So what's wrong with the Airhog filters? was: Airhog filters almost free after Fram's rebate

jim wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>jim wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>analyzed and reported rather unambiguously. Is the failure rate for Fram
>>>>significantly
>>>>greater than for Wix?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, it probably is. But not for the reason you might think. The reason
>>>the Fram is more likely to fail is that it does a better job of
>>>filtering. When you have an engine that has been driven for a 100K and
>>>had an oil change with Wix filter every 4-5K and at that point you
>>>change the oil and put on a Fram you are indeed risking major engine
>>>problems. If you actually do try this experiment I recommend you remove
>>>the Fram filter after about a 100 miles of driving. At that point you
>>>will notice that it weighs about 50 lbs. That should give you a clue as
>>>to what's going.
>>>
>>>-jim
>>>
>>
>>If you set out to write a post with as many stated facts wrong as
>>possible, you really couldn't do any better than Jim just did...
>
>
> If that was an attempt to illustrate how to post without any facts at
> all it was well done :^}
>
> I submit that if the folks in this thread who have complained that they
> get low oil pressure when using a fram filter had any brains they would
> turn the engine off and unscrew the oil filter and feel how heavy it
> was. Then they wouldn't have any trouble understanding why there oil
> pressure is inadequate.

Well, the one time That happened to me with a Fram, I cut the filter
open and found the pressure was low because the filter had collapsed
internally.

But most people (including me) do NOT have problems with "low oil
pressure" whn using frams. What we've had problems with is NO oil
pressure on start-up because the anti-drainback valve didn't work, and
allowed the filter to fill with air overnight, so that the pump has to
run for several seconds to blow the air out (through the bearings, I
might add, which disrupts the oil film already present on the bearings)
before pressure will build.

And if you think (as you imply) that other brands leave a lot of junk in
the engine that the Fram mysteriously is able to remove (despite having
less surface area and a filter media with the same pore size) then I
challenge YOU to cut one open and prove to me that it is indeed "heavy"
because it has trapped a lot of stuff out of the engine. I also find
that hard to believe because none of my engines have ever shown any sign
of any sort of internal deposits when I've pulled oil pans or valve
covers to replace gaskets.

jim wrote:

>
> Mike Romain wrote:
>
>
>>I still have it out in the garage as far as I know, would you like me to
>>go take a digital photo of it?
>
>
> No and I'm surprised you asked. I don't doubt any of the facts you
> present. You had a fram filter installed. You experienced some oil
> pressure problems. You changed the filter and the problem went away.
> You interpret those facts however you like doesn't affect me any. There
> may even be some validity to your interpretation. For instance, when the
> filters bypass mechanism is blown open its possible that it might never
> seal shut properly again so that could allow the oil to drain back. I
> don't know.
>
Fortunately for the rest of the world, LOTS of people DO know that the
anti-drainback and bypass valves are two separate mechanisms.

Steve wrote:
\
>
> But most people (including me) do NOT have problems with "low oil
> pressure" whn using frams. What we've had problems with is NO oil
> pressure on start-up because the anti-drainback valve didn't work, and
> allowed the filter to fill with air overnight, so that the pump has to
> run for several seconds to blow the air out (through the bearings, I
> might add, which disrupts the oil film already present on the bearings)
> before pressure will build.

The problem is that there is no evidence that any of the automobiles
built in the last 10-15 years has suffered any engine damage at all when
using Fram filters. If the engine damage you are claiming actually
happened and if the customer used a fram filter, don't you think that
manufacturers would void some of the high mileage extended warranties
they give nowadays? There is no reason to believe your car or engine's
life span will be reduced any at all if you use a fram filter. If you
can show me an engine manufacturer that is concerned about the engine
damage that you are concerned about, I might take you seriously. They
would have millions in warranty claims to worry about if any of your
claims were really valid.
Considering the enormous number of engines worth literally billions of
dollars that are driving on the roads with fram filters installed, don't
you think some enterprising lawyer would immediately see the opportunity
to line their pockets with millions if they could bring a class action
suit on behalf of all these engines that are being ruined as you claim?
The fact is no such evidence of damage exists at all. All we have is
some scattered anecdotes from a few people. And the thing that I find
curious is that the overwhelming majority of these anecdotes of
catastrophic failure due to fram filters seems to be engines that are 20
years old or more. Assuming these stories are true it does give you
cause to wonder. If filters are collapsing when installed in old cars
but not in new ones you have to wonder why. If it happened with new cars
with any more frequency with Fram filters than any other filter you know
some lawyer would stop chasing ambulances and start chasing wreckers for
a living.


>
> And if you think (as you imply) that other brands leave a lot of junk in
> the engine that the Fram mysteriously is able to remove (despite having
> less surface area and a filter media with the same pore size)

If you look at the studies done by independent laboratories on the
different capabilities of filter media used in oil filters of different
brands, you will see that fram filters rate near the top for removal of
the tiniest particles. Some of the filters that have been touted here as
being better than fram rate near the bottom in the same test. Now that
doesn't mean a fram filter is better since if you change the oil often
enough all the particles will stay in the oil and go with the oil
change. Also, these tests tend to be a statistical process of how many
particles are removed in one pass thru the filter. Since the oil passes
thru the filter numerous times those tests mean very little in terms of
long term performance except in the rare event of when the filters is
confronted with enormous numbers of those particles all at once.

>then I
> challenge YOU to cut one open and prove to me that it is indeed "heavy"
> because it has trapped a lot of stuff out of the engine. I also find
> that hard to believe because none of my engines have ever shown any sign
> of any sort of internal deposits when I've pulled oil pans or valve
> covers to replace gaskets.

If it were possible to cut one or even many filters open and prove
something definitive you would be in a position to make a lot of money
if you hook up with the right lawyer.

Iron is about 10 times heavier than motor oil. Babbit metal is about
the same density and aluminum is 4 times heavier than oil. Carbon is 3
times heavier than motor oil. If you take a filter off and turn it over
and shake it vigorously and only a little oil oozes out and the filter
remains unusually heavy you don't have to cut it open to know what's
inside there. At any rate I'm pretty sure I no longer have the old
filter so I won't be cutting it open.


-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

jim wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
> \
>
>>But most people (including me) do NOT have problems with "low oil
>>pressure" whn using frams. What we've had problems with is NO oil
>>pressure on start-up because the anti-drainback valve didn't work, and
>>allowed the filter to fill with air overnight, so that the pump has to
>>run for several seconds to blow the air out (through the bearings, I
>>might add, which disrupts the oil film already present on the bearings)
>>before pressure will build.
>
>
> The problem is that there is no evidence that any of the automobiles
> built in the last 10-15 years has suffered any engine damage at all when
> using Fram filters.

"Dry starting" caused by bad ADBVs in Fram filters is a cumulative sort
of damage. Doing it for one oil change interval isn't going to cause the
engine to fail. Doing it for the LIFE of an engine can certainly reduce
engine life.

>If the engine damage you are claiming actually
> happened and if the customer used a fram filter, don't you think that
> manufacturers would void some of the high mileage extended warranties
> they give nowadays?

Not my problem. Warranties are all numbers games, anyway. Any
manufacturer who offers a warranty knows that some warranty claims will
be a legit defect, some will be owner-induced, and some may be related
to ancillary parts. So long as the number of owner-induced and ancillary
part-induced failures stay below a dull background noise, the
manufacturer won't do anything about it. If it gets to be a big problem,
or if a service tech at a dealer can find hard evidence that something
else caused the failure, then sure- the warranty will not be honored.

> There is no reason to believe your car or engine's
> life span will be reduced any at all if you use a fram filter.

Maybe not enough reason for YOU. There's enough for ME, and I'm the one
that has a 460,000 mile car, a 287,000 mile car, and a 244,000 mile car
in the family.

> Iron is about 10 times heavier than motor oil. Babbit metal is about
> the same density and aluminum is 4 times heavier than oil. Carbon is 3
> times heavier than motor oil. If you take a filter off and turn it over
> and shake it vigorously and only a little oil oozes out and the filter
> remains unusually heavy you don't have to cut it open to know what's
> inside there.

Of course not- EVERYONE except you knows its just oil-soaked filter
media. The amount of actual wear metal shed over the whole LIFE of a
normal engine is only measured in the milligram to gram range, let alone
the tiny amount shed during a single oil change! If your oil filter EVER
contains enough wear metal that you can "feel" the difference by hefting
the filter in your hand, then you've got WAY bigger problems than a
mediocre filter!

In article >, jim wrote:

> Iron is about 10 times heavier than motor oil. Babbit metal is about
> the same density and aluminum is 4 times heavier than oil.

I give you two oil filters filled with oil. One of them has a metric
M6x20 bolt dropped into it. The other doesn't. Tell me, which one does
by feeling the weight. You can't, because even something as big as an
M6x20 bolt weighs too little compared to the filter and oil.

> Carbon is 3 times heavier than motor oil.

Motor oil is mostly carbon by weight. But what form of carbon are you
comparing? diamonds? the burnt crusties scraped from a piece of toast?

> If you take a filter off and turn it over
> and shake it vigorously and only a little oil oozes out and the filter
> remains unusually heavy you don't have to cut it open to know what's
> inside there. At any rate I'm pretty sure I no longer have the old
> filter so I won't be cutting it open.

If you just turn it over and leave it, a fair amount will come out.
Surface tension holds the rest. Filter media has a lot of surface area.

jim wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> \
>
>>But most people (including me) do NOT have problems with "low oil
>>pressure" whn using frams. What we've had problems with is NO oil
>>pressure on start-up because the anti-drainback valve didn't work, and
>>allowed the filter to fill with air overnight, so that the pump has to
>>run for several seconds to blow the air out (through the bearings, I
>>might add, which disrupts the oil film already present on the bearings)
>>before pressure will build.
>
>
> The problem is that there is no evidence that any of the automobiles
> built in the last 10-15 years has suffered any engine damage at all when
> using Fram filters.

BULL****.

> If the engine damage you are claiming actually
> happened and if the customer used a fram filter, don't you think that
> manufacturers would void some of the high mileage extended warranties
> they give nowadays?

Why does Cummins specifically state that they will not warranty an
engine if a fram filter is used? (not sure if that is currently the
case but it was a couple years ago)

> There is no reason to believe your car or engine's
> life span will be reduced any at all if you use a fram filter.

BULL****. Running with no oil pressure is damaging, and if you try to
claim otherwise then you just sound like an idiot.

> If you
> can show me an engine manufacturer that is concerned about the engine
> damage that you are concerned about, I might take you seriously.

Cummins doesn't count?

> They
> would have millions in warranty claims to worry about if any of your
> claims were really valid.

Indeed.

> Considering the enormous number of engines worth literally billions of
> dollars that are driving on the roads with fram filters installed, don't
> you think some enterprising lawyer would immediately see the opportunity
> to line their pockets with millions if they could bring a class action
> suit on behalf of all these engines that are being ruined as you claim?
> The fact is no such evidence of damage exists at all.

Wrong, wrong, brimming over with wrongability.

> All we have is
> some scattered anecdotes from a few people. And the thing that I find
> curious is that the overwhelming majority of these anecdotes of
> catastrophic failure due to fram filters seems to be engines that are 20
> years old or more.

Wrong.

> Assuming these stories are true it does give you
> cause to wonder. If filters are collapsing when installed in old cars
> but not in new ones you have to wonder why. If it happened with new cars
> with any more frequency with Fram filters than any other filter you know
> some lawyer would stop chasing ambulances and start chasing wreckers for
> a living.

I'm not saying they collapse. I'm saying the ADBV's are garbage, and
secondarily, the cans have been known to blow apart on a cold start when
oil pressures are high.

>
>
>
>>And if you think (as you imply) that other brands leave a lot of junk in
>>the engine that the Fram mysteriously is able to remove (despite having
>>less surface area and a filter media with the same pore size)
>
>
> If you look at the studies done by independent laboratories on the
> different capabilities of filter media used in oil filters of different
> brands, you will see that fram filters rate near the top for removal of
> the tiniest particles. Some of the filters that have been touted here as
> being better than fram rate near the bottom in the same test. Now that
> doesn't mean a fram filter is better since if you change the oil often
> enough all the particles will stay in the oil and go with the oil
> change. Also, these tests tend to be a statistical process of how many
> particles are removed in one pass thru the filter. Since the oil passes
> thru the filter numerous times those tests mean very little in terms of
> long term performance except in the rare event of when the filters is
> confronted with enormous numbers of those particles all at once.

And that doesn't mean jack **** when you have no oil pressure! I don't
give a **** how clean the oil is, if it's not under pressure and in your
bearings, your engine HAS NO PROTECTION.

>
>
>>then I
>>challenge YOU to cut one open and prove to me that it is indeed "heavy"
>>because it has trapped a lot of stuff out of the engine. I also find
>>that hard to believe because none of my engines have ever shown any sign
>>of any sort of internal deposits when I've pulled oil pans or valve
>>covers to replace gaskets.
>
>
> If it were possible to cut one or even many filters open and prove
> something definitive you would be in a position to make a lot of money
> if you hook up with the right lawyer.
>
> Iron is about 10 times heavier than motor oil. Babbit metal is about
> the same density and aluminum is 4 times heavier than oil. Carbon is 3
> times heavier than motor oil. If you take a filter off and turn it over
> and shake it vigorously and only a little oil oozes out and the filter
> remains unusually heavy you don't have to cut it open to know what's
> inside there. At any rate I'm pretty sure I no longer have the old
> filter so I won't be cutting it open.
>

Why not? afraid that you might be COMPLETELY WRONG on all your
assertions? I don't doubt that you drive some POS sludgemonster, but
the fact remains that Fram ADBVs are crap, and you couldn't pay me
enough to put one on my car.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> Why does Cummins specifically state that they will not warranty an
> engine if a fram filter is used? (not sure if that is currently the
> case but it was a couple years ago)

If that were true I'm sure some one would produce a reference. But
instead all we have is silly little anecdotes and mysticism. There are a
lot of fram filters used in airplane engines and the National
Transportation Safety Board and FAA do cut filters apart and study them.
Every occurrence of an in air engine failure is investigated thoroughly
so you would think that if the problem were real it would be known
somewhere other than just as urban legend on the internet. And most of
the perpetrators of these legends wouldn't get within ten feet of a fram
filter so that tells me they don't know squat about how they actually
perform in reality.

You claim over and over that there is evidence and yet you produce
none. A blog on the internet is not evidence.
I'll admit I'm wrong if you can show some believable evidence. But the
only thing I've ever seen is private individuals opinions. That makes me
extremely suspicious. As I said before if there was truth to this it
wouldn't be that hard to prove and some lawyer would be raking in
millions in class action damage suit.

-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

jim wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Why does Cummins specifically state that they will not warranty an
>>engine if a fram filter is used? (not sure if that is currently the
>>case but it was a couple years ago)
>
>
> If that were true I'm sure some one would produce a reference.

Are your googling fingers broken?

here's one Fram issue:

http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~rblander/FRAM_recall.html

here's a thread about the Cummins issue:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...79dcdf859e294e

I don't have the TSB number handy because I don't own a Cummins so don't
really care that much.

There's plenty more info to be found, heck, just off the top of my head
I've heard of Frams in motorcycles with common sumps and wet clutches
having clutch slip problems traced to filter media making its way to the
clutch, and Frams in VWs that are raced exploding when engines are
revved too high from a cold start causing oil pressure spikes. But
really, just not having an ADBV that works is enough for me. Everyone
else's seems to work OK, just not Fram. Face it, all the bad stories
you hear about oil filters, 99% of the time they are about Frams.

> But
> instead all we have is silly little anecdotes and mysticism. There are a
> lot of fram filters used in airplane engines and the National
> Transportation Safety Board and FAA do cut filters apart and study them.
> Every occurrence of an in air engine failure is investigated thoroughly
> so you would think that if the problem were real it would be known
> somewhere other than just as urban legend on the internet.

But what if an engine doesn't fail catastrophically but just wears out
prematurely? You KNOW that running with no oil pressure causes wear,
unless you're an idiot.

> And most of
> the perpetrators of these legends wouldn't get within ten feet of a fram
> filter so that tells me they don't know squat about how they actually
> perform in reality.

I know they don't work correctly. I've held at least three defective
Fram filters in my own hands. That's about 100% of the Frams that I've
had on cars that I owned or was working on. I've never had any other
brand of filter fail to my knowledge.

>
> You claim over and over that there is evidence and yet you produce
> none. A blog on the internet is not evidence.

My personal experience says that Frams don't work correctly. If I can't
trust my own senses, I can't trust anything. That's what groups like
this are all about, so people can compare notes and see what works and
what doesn't. For some reason you seem to have a problem with that, and
what's worse, seem unwilling to learn from the experience of others.

> I'll admit I'm wrong if you can show some believable evidence. But the
> only thing I've ever seen is private individuals opinions. That makes me
> extremely suspicious. As I said before if there was truth to this it
> wouldn't be that hard to prove and some lawyer would be raking in
> millions in class action damage suit.

So keep using your ****ty orange cans, what do I care? Just don't try
to sell me **** and call it shinola, I can tell the difference. And
don't try to sell me a used car, either, because if I see an orange can
on the engine you're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's
been properly maintained.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...

> My personal experience says that Frams don't work correctly.

At the end of the day, personal experiences and opinions are the basis of
buyers choices.
Fram has some work to do, whatever the quality.