Who was it who mentioned Fram oil filters and dropping oil pressure?

wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:06:26 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >SMS wrote:
> >>
> >> jim wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > That story is not believable. Here is why it is not believable: If you
> >> > read the warranty from any filter manufacturer they will cover damage if
> >> > such an event would occur with their filter.
> >>
> >> LOL, those warranties are all bogus. Just try proving that the damage
> >> was a direct result of the oil filter.
> >
> >That is what independent claims adjusters are for
> >
> >
> >> Often it's latent damage that
> >> isn't apparent for tens of thousands of miles (or more) of start-ups
> >> with no oil caused by a crappy anti-drainback valve/
> >
> >Or maybe its just the bogey man out to get you.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> It's a similar issue with non-API certified oils where they guarantee to
> >> cover vehicle damage caused by the oil. Good luck proving that your
> >> early catalytic converter failure was caused by the high level of ZDDP
> >> in the oil.
> >
> >No its not at all the same. Using non-certified products will void your
> >warranty. If Fram filters disintegrate then the automakers would have
> >literally thousands and thousands of claims against fram. There would be
> >class action lawsuits. It wouldn't just be rumor and superstition on
> >usenet.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What's ironic is that it's probably the same people throwing away money
> >> by doing 3K oil changes that are also buying the worst quality filters.
> >
> >
> >The people I know who have the longest lived engines use Fram filters. I
> >know a guy who bought a new GTO in the mid 60s when he got out of the
> >service and still drives it today. He claims his secret is to change the
> >filter every 2000 miles and change the oil every other filter change.
> >The engine is pristine and never had a problem. Just about everything
> >else on the car has been replaced or rebuilt. But you are right if you
> >aren't going to be willing to deal with the rest of the car there is
> >little point in doing the maintenance that keeps the engine running good
> >that long.
> >
> >-jim
>
> In clean dry conditions with 2000 mile oil changes, using today's
> oils,many engines would live a very long life WITHOUT a filter - and
> in many cases longer than with a bad filter (no drainback dry-start
> issues)
>
> Heck, my 1949 VW only had a cupshaped flyscreen and IT had something
> well over 200,000 MILES on it, in the hot, dusty, and humid
> (alternately) southern Zambia conditions.
> It had apparently had a valve job, but nothing else. (didn't have
> enough power to hurt itself, I always said) before I got it in 1973.

If you had bought a new vw bug in 1973 it would still not have had a
filter for the oil. One thing it had that compensated for lack of filter
besides the screen was an easy way to clean out the crud that settled in
the bottom.

-jim


>
> I only but a few thousand miles on it, around Livingstone, up to Choma
> and Macha, and one trip down to Chobe Botswanna

On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:25:23 -0500, Hachiroku ãƒ�ãƒ�ãƒ*ク wrote:

> Who was it in the Subaru group that mentioned my low oil pressure might be
> caused by my using Fram oil filters?
>
> There may be something to this.
>


OK....changed the oil in the Soob today ,a dn installed a Wix filter.
Just by lokking at it it appeared to be a better made filter.

No change in oil pressure...

However that horrible clacking noise went away in about 2 minutes, after
clacking for the past week. Previously, changing oil did NOT eliminate the
clacking noise once it started.

Filter change do that? I don't know. I don't care. It stopped.

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

> So they may or may not be the same person but I thought that "Mike" was
> implying that he was "Jim."

No, 'jim' is a transplant from the Honda group. They must have all plonked
him over there...

"Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > So they may or may not be the same person but I thought that "Mike" was
> > implying that he was "Jim."
>
> No, 'jim' is a transplant from the Honda group. They must have all plonked
> him over there...

Were you born brain dead or do you take medication for that?

jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in
:

>
>
> SMS wrote:
>>
>> jim wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > That story is not believable. Here is why it is not believable: If
>> > you read the warranty from any filter manufacturer they will cover
>> > damage if such an event would occur with their filter.
>>
>> LOL, those warranties are all bogus. Just try proving that the damage
>> was a direct result of the oil filter.
>
> That is what independent claims adjusters are for
>
>
>> Often it's latent damage that
>> isn't apparent for tens of thousands of miles (or more) of start-ups
>> with no oil caused by a crappy anti-drainback valve/
>
> Or maybe its just the bogey man out to get you.
>
>
>>
>> It's a similar issue with non-API certified oils where they guarantee
>> to cover vehicle damage caused by the oil. Good luck proving that
>> your early catalytic converter failure was caused by the high level
>> of ZDDP in the oil.
>
> No its not at all the same. Using non-certified products will void
> your warranty. If Fram filters disintegrate then the automakers would
> have literally thousands and thousands of claims against fram. There
> would be class action lawsuits. It wouldn't just be rumor and
> superstition on usenet.
>
>
>>
>> What's ironic is that it's probably the same people throwing away
>> money by doing 3K oil changes that are also buying the worst quality
>> filters.
>
>
> The people I know who have the longest lived engines use Fram filters.
> I know a guy who bought a new GTO in the mid 60s when he got out of
> the service and still drives it today. He claims his secret is to
> change the filter every 2000 miles and change the oil every other
> filter change. The engine is pristine and never had a problem. Just
> about everything else on the car has been replaced or rebuilt. But you
> are right if you aren't going to be willing to deal with the rest of
> the car there is little point in doing the maintenance that keeps the
> engine running good that long.
>
> -jim

I have seen with my own eyes the results of a fram filter comming
apart and filling the system with the crap the filter is made of. It
destroyed the eng. pluged all the oil passages. This was when I worked
in a Ford Dealership years ago. Fram basicly told us to go fork
ourselves because they had many more lawyers on retainer than the cust
would spend. Those guarentys ARE a joke. and I wouldn`t use a fram
filter if they gave me a life time supply of the junk. KB

--
THUNDERSNAKE #9

Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:22:59 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:06:26 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >SMS wrote:
>> >>
>> >> jim wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > That story is not believable. Here is why it is not believable: If you
>> >> > read the warranty from any filter manufacturer they will cover damage if
>> >> > such an event would occur with their filter.
>> >>
>> >> LOL, those warranties are all bogus. Just try proving that the damage
>> >> was a direct result of the oil filter.
>> >
>> >That is what independent claims adjusters are for
>> >
>> >
>> >> Often it's latent damage that
>> >> isn't apparent for tens of thousands of miles (or more) of start-ups
>> >> with no oil caused by a crappy anti-drainback valve/
>> >
>> >Or maybe its just the bogey man out to get you.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It's a similar issue with non-API certified oils where they guarantee to
>> >> cover vehicle damage caused by the oil. Good luck proving that your
>> >> early catalytic converter failure was caused by the high level of ZDDP
>> >> in the oil.
>> >
>> >No its not at all the same. Using non-certified products will void your
>> >warranty. If Fram filters disintegrate then the automakers would have
>> >literally thousands and thousands of claims against fram. There would be
>> >class action lawsuits. It wouldn't just be rumor and superstition on
>> >usenet.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What's ironic is that it's probably the same people throwing away money
>> >> by doing 3K oil changes that are also buying the worst quality filters.
>> >
>> >
>> >The people I know who have the longest lived engines use Fram filters. I
>> >know a guy who bought a new GTO in the mid 60s when he got out of the
>> >service and still drives it today. He claims his secret is to change the
>> >filter every 2000 miles and change the oil every other filter change.
>> >The engine is pristine and never had a problem. Just about everything
>> >else on the car has been replaced or rebuilt. But you are right if you
>> >aren't going to be willing to deal with the rest of the car there is
>> >little point in doing the maintenance that keeps the engine running good
>> >that long.
>> >
>> >-jim
>>
>> In clean dry conditions with 2000 mile oil changes, using today's
>> oils,many engines would live a very long life WITHOUT a filter - and
>> in many cases longer than with a bad filter (no drainback dry-start
>> issues)
>>
>> Heck, my 1949 VW only had a cupshaped flyscreen and IT had something
>> well over 200,000 MILES on it, in the hot, dusty, and humid
>> (alternately) southern Zambia conditions.
>> It had apparently had a valve job, but nothing else. (didn't have
>> enough power to hurt itself, I always said) before I got it in 1973.
>
> If you had bought a new vw bug in 1973 it would still not have had a
>filter for the oil. One thing it had that compensated for lack of filter
>besides the screen was an easy way to clean out the crud that settled in
>the bottom.
>
>-jim
>

SOME of the crud.
Didn't hold much oil either!!
>
>>
>> I only but a few thousand miles on it, around Livingstone, up to Choma
>> and Macha, and one trip down to Chobe Botswanna

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:43:11 -0600, jim wrote:

>
>
> "Hachiroku $B%O%A%m%/(B" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 12:03:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>> > So they may or may not be the same person but I thought that "Mike"
>> > was
>> > implying that he was "Jim."
>>
>> No, 'jim' is a transplant from the Honda group. They must have all
>> plonked him over there...
>
> Were you born brain dead or do you take medication for that?

No. I read your tirades and it drove me mad.

jim wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> In any case, this has gone on far too long,
>
> It certainly has. This business of getting on usenet and slamming Fram
> filters for no good reason has been going on for way way too long. There
> is no reliable data or evidence to support these slams but the
> perpetrators think they can gang up and bully everybody else into
> agreeing with them.
>
>
>
>> and "Jim" certainly seems
>> every bit as pleasant to interact with as "Mike" and as immune to facts
>> that don't fit with his preconceived worldview.
>
> I don't have an opinionated world view. Your the one promoting
> opinionated superstitious beliefs. My personal belief is that the
> difference between one filter brand and another doesn't amount to hill
> of beans as far as the overall effects it has on an engine. Anybody can
> use any filter that is designed for the application and change it before
> it is saturated with dirt and the chance of having a problem are
> practically nil. You can apply the same logic to the filter in a vacuum
> cleaner.
>
> There is no evidence that there is any greater risk when using one
> brand as compared to another. The way things are nowadays the average
> engine will outlast the rest of the car if you just follow the
> recommended maintenance schedule.
>
> -jim
>
>> nate
>>
>> --
>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
>> http://members.cox.net/njnagel

That's what makes you so incredibly stupid. There have been MANY tests
of oil filters. The Fram crap legend comes from people tearing them
apart and finding them to be crap compared to other makes a few dozen
times.

And your other comment about tests being "meaningless" unless compared
to the mfg "recommended filter" is doubly stupid simply because Mopar.
Autolite, Delco, etc, etc do not make filters, they buy them, and they
buy them from different makers constantly.

"Tony D." wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> >> In any case, this has gone on far too long,
> >
> > It certainly has. This business of getting on usenet and slamming Fram
> > filters for no good reason has been going on for way way too long. There
> > is no reliable data or evidence to support these slams but the
> > perpetrators think they can gang up and bully everybody else into
> > agreeing with them.
> >
> >
> >
> >> and "Jim" certainly seems
> >> every bit as pleasant to interact with as "Mike" and as immune to facts
> >> that don't fit with his preconceived worldview.
> >
> > I don't have an opinionated world view. Your the one promoting
> > opinionated superstitious beliefs. My personal belief is that the
> > difference between one filter brand and another doesn't amount to hill
> > of beans as far as the overall effects it has on an engine. Anybody can
> > use any filter that is designed for the application and change it before
> > it is saturated with dirt and the chance of having a problem are
> > practically nil. You can apply the same logic to the filter in a vacuum
> > cleaner.
> >
> > There is no evidence that there is any greater risk when using one
> > brand as compared to another. The way things are nowadays the average
> > engine will outlast the rest of the car if you just follow the
> > recommended maintenance schedule.
> >
> > -jim
> >
> >> nate
> >>
> >> --
> >> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> >> http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
> That's what makes you so incredibly stupid. There have been MANY tests
> of oil filters. The Fram crap legend comes from people tearing them
> apart and finding them to be crap compared to other makes a few dozen
> times.


Yes, so does that mean they are really crap or just that dozens of
people have all come to the same erroneous conclusions? I mean, none of
these people have any expertise in the manufacture and design of filters
or lubricating systems. And of course when someone questions whether one
can tell anything about how well a filter works by looking at it, some
of these dozens of people get insulted that there judgment has been
called into doubt and so they make up a story that they think proves
they weren't wrong.

>
> And your other comment about tests being "meaningless" unless compared
> to the mfg "recommended filter" is doubly stupid simply because Mopar.
> Autolite, Delco, etc, etc do not make filters, they buy them, and they
> buy them from different makers constantly.

Yes. How clever of you to notice that.

Here's the comment I made:

"The test will only be meaningful and valid
if you go to the dealer and get the manufacturers
recommended filter"

That remark was intended to be doubly stupid. This is because the
"test" itself to which I was referring was already doubly (or more)
stupid. The car in question was a Subaru and if the guy performing the
test had taken my advice and gone to the Subaru dealer for a filter,
then the filter he put on the car would have been manufactured by Fram
and the results of his test would have been no different than if the
"test" was done with any other brand.

-jim

"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ed White wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 25, 8:33 am, "hls" > wrote:
>> > "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > hls wrote:
>> >
>> > >> "E. Meyer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >>> Everybody is
>> > >>> arguing antique anecdotal evidence and apparently no one has
>> > >>> any actual
>> > >>> facts to contribute. For all we know from this discussion,
>> > >>> they had one
>> > >>> bad
>> > >>> production run in 1994 and everybody is still talking about
>> > >>> it.
>> >
>> > >> You got that right!
>> >
>> > > meanwhile Wix, Purolator, and Champion Labs have NEVER had a
>> > > bad run
>> > > significant enough to register on our collective radar screens.
>> > > 'nuff
>> > > said.
>> >
>> > > nate
>> >
>> > The important point, for me, was that so many people jump on this
>> > bandwagon
>> > and there is very little or no objective data on the subject.
>> > This business
>> > of cutting
>> > open filters and declaring them good or no good got a lot of this
>> > started,
>> > and it
>> > had no relevance at all.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I disagree. Examining the components that make up a filter is a
>> first
>> step. You might not be able to determine the actual quality of the
>> filter material, but you certianly can see a major difference in
>> quality between a regular grade FRAM filter and a WIX or Motorcraft
>> filter. I've cut open numerous used filter and more than once I've
>> seen FRAMs with detached end caps. The regular grade FRAM filter
>> may
>> be adequate for the job, but a look at the insides of regular grade
>> FROM filters convined me that they are not as good as filters from
>> Motorcraft or Wix that have comparable (or even lower) prices.
>
> The fact is it has been scientifically proven that Fram filters do a
> better job than Wix for removing the smallest particles from the
> oil.
> That was not determined by cutting filters open but by doing tests
> on
> the oil after many miles of service. And the effects of not
> filtering
> the finest particles takes many years and many miles to show up. The
> look of the filter may be important to you, but many taxi and
> delivery
> services use fram filters because they are more interested in the
> results than what the filter looks like on the inside.
>
>
>>
>> FRAM does not claim to have particuarly good filtering efficiency,
>> and
>> they do appear to have cut corners on the interior construction. So
>> in
>> my mind the question is not if FRAM filters are OK, the question
>> is,
>> Given that FRAM filters are not particualrly cheap, why would I buy
>> one?
>
> Because tests have shown they do remove smaller particles than wix
> or
> purolator. That can be a good thing or a bad thing. If you have an
> old
> beater that is loaded up with an accumulation of those fines plus a
> worn
> out oil pump from many years of pumping those small particles
> putting a
> Fram filter on the engine can lead to trouble.

Who's tests have shown that? I've read everything FRAM calims, and
they don't claim to be better than WIX. I can't find numbers for
Motorcraft, so I can't be sure that they are better than FRM filters,
but I'll bet they are.

And remember, removing particles below a certain size is not
important. What is important is removing as many as possible of
particles that can damage your engine. If you remove a lot of very
small, non-harmful particles, all you are doing is pluggin up the
filter sooner and reducing flow through the filter element, resulting
in the filter going into bypass mode, and in this case, you aren't
filtering anything.

Of course with a FRAM, this might not matter, becasue the crappy end
caps often come loose.

Ed