Perhaps it is in bypass all the time?
Any Actual FRAM failures?
- Thread starter harper
- Start date
- Status
Tim,
Thanks I feel a lot better now!
However I was using various "synthetic" oils during the time and I did change out oils at a maximum of 5000 mi. At this point in time with the use of Motorcraft oil filters and Mobil 1 5W-30 oil I do not burn/use any oil during the 5000 mi interval. so hopefully and doubtfully I didn't do any "damage" with the Fram filter
. I am going to have an UOA done on this car @ the next oil change for my own "peace of mind".
Whimsey
Thanks I feel a lot better now!
Whimsey
GMan-II I am sorry I addressed the wrong person. My post was meant for Ray H. I am sure the AC/Delco and GMGoodwrench tech. support could share with him their experince with valve train noise that has been solved by replaceing Fram filter with AC/Delco filter. Again I am sorry to have addressed the wrong person.
If you got what you paid for, the Fram would be bettter than the $2
ST instead of worse. I can buy AC's at Advance Auto for what
Wally's charges for a Fram.
Cheers to the wisened wag who opined, "You pay for what you get, and occasionally you get what you pay for."
Lets put a few things into perspective here...
(warning - long post, bail now if you are not in the mood)
My folks are antique collectors. In the collection is a set of containers from 'the 60's that say and I quote "Kendall - the 2000 mile oil"
Its now roughly 40 years later and the oil companies (and filter makers and changing places) are to have us believe that the oil is still only good for 3000 miles? From a time when the API did not exist to todays SK and CE class oils are we to believe that that LITTLE technological advances were made? Right off the bat everyone should have a strong desire to weed thru the chaff and BS.
First lets talk filters. The original study where a bunch of filters were cut open was right on the money. Enough assumptions can be made from what is found there to predict with pretty good certainty where a further 'particle size and gross flow test' will go. Review if you will, the engines' oil system. The pump picks up oil and pressurizes it. What does not flow thru the filter boss runs in bypass to the main galleries in many cases, or is shunted to the pans in others. Clearly the flow efficiency of the filter (both media + bypass) is the main influence here. what oil does not flow thru the media, must run thru filter bypass. Furthermore, oil weight and operating temp play a role here. when cold, NO OIL IS FILTERED AT ALL FOR QUITE SOME TIME. most oil galleries are appx 1/4 or 3/16th inch in diameter. If you have 50 psi, its a simple formula for fluid flow to find out how many gallons per minute must be pumped. And hence, how many passes thru the entire circuit the 4-6qt sump must make UNFILTERED before a single particle is removed. Therefore, the square area of the media times the passthru efficiency (based on particle size) is how efficient the filter will be. If all the mainstream filters boast of say a 20 micron particle catch size (be it AC, motorcraft, fram, champion, purolator etc), then size DOES matter. Fram has the smallest sized media per family of filters. Period. Fram is therefore now and forever PHYSICALLY incapable of filtering as MUCH oil per unit time as ANY OTHER FILTER MADE with the same particle rating. notice I didnt say AS WELL, I said AS MUCH. There is a difference here and it pays to understand it intimately before you continue. The OEM spec for a filter will contain (besides physical dimensions of the package) the particle size to trap (i.e. 20u and larger) and the overall flow rating, which as we review, is media pass thru rate + bypass pass thru rate. The flow rating must be acheivable at a certain temp and PSI to meet the requirements of the motor. Testing has shown that on avg, appx 5psi LESS is seen AFTER a Fram vs any other filter. So if Fram meets the manu minimum, then the others exceed it. Exceeding it is good. You cannot get into trouble for allowing more PSI to exist and more flow to exist. In a perfect world, you would have a 3 gallon sump and a crankshaft driven 100 psi pump (see: nascar engines) To return to my original point, cutting open those filters was the perfect thing to do - it verified what many had suspected all along. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
As was pointed out, Allied signal (not honeywell) is the owner of fram. It is a large corp. It can build a Wix-like filter for less than Wix can if it wanted to. Instead they choose to build a filter inferior in every aspect to champion labs (perhaps the low cost leader) and charge appx OEM prices, simply by capitalizing on the trademark orange color of Felpro - another allied signal company - that does NOT cut corners. Marketing 101. When you buy a 'Fram' filter you are not buying something from a division of felpro. How many times do religious Fram users have to be shown that the true OEM filters (like AC delco for instance) perform better, yet cost LESS - short of beating people on the head with cases of them? Marketing 101. By the time you get into a $10-15 Fram filter that does perform well, you cross the territory of a Wix or Baldwin filter. And pay more to boot. Im really not seeing the logic here....
Next, lets discuss service intervals. The lawyers that review the owners manuals on the car are very clever to never give specifics. That gives them a bit of wiggle room to keep warranty costs down. Your owners manual clearly states, that if you FREQUENTLY drive in dust, idle, stop and go or trailer tow, then follow the severe schedule. Problem is, there is no universal accepted definition for 'FREQUENTLY'. IF you take 250 trips per year, is 30 frequently? 100? 2? I have seen and heard oil change places and dealerships quiz customers if they either a) start the car at a freeway onramp and shut it off at a freeway exit ramp or b) go thru a little traffic on both ends. This little quiz is dishonest. Either oil change places and dealerships hire only idiots of the same caliber, OR this intentional misdirection is part of a carefully planned sales pitch. Personally, from what I have seen and studied over the past number of decades, if your mileage per oil change interval is 2/3 or greater NOT in traffic, dust, towing, blah blah, then use the long schedule. Note: a non stop drive down a back road at 40-45mph is more in the same class as a 70 mile blast down I-5, NOT the same as stuck in a construction zone. If we let every "jiffy lube" have its way, running into a construction zone is immediate cause to change the oil asap. Cops should use the short schedule. Taxis should use the short one. RV/boat tow-ers should use the short one (and Im not talking 1 tow to the lake, Im talking going boating a couple times a week after work) People in NYC can use the short one. It would take the rest of the USA a *lot* or words on this BBS to convince me they need the short schedule. Or of course, they can simply move to Europe where used oil disposal is a growing problem and new oil purchase expense is a larger problem and those numbers for long/short magically get appx 5000 miles added to each. Marketing 101.
Furthermore, todays "harder working engines" have tighter tolerances, better ring holding, less crap in the fuel, less overfueling. Ill put up money that a modern 200hp 3.0L v6 will dirty its oil a lot slower than a brand new 1973 200hp 5.7L V8. Of course if you think that the 30 year old engine is in the same boat manufacturing and technology wise as todays motor, and todays oil is not much better than 30 year old oil, then make the bet with me.
Now lets discuss longevity. In the past, on old engines and old oil, people regularly drove caprices and polaras to 200 or 300K - limited only by the amount of rust the car collected. Marketing 101 has now dictated that 100K miles is some milestone to be proud of. How about instead, 100K miles is to be EXPECTED. The old powertrain warranties of 50/60/70 miles of 10 or so years ago were loosely based on the first std deviation of the MTBF interval (mean time between failures). If you exceed MTBF, the customers perception is good. Consider if you will the AXOD of the ford taurus with which in the bad years had a failure rate of appx 70 cars per 1000. This was high enough to put out a perception that used tauri were to be avoided like the plague. A class action suit even arose. What about the 930 cars that did NOT fail? So as you can see, the perception that something is bad is usually based on the loosest of evidence. Such that while the gross number of fram failures might be small overall, the perception that I and most others here have is that Fram is crap - and its based a lot on the fact that no other brand appears to fail. Todays 3/36 type warranties are based simply on the lease. And a severly deflated (20%) mileage allowance. AAA says the average american drives over 15K per year per car. yet they get leased at an allowance of 12K (marketing 101) and the lease terms are based on the perception of what is a new or like new car. The avg american keeps a car in its first life cycle 57-58Kish miles. Add appx 3/4s of that to it and you get to the magic number of 100K - or the life limit of a modern car? I dont buy it. In a couple weeks I will have no cars below 100K (out of my 6) and two of them quite well in excess of 200K and I am not afraid to hook up 7000lbs of trailer to either. I clearly dont buy into marketing 101 hype and neither should you.
The moral? (if there is one)
Use a filter that exceeds the OEM standard. Fram is not it. Use the long maint schedule unless you TRULY deserve the shorter one and your car will far exceed the magical 100K mark. Of course, this would make it hard for the UAW to push 16-17M cars out the door each year and the used car market would dry up so maybe ya'll use fram and 3K mile oil changes to help employment in the USA?
(warning - long post, bail now if you are not in the mood)
My folks are antique collectors. In the collection is a set of containers from 'the 60's that say and I quote "Kendall - the 2000 mile oil"
Its now roughly 40 years later and the oil companies (and filter makers and changing places) are to have us believe that the oil is still only good for 3000 miles? From a time when the API did not exist to todays SK and CE class oils are we to believe that that LITTLE technological advances were made? Right off the bat everyone should have a strong desire to weed thru the chaff and BS.
First lets talk filters. The original study where a bunch of filters were cut open was right on the money. Enough assumptions can be made from what is found there to predict with pretty good certainty where a further 'particle size and gross flow test' will go. Review if you will, the engines' oil system. The pump picks up oil and pressurizes it. What does not flow thru the filter boss runs in bypass to the main galleries in many cases, or is shunted to the pans in others. Clearly the flow efficiency of the filter (both media + bypass) is the main influence here. what oil does not flow thru the media, must run thru filter bypass. Furthermore, oil weight and operating temp play a role here. when cold, NO OIL IS FILTERED AT ALL FOR QUITE SOME TIME. most oil galleries are appx 1/4 or 3/16th inch in diameter. If you have 50 psi, its a simple formula for fluid flow to find out how many gallons per minute must be pumped. And hence, how many passes thru the entire circuit the 4-6qt sump must make UNFILTERED before a single particle is removed. Therefore, the square area of the media times the passthru efficiency (based on particle size) is how efficient the filter will be. If all the mainstream filters boast of say a 20 micron particle catch size (be it AC, motorcraft, fram, champion, purolator etc), then size DOES matter. Fram has the smallest sized media per family of filters. Period. Fram is therefore now and forever PHYSICALLY incapable of filtering as MUCH oil per unit time as ANY OTHER FILTER MADE with the same particle rating. notice I didnt say AS WELL, I said AS MUCH. There is a difference here and it pays to understand it intimately before you continue. The OEM spec for a filter will contain (besides physical dimensions of the package) the particle size to trap (i.e. 20u and larger) and the overall flow rating, which as we review, is media pass thru rate + bypass pass thru rate. The flow rating must be acheivable at a certain temp and PSI to meet the requirements of the motor. Testing has shown that on avg, appx 5psi LESS is seen AFTER a Fram vs any other filter. So if Fram meets the manu minimum, then the others exceed it. Exceeding it is good. You cannot get into trouble for allowing more PSI to exist and more flow to exist. In a perfect world, you would have a 3 gallon sump and a crankshaft driven 100 psi pump (see: nascar engines) To return to my original point, cutting open those filters was the perfect thing to do - it verified what many had suspected all along. Where there is smoke, there is fire.
As was pointed out, Allied signal (not honeywell) is the owner of fram. It is a large corp. It can build a Wix-like filter for less than Wix can if it wanted to. Instead they choose to build a filter inferior in every aspect to champion labs (perhaps the low cost leader) and charge appx OEM prices, simply by capitalizing on the trademark orange color of Felpro - another allied signal company - that does NOT cut corners. Marketing 101. When you buy a 'Fram' filter you are not buying something from a division of felpro. How many times do religious Fram users have to be shown that the true OEM filters (like AC delco for instance) perform better, yet cost LESS - short of beating people on the head with cases of them? Marketing 101. By the time you get into a $10-15 Fram filter that does perform well, you cross the territory of a Wix or Baldwin filter. And pay more to boot. Im really not seeing the logic here....
Next, lets discuss service intervals. The lawyers that review the owners manuals on the car are very clever to never give specifics. That gives them a bit of wiggle room to keep warranty costs down. Your owners manual clearly states, that if you FREQUENTLY drive in dust, idle, stop and go or trailer tow, then follow the severe schedule. Problem is, there is no universal accepted definition for 'FREQUENTLY'. IF you take 250 trips per year, is 30 frequently? 100? 2? I have seen and heard oil change places and dealerships quiz customers if they either a) start the car at a freeway onramp and shut it off at a freeway exit ramp or b) go thru a little traffic on both ends. This little quiz is dishonest. Either oil change places and dealerships hire only idiots of the same caliber, OR this intentional misdirection is part of a carefully planned sales pitch. Personally, from what I have seen and studied over the past number of decades, if your mileage per oil change interval is 2/3 or greater NOT in traffic, dust, towing, blah blah, then use the long schedule. Note: a non stop drive down a back road at 40-45mph is more in the same class as a 70 mile blast down I-5, NOT the same as stuck in a construction zone. If we let every "jiffy lube" have its way, running into a construction zone is immediate cause to change the oil asap. Cops should use the short schedule. Taxis should use the short one. RV/boat tow-ers should use the short one (and Im not talking 1 tow to the lake, Im talking going boating a couple times a week after work) People in NYC can use the short one. It would take the rest of the USA a *lot* or words on this BBS to convince me they need the short schedule. Or of course, they can simply move to Europe where used oil disposal is a growing problem and new oil purchase expense is a larger problem and those numbers for long/short magically get appx 5000 miles added to each. Marketing 101.
Furthermore, todays "harder working engines" have tighter tolerances, better ring holding, less crap in the fuel, less overfueling. Ill put up money that a modern 200hp 3.0L v6 will dirty its oil a lot slower than a brand new 1973 200hp 5.7L V8. Of course if you think that the 30 year old engine is in the same boat manufacturing and technology wise as todays motor, and todays oil is not much better than 30 year old oil, then make the bet with me.
Now lets discuss longevity. In the past, on old engines and old oil, people regularly drove caprices and polaras to 200 or 300K - limited only by the amount of rust the car collected. Marketing 101 has now dictated that 100K miles is some milestone to be proud of. How about instead, 100K miles is to be EXPECTED. The old powertrain warranties of 50/60/70 miles of 10 or so years ago were loosely based on the first std deviation of the MTBF interval (mean time between failures). If you exceed MTBF, the customers perception is good. Consider if you will the AXOD of the ford taurus with which in the bad years had a failure rate of appx 70 cars per 1000. This was high enough to put out a perception that used tauri were to be avoided like the plague. A class action suit even arose. What about the 930 cars that did NOT fail? So as you can see, the perception that something is bad is usually based on the loosest of evidence. Such that while the gross number of fram failures might be small overall, the perception that I and most others here have is that Fram is crap - and its based a lot on the fact that no other brand appears to fail. Todays 3/36 type warranties are based simply on the lease. And a severly deflated (20%) mileage allowance. AAA says the average american drives over 15K per year per car. yet they get leased at an allowance of 12K (marketing 101) and the lease terms are based on the perception of what is a new or like new car. The avg american keeps a car in its first life cycle 57-58Kish miles. Add appx 3/4s of that to it and you get to the magic number of 100K - or the life limit of a modern car? I dont buy it. In a couple weeks I will have no cars below 100K (out of my 6) and two of them quite well in excess of 200K and I am not afraid to hook up 7000lbs of trailer to either. I clearly dont buy into marketing 101 hype and neither should you.
The moral? (if there is one)
Use a filter that exceeds the OEM standard. Fram is not it. Use the long maint schedule unless you TRULY deserve the shorter one and your car will far exceed the magical 100K mark. Of course, this would make it hard for the UAW to push 16-17M cars out the door each year and the used car market would dry up so maybe ya'll use fram and 3K mile oil changes to help employment in the USA?
Patman
Staff member
Excellent post Quaddriver!!
I typed in "Fram Filter failure" into google and got alot of hits. Their is even some TSB's on the subject. This might explain why my DC dealership does not stock Mopar Filters. I just thought that I would share that with everyone.
Patman. I read that story about the sealing ring bursting ( Acura NSX). While I am no fan of Fram, the likely cause could be that it was not installed properly. Some people say that they don't like Honda OEM filters because they bottom out too easily when tightening. Maybe there's a reason why they are more flattened when they are installed - so that less seal area is exposed leading to less circumferential stress. Honda OEm filters are also round in profile, like an O-ring. In combination with the smaller exposed seal, the higher the pressure the more it seals, - like a properly designed o-ring seal.
What is odd, is that even with a Fram flat seal, the seal is usually well imbedded inside a metal groove.
Another thing, I believe those NSX engines develop in excess of 100 psi of oil pressure at elevated rpms. Could be the secret of Honda's long engine life?
Another thing, the filter purchased from Fram is actually made for the Legend ( based on a revised downspec) and while it does fit the NSX it is not recommended by Honda. There is only one filter that is recommended for the NSX the one made by Toyo Roki - the same ones that were originally designed for the C27A honda block for Acura Legends - 1988+.
This is food for thought about using alternate filters cause they fit.
What is odd, is that even with a Fram flat seal, the seal is usually well imbedded inside a metal groove.
Another thing, I believe those NSX engines develop in excess of 100 psi of oil pressure at elevated rpms. Could be the secret of Honda's long engine life?
Another thing, the filter purchased from Fram is actually made for the Legend ( based on a revised downspec) and while it does fit the NSX it is not recommended by Honda. There is only one filter that is recommended for the NSX the one made by Toyo Roki - the same ones that were originally designed for the C27A honda block for Acura Legends - 1988+.
This is food for thought about using alternate filters cause they fit.
Quaddriver, Th
e Fram box say Honeywell right on it in fine print!
It's interesing, that despite much criticism, there are very very few failures attributable to Fram.
Patman: I too saw that write-up of a Fram gasket failing. I don't believe it. Just look at the seal and ask youself "How could it burst?" The filter must have been installed incorrectly.
JohnBrowning: Yes, you can search Google and find a lot of criticism of Fram but very, very few documentable failures. I found none.
QuadDriver: I do not know what happened in your case. If Fram actually manufactured filters that consistanly exploded, why haven't we heard of it? Why didn't the first explosion destroy your engine? There would have been a sudden and complete loss of oil with the engine running at high RPM.
This floating cardboad in your engine could have been caused by a crushed center tube. This failure is not considered a filter failure according to the oil filter manufactoring concil. I noticed no mention of having contacted Fram. If their filter had failed, as you claim, then you would either report that Fram repaired your engine or that Fram refused to take responsibility.
I personally used Fram filters on a 1980 Ply Champ. This Mitsubishi was notorious for exploding cheap filters. No problems after 145,000 miles.
After looking at these type of claims against Fram, I am always left doubtful. They just don't add up.
Patman: I too saw that write-up of a Fram gasket failing. I don't believe it. Just look at the seal and ask youself "How could it burst?" The filter must have been installed incorrectly.
JohnBrowning: Yes, you can search Google and find a lot of criticism of Fram but very, very few documentable failures. I found none.
QuadDriver: I do not know what happened in your case. If Fram actually manufactured filters that consistanly exploded, why haven't we heard of it? Why didn't the first explosion destroy your engine? There would have been a sudden and complete loss of oil with the engine running at high RPM.
This floating cardboad in your engine could have been caused by a crushed center tube. This failure is not considered a filter failure according to the oil filter manufactoring concil. I noticed no mention of having contacted Fram. If their filter had failed, as you claim, then you would either report that Fram repaired your engine or that Fram refused to take responsibility.
I personally used Fram filters on a 1980 Ply Champ. This Mitsubishi was notorious for exploding cheap filters. No problems after 145,000 miles.
After looking at these type of claims against Fram, I am always left doubtful. They just don't add up.
Reminder: the on-going gripe of most members here about Fram filters is not that they fail. It is that their construction is uneven, the media provides less filtration potential, and the cardboard endcaps suggest poor sealing.
Still, millions of them are in use.
Still, millions of them are in use.
That was my original thought on this post (but not stated). I have no gripes with them, there does not seem to be a lot of scientific evidence even posted stating they are of poorer construction just observation. They seem to meet OEM spec. I have used pretty much throughout my cars life, FRAM's and Honda OEM with no oil related issues. But then again this is an opinion board typically backed some facts.
Everytime I pop a hood on a nice car/truck and see the orange can, I keel over with intense psycho-somatic pain. Fram is causing me psychological damage.
mf150, you're in luck my law firm DEWEY, SCREWUM, ANHOWE is willing to take on your case against Fram. Please contact me if you are interested.
Whimsey, Esquire
Whimsey, Esquire
Brian Barnhart, you mention that oil filters must pass an SAE test. Are these test results available to the public? Is there some place we can go (perhaps to some SAE web page) that will actually give us the results of testing so that we could actually compare oil filters?
I have to agree with you on the OEM thing. To the best of my knowledge FRAM IS the replacement oil filter for Saturns. I don't know if it is the oil filter installed at the factory or not. I know that FRAM sometimes supplies the oil filters for Mopar and sometimes for Toyota, Honda, etc.
The last time I actually used a Saturn oil filter (for my 2001 Saturn SL2) there was Allied Signal written either on the oil filter or the box it came in. Maybe it was an old oil filter.
I have to agree with you on the OEM thing. To the best of my knowledge FRAM IS the replacement oil filter for Saturns. I don't know if it is the oil filter installed at the factory or not. I know that FRAM sometimes supplies the oil filters for Mopar and sometimes for Toyota, Honda, etc.
The last time I actually used a Saturn oil filter (for my 2001 Saturn SL2) there was Allied Signal written either on the oil filter or the box it came in. Maybe it was an old oil filter.
Yes AS 'merged' with honeywell in 1999 and it appears that fram is now sold from the 'honeywell consumer products division' as part of the recent renaming.
How can Fram "meet or exceed" OEM requirements for some their oil filters, in particular for the Motorcraft 820S, if they have leaky adbv that causes start-up noise. Where as the Motorcraft oil filter and I'm sure many other oil filters don't. Heck, even the Ford owner's manual mentions this...."If a replacement oil filter is used that does not meet Ford material and design specifications, start-up engine noise or knock may be experienced".
Whimsey
Whimsey
I think the thing that concerns be about Fram most of all is the possibility, which seemed to get a lot of attention on Bob's oil filter test thread, that Frams might go into bypass mode too readily and that what seems like reasonable flow through the filter media is not actually flow THROUGH the filter media.
- Status
Similar threads
