Any FRAM users here?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
^^there have been some reports of engine tick at warm up with the fu so there may be something there with that. In the cases I've heard of the ticking stopped when a different filter was put on. That indicates a probable bad adbv causing a dry starts do to the oil draining from the filter while sitting. Also it's possible that those filters were overly restrictive. Either way causing the oil not to reach the internals in time and accelerating wear.


I've got an Ultra on a vehicle where it's mounted vertically with the base down. Zero cold start-up noises, even after sitting for a week, so apparently the ADBV works well on this particular one.

There is no such thing as too restrictive oil filter on cold start-up. The positive displacement oil pump will flow exactly the same volume of oil through the system every time. There is no way the pump's pressure relief valve is opening on a start-up unless it's -50 deg F outside, or the throttle is smashed to the floor.

However, if the ADBV allows all the oil galleries to drain out, then yes it will take a few second for the pump to refill all the oil galleries and establish oil pressure. That's the cause of cold ticking start-up ... not a "restrictive" filter.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
The truth is Cummins engines were damaged and the problem was tracked back by Cummins to the FRAM filters being used.

But you can put whatever spin you want on it to help you sleep at night.


How can you say that when the TSB clearly says in black and white that there was no evidence that it was the filter that caused it. The neoprene could have come from someplace else, but if it did come from the filter it would be easy to verify I would think. So why do they say it couldn't be correlated to the filter?

You have some other documentation you can link up to backup your claim?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I've posed technical questions to you about things you've said, I've asked backup on statements you've made. Yet have I made dumb personal comments about you? No. Why would you?
yes I agree you have and I forgive you for it. I'm glad you got that off your chest. Guilt over the way you have acted and treated others can weigh very heavy on you. Good job repenting. Don't you just feel so much better now?


Are you serious?

Yes I am. I really do forgive you. Now we can move on with a productive discussion.

sometimes just a simple apology can move mountains.
Anyway I'm glad this debate about filter quality is being had. It helps others and ourselves to see what is and is not a quality product.


Can we all have a big Kumbaya !!

 

[bullwinkle]

This is old, but here's Dodge's original TSB-
http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2001/09-004-01.htm
Old info, but describes the filters that should be used in the 5.9 (back in '01). Amazing that the PUROLATOR CLASSIC is on the list!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
This is old, but here's Dodge's original TSB-
http://dodgeram.info/tsb/2001/09-004-01.htm
Old info, but describes the filters that should be used in the 5.9 (back in '01). Amazing that the PUROLATOR CLASSIC is on the list!


That was way before any reported tearing from Purolators.

 

[Mrsandman]

Can we all have a big Kumbaya !! [/quote]

Hold on, let me light the camp fire 1st. I'm really starting to feel the love, man!

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
The truth is Cummins engines were damaged and the problem was tracked back by Cummins to the FRAM filters being used.

But you can put whatever spin you want on it to help you sleep at night.


How can you say that when the TSB clearly says in black and white that there was no evidence that it was the filter that caused it. The neoprene could have come from someplace else, but if it did come from the filter it would be easy to verify I would think. So why do they say it couldn't be correlated to the filter?

You have some other documentation you can link up to backup your claim?


The old proof canard...HAHAHA

The FRAM TSB is pure attorney-speak.

And attorneys writing TSB's never admit responsibility.

The actions taken by Cummins tell the real story.

Additionally, the posts by RAM Cummins owners in the various truck forums confirm the causality, the costs incurred, and who paid for the work.

They are out there to read when you're not working on your spreadsheet.

However, I don't expect any of this to change your opinion.

Signed affidavits, photos, sworn testimony, fingerprints, and eyewitnesses would not sway your beliefs here.

But the facts here are stubborn things that you will just have to ignore; not refute.

 

[Mrsandman]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
The truth is Cummins engines were damaged and the problem was tracked back by Cummins to the FRAM filters being used.

But you can put whatever spin you want on it to help you sleep at night.


How can you say that when the TSB clearly says in black and white that there was no evidence that it was the filter that caused it. The neoprene could have come from someplace else, but if it did come from the filter it would be easy to verify I would think. So why do they say it couldn't be correlated to the filter?

You have some other documentation you can link up to backup your claim?


The old proof canard...HAHAHA

The FRAM TSB is pure attorney-speak.

And attorneys writing TSB's never admit responsibility.

The actions taken by Cummins tell the real story.

Additionally, the posts by RAM Cummins owners in the various truck forums confirm the causality, the costs incurred, and who paid for the work.

They are out there to read when you're not working on your speadsheet.

However, I don't expect any of this to change your opinion.

Signed affidavits, photos, sworn testimony, fingerprints, and eyewitnesses would not sway your beliefs here.

But the facts here are stubborn things that you will just have to ignore; not refute.

Hey hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a good story lol.

 

[SilverC6]

For some members here, it's "The Neverending Story."

Pure FRAM fantasy sans the flying dog/dragon.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ The only fact I see so far is the Fram TSB - and it's clearly stated that there was no evidence that the cause was the filter. And I'm pretty sure that if Cummings didn't like what the TSB said they wouldn't have ever let that TSB be officially published, or would have made Fram resend it. So you can bet all the lawyers were looking at every word in that TSB, and if there would have been any grounds to firmly blame the filter it would have said so. But no, it's really a huge conspiracy and cover up, right? Fram must have paid millions under the table to have Cummings allow that TSB to be published.

If there is nothing more to go on, then I don't see any other real proof yet to say otherwise. It very well could have been a case where Fram bent over backwards to prevent damage to the brand, even if the failures couldn't positively be linked to the filters causing it.

Oh well, you don't believe the Purolator tear spreadsheet and I don't believe that the Cummings fiasco is what you make it sound like. Kumbaya!

 

[SilverC6]

It does sound like someone is bending over here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Don't go over too far!

 

[SilverC6]

Forgot the "backward."

But you've gone too far.

You are quashing good discussion with your bullying post style and veiled threats of moderator intervention.

So you deny that FRAM had problems with their PH3976 for the Cummins diesel application over a decade ago.

You deny that Cummins did a thorough investigation of the problem and found FRAM to be at fault and issued a TBM to use selected filters on their engines to keep their warranty intact and did not include FRAM on the list.

And you deny that FRAM drafted their TBM to not admit blame and then proceeded to pull product from the shelves and redesign the filter for the Cummins RAM application.

What color is the sky in your world?

Orange?

 

[Mrsandman]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
For some members here, it's "The Neverending Story."

Pure FRAM fantasy sans the flying dog/dragon.

lol, I liked that story as a kid. But the ones I'm hearing here is a little more unbelievable.
Facts are hard for someone swallow.

 

[chainblu]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
FRAM had problems with their PH3976 for the Cummins diesel application over a decade ago.


What?
We revived a 2 year old thread to talk about something that happened 10+ years ago?

 

[Mrsandman]

Originally Posted By: chainblu
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
FRAM had problems with their PH3976 for the Cummins diesel application over a decade ago.


What?
We revived a 2 year old thread to talk about something that happened 10+ years ago?

Societies learn some of their greatest lessons from history.
Also how much has the ocod changed? Did fram learn their lesson?
I think a cut and post of that particular filter could be telling if anyone could get a hold of one still around to compare to the later ocods. Wouldn't tell all but could be very revealing.
Also does anyone know what the difference is between the original and the redesigned/renamed ones?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Forgot the "backward."

But you've gone too far.

You are quashing good discussion with your bullying post style and veiled threats of moderator intervention.

So you deny that FRAM had problems with their PH3976 for the Cummins diesel application over a decade ago.

You deny that Cummins did a thorough investigation of the problem and found FRAM to be at fault and issued a TBM to use selected filters on their engines to keep their warranty intact and did not include FRAM on the list.

And you deny that FRAM drafted their TBM to not admit blame and then proceeded to pull product from the shelves and redesign the filter for the Cummins RAM application.

What color is the sky in your world?

Orange?


LoL ... get a grip.

Talk about "quashing a good discussion" ... you're doing a fine job at it. I'm not denying anything - I'm questioning it. You want proof of things, so do I and I'm asking the question - where is the other documentation or proof? If you can cough it up then I'll say fine, but instead you just say it's so. Maybe they didn't document things 15 years ago? LoL All we got is a bulletin that clearly leaves the blame open ended.

It seem like a pretty long stretch that Fram would write a bulletin to try and "cover up" something, and you really think Cummings and their lawyers would allow that? It was probably easier for Fram to redesign the filter to take any doubt out and save face, and pay for some blown engines than to try and got to court to prove it wasn't their product.

I also read that there were some WIX filters that were also on the ban list by Cummings because they many have been culprits and blamed for engine damage too. You see any bulletins from WIX?

Show the other proof besides a bulletin that says a joint investigation between Fram and Cummings didn't conclude anything solid. You got some documentation that Cummings produced about this issue?

 

[goodtimes]

Fram didn't really redesign the filter in the Dodge case, they just made sure some particular neoprene compound wasn't used in manufacture, to make sure some engine abuser couldn't destroy an engine and wildly claim their Fram filter did it. Then they put an A after the model number. There was no evidence the filter did the damage. The claim was obviously bogus according to the facts. Case closed long ago and old threads and cases are being recreated here for some unknown reason.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The reason is pretty clear actually. He pulls that one out of his back pocket every now and then when the Fram hate can't be contained.

 

[Merkava_4]

Who keeps digging up these old threads?