
> get my filters for $3.75 a filter from the dealer.
Windsor Fox
> Hell, I'm in Potato Farming Country and one of those K&N filters wouldnt
> last a half day in
> our neck of the woods. I dont even want to hear anything more about these
> Sissy filters
> being passed off for everyday use.
> You people dont know what GOOD is!
You sound like a potato farmer. What exactly, in your opinion, makes a K&N,
Accel or Amsoil reusable filter inferior to a cheap paper element filter?
C E White
"Curtis Newton
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 19:43:17 GMT, Windsor Fox
> <windsorf...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Dilip Khatri wrote:
> >
> >> What Oil filter are recommended for Acuras ? I have Acura Legend ?
> >> Initially I used to get my oil change from dealer. Now it I go
> >> local franchises for oil change just because you don't need a
> >> appt. and is quick as opposed to dealer. Once the dealer
> >> told me if you want get your oil changed some where
> >> else just buy the filter from us. The filter the dealer
> >> sell is made in japan by honda and it cost like $13 or so ?
> >> Any analysis for those made in japan oil filters ?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> DK.
> >>
> >> C E White wrote:
> >
> >The filter at the Acura dealer is identical to the one at the Honda dealer
> >which is made by Fram....
> >
> >
>
> You sure???........mine says Filtech on it.
The quotting makes it look like i said that "The filter at the Acura dealer is
identical to the one at the Honda dealer which is made by Fram...."
I didn't say that. I have no idea who makes Honda Filters.
Regards,
Ed White
C E White
Windsor Fox wrote:
I didn't see him say anything about Accel of Amsoil.
Regards,
Ed White
Tony W.
jbs
the general consensus is that fram filters suck. what about fram
double-guard?
J. Davis
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2000 19:49:25 GMT, Windsor Fox
> <windsorf...@home.com> wrote:
> >A small company like Red Line or Amsoil is not going to give their secret formula to
> >the API. And if you don't know why you need to go figure it out for yourself.
> >
>
> Are you serious? You don't think Mobil could have their chemists
> figure their "secret formula " out in a day or two?? I really can't
> believe you are serious. I suppose you believe the oil companies also
> bought up the patents on the 100mpg carburetor too.
A non-organic chemist could use chromotography to deduce themake-up of Amsoil in short
order - an experienced petrochemist can
probably determine it by smell (joke) if they don't already know the
Amsoil secret formula already (serious).
There are breakthroughs to be made in areas of chemistry, but I
fail to see how a small independant company is going to make any
headway in the multi-billion dollar oil arena when the big guys purchase
all the hot chem talent for themselves. If the Amsoil 'secret' formula
was anything uncommon & not heretofore used it would be called
PATENTED.
Amsoil is a small company with a good marketing ploy - and I
am sure their API-cert. oils are of the highest quality - but the non
certified ones would scare me away. Period.
J. Davis
C E White wrote:
> Windsor Fox wrote:
>
> > "C. E. White" wrote:
> > Wix is a pretty good filter. Well made and exceeds oem specs. If you used
> > an Edelbrock or Amsoil 2 stage foam air filter, you could clean and reuse
> > them.
Foam filters clog in *real* short order. In my experience they aren't worth the
laborrequired.
> One of those K&N Filters would not last one day when we are picking peanuts. I
> would never consider using one on any on my farm eqipment. I suppose people
> cruising down paved roads can take a chance with a third rate filter.
The K&N is the best performance air filter - and they come with a lifetime
warranty.
Their use of ionization to adhere dust particles to the filter & filter oil
ensures
that they flow (and filter) better when 'clogged' than a clean foam one. I assure
you, you are mistaken about the K&N.
J. Davis
> For some applications (my GS-R) it is the *ONLY*
> aftermarket filter that is "drop in." Quite frankly I don't want to have to
> use a filter on a stick in Houston, it is a very good way to suck water
> directly into an engine, and that isn't a rebuild it's a replacement.
The 'filter on a stick' setup will work successfully if it is drawing air
from the engine compartment, which is workable if you know you
are flowing outside air into the general vicinity of the filter.
The cold air intake setups that you are thinking of are the ones that
run the filter at/behind the front bumper, and they can be problematic.
Regards,
Joseph
J. Davis
Dilip Khatri wrote:
> The filter the dealer
> sell is made in japan by honda and it cost like $13 or so ?
> Any analysis for those made in japan oil filters ?
If you want discount OEM go to www.hparts.com and have a look.
Fram does make some Honda filters - under contract to Honda spec,
of course.
The Fram that is so crappy is the bottom of the line one, keep in mind.
billk...@hotmail.com
>
> the general consensus is that fram filters suck. what about fram
> double-guard?
You already answered your question. It's a matter to what degree they
suck! Who knows, maybe SOMEBODY makes a worse filter!
C. E. White
>
> C E White wrote:
>
> > Windsor Fox wrote:
> >
> > > "C. E. White" wrote:
> > > Wix is a pretty good filter. Well made and exceeds oem specs. If you used
> > > an Edelbrock or Amsoil 2 stage foam air filter, you could clean and reuse
> > > them.
This quote was not mine. I have used Wix filters and have no problem
with them. I have no intention of using any foam filters on my farm
equipment.
> Foam filters clog in *real* short order. In my experience they aren't worth the
> laborrequired.
>
> > One of those K&N Filters would not last one day when we are picking peanuts. I
> > would never consider using one on any on my farm eqipment. I suppose people
> > cruising down paved roads can take a chance with a third rate filter.
>
> The K&N is the best performance air filter - and they come with a lifetime
> warranty.
And what good does a lifetime warranty on filter do when I have a ruined
engine?
> Their use of ionization to adhere dust particles to the filter & filter oil ensures
> that they flow (and filter) better when 'clogged' than a clean foam one. I assure
> you, you are mistaken about the K&N.
I assure that I am not. Like I said before, you are free to use K&N
Filters on your engines as long as you don't expect me to pay for the
rebuilds. I never said I would even consider using a foam filter on any
of my farm equipment.
Regard,
Ed White
Robert Charron
<cnewton<remove-me>@akamail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Feb 2000 09:44:00 -0800 (PST), mak...@webtv.net (Max
>MitEclipse) wrote:
>
>>Fram filters are ok. They guarantee their filters. Are Pennzoil filters
>>better than FRAM?
>
>
>Made by Fram.
Just an added note to the above
In Canada, Pennzoil filters are made by Purolator
Best regards from Montreal, Canada
sbest
wrote:
>You sound like a potato farmer. What exactly, in your opinion, makes a K&N,
>Accel or Amsoil reusable filter inferior to a cheap paper element filter?
K&N's claim to fame is airflow, not filtering superiority.
For a racecar (or truck) I want absolute airflow, for a potato tractor, I
want absolute filtering. Disposable paper is still a better choice on a
tractor or any other long life, non-ultimate performance vehicle.
Steve Best, Nova Scotia, Canada
4x4 van website:
http://www.glinx.com/users/sbest
Sign up for the 4x4van newslist:
http://www.onelist.com/community/4x4van
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
>
>
> I assure that I am not. Like I said before, you are free to use K&N
> Filters on your engines as long as you don't expect me to pay for the
> rebuilds. I never said I would even consider using a foam filter on any
> of my farm equipment.
>
> Regard,
>
> Ed White
How can you make the assumption when hundreds of racers use them without problem? And I
mean street legal SCCA and weekend warrior draggers. I have used a K&N since 1980 on
different cars.
C. E. White
Experience.
Regards,
Ed White
Achim Nolcken Lohse
<mar...@shibboleth.ioa.com> wrote:
>
>
>C E White wrote:
>
>> Windsor Fox wrote:
>>
>> > "C. E. White" wrote:
>> > Wix is a pretty good filter. Well made and exceeds oem specs. If you used
>> > an Edelbrock or Amsoil 2 stage foam air filter, you could clean and reuse
>> > them.
>
>Foam filters clog in *real* short order. In my experience they aren't worth the
>laborrequired.
>
>> One of those K&N Filters would not last one day when we are picking peanuts. I
>> would never consider using one on any on my farm eqipment. I suppose people
>> cruising down paved roads can take a chance with a third rate filter.
>
>The K&N is the best performance air filter - and they come with a lifetime
>warranty.
>
>Their use of ionization to adhere dust particles to the filter & filter oil
>ensures
>that they flow (and filter) better when 'clogged' than a clean foam one. I assure
>
>you, you are mistaken about the K&N.
>
Never used a K&N, but I run an aftermarket oiled foam filter on my '76
Toyota Landcruiser 2F engine. I've also got an '83 Honda XL600 dual
sport motorbike that collects a lot of dirt. The stock air filter is
oiled foam.
Is that because Honda wants the engine to wear out faster?
Achim
C. E. White
> Never used a K&N, but I run an aftermarket oiled foam filter on my '76
> Toyota Landcruiser 2F engine. I've also got an '83 Honda XL600 dual
> sport motorbike that collects a lot of dirt. The stock air filter is
> oiled foam.
>
> Is that because Honda wants the engine to wear out faster?
My Briggs and Stratton powered lawn mower and my chain saw both use
oiled foam filters. We used to use a lot of Briggs and Stratton Motor on
water pumps. They all used oil foam air cleaners. They also wore out
like crazy. The lawn mower does OK but it is not a severe environment
(at least as far as dust is concerned). The chain saw has to be
continually cleaned but that is not a problem in that application. I
don't know anything about dirt bikes. I do know that there is no way I
would run an oiled foam filter on any of my farm equipment or my regular
truck.
Regards,
Ed White
J. Davis
> "C. E. White" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I assure that I am not. Like I said before, you are free to use K&N
> > Filters on your engines as long as you don't expect me to pay for the
> > rebuilds. I never said I would even consider using a foam filter on any
> > of my farm equipment.
> >
> > Regard,
> >
> > Ed White
>
> How can you make the assumption when hundreds of racers use them without problem? And I
> mean street legal SCCA and weekend warrior draggers. I have used a K&N since 1980 on
> different cars.
You can argue with a farmer... redneck & high tech don't mix in their world.
Alicia Davis
probably would not run one off road because of the cleaning headaches. As for the "redneck &
high tech don't mix" line, you obviously have not been around a modern farm, Have you now? By
the way I am not a farmer but I am around farm country and without high tech, you don't farm.
Jerry Davis
sbest
>> I assure that I am not. Like I said before, you are free to use K&N
>> Filters on your engines as long as you don't expect me to pay for the
>> rebuilds. I never said I would even consider using a foam filter on any
>> of my farm equipment.
>>
>> Regard,
>>
>> Ed White
>
<windsorf...@home.com> wrote:
>How can you make the assumption when hundreds of racers use them without problem? And I
>mean street legal SCCA and weekend warrior draggers. I have used a K&N since 1980 on
>different cars.
Entirely different application.
Not much dirt on drag tracks, SCCA engines do not log in the hours under
as dusty conditions that a farm tractor does. The farmer is looking for
PROTECTION not performance.
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
So the oiled foam filter has to be continually cleaned, athe paper filter
"lasts" a lot longer. Sounds to me that proves the the oiled foam filter
traps a lot more dust than the paper element. Right?
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
> WindsorFox wrote:
>
> > "C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I assure that I am not. Like I said before, you are free to use K&N
> > > Filters on your engines as long as you don't expect me to pay for the
> > > rebuilds. I never said I would even consider using a foam filter on any
> > > of my farm equipment.
> > >
> > > Regard,
> > >
> > > Ed White
> >
> > How can you make the assumption when hundreds of racers use them without problem? And I
> > mean street legal SCCA and weekend warrior draggers. I have used a K&N since 1980 on
> > different cars.
>
> You can argue with a farmer... redneck & high tech don't mix in their world.
He just comes off as being knowledgeable though. I have to admit I never farmed potatos but
the farmers around me use oiled cleanable filters. Many of the heavy equipment people I know
do also. I'd be interested in the experience that says a paper filter is a lot better than an
Amsoil or K&N.
sbest
<windsorf...@home.com> wrote:
>He just comes off as being knowledgeable though. I have to admit I never farmed potatos but
>the farmers around me use oiled cleanable filters. Many of the heavy equipment people I know
>do also. I'd be interested in the experience that says a paper filter is a lot better than an
>Amsoil or K&N.
No, I don't think you would. <WRY GRIN>
C. E. White
> So the oiled foam filter has to be continually cleaned, athe paper filter
> "lasts" a lot longer. Sounds to me that proves the the oiled foam filter
> traps a lot more dust than the paper element. Right?
Foam filters trap all the dirt on the surface. A pleated paper filter
does the same, there is just a lot more surface to work with.
The old oil bath filters that everyone used to run were sort of like a
really really good K&N filter. They usually had an inlet screen to block
the big stuff and then a lot of steel wool like material that was
continually re-oiled by a reservoir in the filter. The air was drawn
over this reservoir, so that the finer dust stuck in the oil splashing
around. The oil bath filters had a lot of 90 degree turns, so I am sure
they were more restrictive than a K&N. On the other hand they also were
continually re-oiled and a lot of the finer stuff was trapped by the
liquid oil that was splashing around. Cleaning them was a pain. You
always had a lot of oily mud to clean out and washing the steel wool
stuff was not easy. Despite all this trouble they never worked as good
as the paper elements that replaced them. I don't know anyone who thinks
they should go back to them. There is no way that a K&N Filters can ever
work as well as one of these filter. They are using exactly the same
principal, with less filtering media and no liquid oil splashing around.
Even the old oil bath type filters don't work as well as good paper
filters. Therefore I believe K&N Filters are third rate (at best). Foam
filters might actually be better at stopping fine dirt particles that
even good paper filters, but they clog so quickly that they are
worthless in a dusty environment. The foam used in oiled foam filters
has to be an open cell type of foam (otherwise it would not let air pass
through). This type of foam has a relatively short life. So in my mind
oiled foam filters are fourth rate.
Regards,
Ed White
GREG
of filter! The key word is "properly", most people do not, or will not
service them properly. It is pretty hard to screw up servicing a paper
element, unless it is not changed. That is the main reason paper elements
are used, they are idiot proof!!
C. E. White wrote in message <38A05EEE...@interpath.com>...
CE White
GREG wrote:
> A "properly" serviced oil bath air cleaner will perform better than any kind
> of filter! The key word is "properly", most people do not, or will not
> service them properly. It is pretty hard to screw up servicing a paper
> element, unless it is not changed. That is the main reason paper elements
> are used, they are idiot proof!!
In really dusty conditions we had to clean oil bath type filters daily or even
twice a day. Paper filters last for a whole season. We never had a tractor that
used an oil bath filter last more than 8 years without a rebuild. We have never
had (at least not yet) had to have a tractor with a paper filter rebuilt.
Tractors we have owned that used paper filters include a MF-175 (we owned it for
22 years, 12,000 hours), Ford 7710 (19 years, 7,000 hours), Ford 8630 (8 years,
5,000 hours). I realize that tractors made in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s are
probably better than tractors made in the 40s, 50s, and 60s that used oil bath
type cleaners, but I believe the change to replaceable element paper filters is
part of the reason why newer tractors are better. You can literally overwhelm an
oil bath type filter. If you overload a paper filter performance suffers, but
you don't end up eating a lot of dirt and ruining an engine in a couple of
hours.
Regards,
Ed White
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
Ahh, so what you meant to say is they are 3rd / 4th rate by assumption on
opinion, not on measured fact that they do not filter as well. Also, the foam
filters are 2 stage which is why <supposedly> they keep their flow rate longer
than a single stage K&N.
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
> A "properly" serviced oil bath air cleaner will perform better than any kind
> of filter! The key word is "properly", most people do not, or will not
> service them properly. It is pretty hard to screw up servicing a paper
> element, unless it is not changed. That is the main reason paper elements
> are used, they are idiot proof!!
Too bad you can't use that on todays EFI cars safely...
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
> GREG wrote:
>
> > A "properly" serviced oil bath air cleaner will perform better than any kind
> > of filter! The key word is "properly", most people do not, or will not
> > service them properly. It is pretty hard to screw up servicing a paper
> > element, unless it is not changed. That is the main reason paper elements
> > are used, they are idiot proof!!
>
> In really dusty conditions we had to clean oil bath type filters daily or even
> twice a day. Paper filters last for a whole season. We never had a tractor that
> used an oil bath filter last more than 8 years without a rebuild. We have never
> had (at least not yet) had to have a tractor with a paper filter rebuilt.
> Tractors we have owned that used paper filters include a MF-175 (we owned it for
> 22 years, 12,000 hours), Ford 7710 (19 years, 7,000 hours), Ford 8630 (8 years,
> 5,000 hours). I realize that tractors made in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s are
> probably better than tractors made in the 40s, 50s, and 60s that used oil bath
> type cleaners, but I believe the change to replaceable element paper filters is
> part of the reason why newer tractors are better. You can literally overwhelm an
> oil bath type filter. If you overload a paper filter performance suffers, but
> you don't end up eating a lot of dirt and ruining an engine in a couple of
> hours.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White
Exactly my point. If oilbath / oiled foam filters had to be cleaned daily, yet a
paper element lasts all season, where praytell; is all that extra dust going? You
don't have a drain plug on your muffler do you ?? ROFLOL