Any FRAM users here?

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Who keeps digging up these old threads?

People that have been banned before for various reasons, yet come back and only wish to stir up controversy and cause trouble. The MO is obvious, they start off by asking seemingly innocuous questions but quickly move on to topics that only serve to generate arguments.

Always look for the new members that start off with a familiarity of existing members, ones that show they've been here before - and some for a long time probably. They already have a preconceived opinion of certain members and topics that betrays their low post count and new name.

Another clue is that if you try and engage them in an honest dialog they quickly tire and move on to other threads, generally ignoring direct questions about some statement they have made. Also watch for generous high-fives for certain members that agree with them - and could quite likely be the same person. The main one we have going now started off asking simple questions but quickly started showing his agenda, displayed in this thread and numerous others.

 

[SilverC6]

I'm glad the FRAM contingent is satisfied that FRAM did no wrong here.

I believe I could have predicted that outcome without my crystal ball.

You always ask for proof and when it is delivered, it is never good enough to overcome your bias.

Continue to deflect, rationalize, misrepresent, and kid yourself about this issue.

And by all means, enjoy those FRAMs boys.

I'll be listening for you rattling at start up.

 

[crazyoildude]

In my opinion the only filter that i would ever use is their ultra the other filters they make would never be put on one of my personal engines or any of the many engines we rebuild as long as i am involved.

Cut open some filters and see for yourself a picture is worth a thousand words but seeing it with your own eyes is the final word. Wix makes good filters pretty much in their whole lineup. Hyundai makes great filters also in my opinion. The ultra looks like a very well constructed filter. There are some Chinese filters that look very good also believe it or not and there are a few others also.

 

[crazyoildude]

Adam, thank you for posting.. This is the first time i saw a fram coming apart at the seam like that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Who keeps digging up these old threads?

People that have been banned before for various reasons, yet come back and only wish to stir up controversy and cause trouble. The MO is obvious, they start off by asking seemingly innocuous questions but quickly move on to topics that only serve to generate arguments.

Always look for the new members that start off with a familiarity of existing members, ones that show they've been here before - and some for a long time probably. They already have a preconceived opinion of certain members and topics that betrays their low post count and new name.

Another clue is that if you try and engage them in an honest dialog they quickly tire and move on to other threads, generally ignoring direct questions about some statement they have made. Also watch for generous high-fives for certain members that agree with them - and could quite likely be the same person. The main one we have going now started off asking simple questions but quickly started showing his agenda, displayed in this thread and numerous others.


Exactly

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
I'm glad the FRAM contingent is satisfied that FRAM did no wrong here.

I believe I could have predicted that outcome without my crystal ball.

You always ask for proof and when it is delivered, it is never good enough to overcome your bias.

Continue to deflect, rationalize, misrepresent, and kid yourself about this issue.

And by all means, enjoy those FRAMs boys.

I'll be listening for you rattling at start up.


As I thought ... another fail.

Thanks for bringing up that 15 year old thing again.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
There are some Chinese filters that look very good also believe it or not and there are a few others also.


I would never use a $1.98 made in China jobber filter. They may "look good", but there is more to a filter than just how it looks. You will never see efficiency data on those filters, and probably for a reason.

Most "Quick Lube" places probably don't care about performance. All they care about is how much profit they can make on each one and if the filter will not fail in a way that is noticeable to the customer.

 

[crazyoildude]

Good point to a degree but some of those filters look really good we used to say the same about korean things and look at the Hyundai filters.. About a year ago my filter guy said he had some good selling chinese filters i got one took it apart and wAs impressed problem is they said in big black letters made in china so i decided against them. That is the problem with a lot of filters they may look good but how can we be sure of the media.. The companies that make them may not be so honest.. Some Under $2.00 filters are pretty good we are paying less than that for the jobber Wix and we all like them very much.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I would never use a $1.98 made in China jobber filter. They may "look good", but there is more to a filter than just how it looks. You will never see efficiency data on those filters, and probably for a reason.

Maybe the Chinese can show a couple North American product lines how to make filters that don't look like they were sat on or have media spaced by a drunk. And the Americans can introduce the Chinese to some efficient media.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
I'm glad the FRAM contingent is satisfied that FRAM did no wrong here.

I believe I could have predicted that outcome without my crystal ball.

You always ask for proof and when it is delivered, it is never good enough to overcome your bias.

Continue to deflect, rationalize, misrepresent, and kid yourself about this issue.

And by all means, enjoy those FRAMs boys.

I'll be listening for you rattling at start up.


As I thought ... another fail.

Thanks for bringing up that 15 year old thing again.


You wanted proof and I brought you the facts.

That you want to discount them and put them aside to further your discussion doesn't concern me.

But I also charged you to bring proof of engine damage of any kind that has been attributed to the Purolator oil filters that you so intently malign.

I believe I still hear crickets.....

So it's clear that a filter, even with small tears, still filters over the remainder of its media surface to sufficiently protect an engine.

Absent your proof to the contrary, this has to be correct. Yes?

And I don't want to hear again the machinations, deflections, and hyperbole that you've spent the past few years contriving.

So put up or shut up...where are the engine failures or other damage from the so called "Purolator tear problem."

 

[ZeeOSix]

Hello "Deflection Master" ... this discussion is not about torn Purolators damaging engines - you're the one who went down this road and pulled a 15 year old bulletin out of your Fram hate box. I agree there's no proof that any torn Purolator has damaged an engine, but that doesn't make for an excuse of shoddy quality and tearing media, and doesn't disprove that there could be some damage going on. And even if a torn Purolator did damage an engine, what are the chances that we would hear about in on this chat board ... slim I'd say.

The discussion here was asking for more solid proof that those Fram filters smoked Cummings engines. The bulletin clearly says there was no solid proof that it was caused by the filters. Fram changed the design to take all doubts away. If you can't pull up some other solid proof to trump the bulletin then I'm just going to go with what facts are on the table and believe there was no solid proof. Take off the hate glasses once and awhile ... you're holding a 15 year old grudge.

 

[ChrisD46]

isn't the general consensus today that FRAM Ultra (gold) and the mid grade Tough Guard (silver) are good filters ? ... The bottom positioned Extra Guard (Orange) perhaps not so good - but it is a budget oil filter after all ...

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: ChrisD46
isn't the general consensus today that FRAM Ultra (gold) and the mid grade Tough Guard (silver) are good filters ? ... The bottom positioned Extra Guard (Orange) perhaps not so good - but it is a budget oil filter after all ...
I can easily agree with it, especially in the case of the Ultra--bang for the buck, there is no other filter that comes close. I have never used a Tough Guard, but IMHO, the Extra Guard needs more media and thus for its price point there are other filters that are better. However, cheaply constructed as the EG is they seem to get the job done and there are countless people who have used them through the years with no issues.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I agree there's no proof that any torn Purolator has damaged an engine, but that doesn't make for an excuse of shoddy quality and tearing media, and doesn't disprove that there could be some damage going on.

The discussion here was asking for more solid proof that those Fram filters smoked Cummings engines.


I responded to your request for more proof by directing you to the RAM/Chrysler TBM and the first hand accounts of engine damage paid for by FRAM in the Cummins forums.

It's irrational to digest all this information and then come to the conclusion that FRAM filters did not cause any damage to any Cummins engines.

You seemed better schooled in scientific method in the past.

But I'm glad we could establish there are absolutely no reports anywhere that the minor tears in Purolator filters have caused any problem with anyone's engine.

So maybe the unwarranted knee jerk vitriol coming out of you post after post after post against Purolator will be tempered.

Or is that against the rules for the unofficial BITOG protector of the FRAM faith.

 

[C1KLTX]

I don't remember seeing any threads about engines from a torn Purolator filter, if there was someone link it.

First off, All 3 of my cars have FRAM filters and neither have a rattle at startup nor have they ever since I have had them so there is that, maybe some people have on some cars but not me.

Also, It is fine to defend a company as assembly issues happen, but to say oh its just a tear it still filter fined. That may be the case but it would be similar to running a air filter with a big whole in it, would it still filter air? yes, would it let through things it should catch if it wasn't ripped? Yes. Would it blow your motor? Probably not, would just be pretty dirty.

It doesn't matter what company makes what a filter is supposed to filter, having tears, gaps, etc is not ok, does it happen? Yes.

I use what I like using on cars, and expect everyone else to do what is best for them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I agree there's no proof that any torn Purolator has damaged an engine, but that doesn't make for an excuse of shoddy quality and tearing media, and doesn't disprove that there could be some damage going on.

The discussion here was asking for more solid proof that those Fram filters smoked Cummings engines.


It's irrational to digest all this information and then come to the conclusion that FRAM filters did not cause any damage to any Cummins engines.

I responded to your request for more proof by directing you to the RAM/Chrysler TBM and the first hand accounts of engine damage paid for by FRAM in the Cummins forums.


Did you? I don't recall any other links given by you except for the Fram bulletin. Post up the links.

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
You seemed better schooled in scientific method in the past.

But I'm glad we could establish there are absolutely no reports anywhere that the minor tears in Purolator filters have caused any problem with anyone's engine.


No engine failures or other engine damage/wear ... that we know of.

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
So maybe the unwarranted knee jerk vitriol coming out of you post after post after post against Purolator will be tempered.

Or is that against the rules for the unofficial BITOG protector of the FRAM faith.


LoL ... I'd say you knee jerk way more than I do! Funny guy, still stuck in 2001 and bashing 14+ years later. Claims are worthless without real proof that it actually happened. You don't seem to get that part and keep side stepping showing some of the "other proof" of the issue.

 

[CT8]

I use Fram Toughguard and XG what ever they are called now. I have on occasion used the orange cans without problems.

 

[Dallas69]

There should be no holes in a filter period.
If a filter has tears or holes it is no longer a filter.
You admit that Purolator has tears in some but still defend them.
I don't get it.

 

[SilverC6]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I agree there's no proof that any torn Purolator has damaged an engine, but that doesn't make for an excuse of shoddy quality and tearing media, and doesn't disprove that there could be some damage going on.

The discussion here was asking for more solid proof that those Fram filters smoked Cummings engines.


It's irrational to digest all this information and then come to the conclusion that FRAM filters did not cause any damage to any Cummins engines.

I responded to your request for more proof by directing you to the RAM/Chrysler TBM and the first hand accounts of engine damage paid for by FRAM in the Cummins forums.


Did you? I don't recall any other links given by you except for the Fram bulletin. Post up the links.

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
You seemed better schooled in scientific method in the past.

But I'm glad we could establish there are absolutely no reports anywhere that the minor tears in Purolator filters have caused any problem with anyone's engine.


No engine failures or other engine damage/wear ... that we know of.

Originally Posted By: SilverC6
So maybe the unwarranted knee jerk vitriol coming out of you post after post after post against Purolator will be tempered.

Or is that against the rules for the unofficial BITOG protector of the FRAM faith.


LoL ... I'd say you knee jerk way more than I do! Funny guy, still stuck in 2001 and bashing 14+ years later. Claims are worthless without real proof that it actually happened. You don't seem to get that part and keep side stepping showing some of the "other proof" of the issue.

Use your google search. You seem very resourceful when it comes to other issues.

Type away and your search returns the actual, first hand accounts of engine damage and the repairs made.

And while I provided a link to the Chrysler TBM, you can search and read the Chrysler TBM yourself recommending practically every filter except the disintegrating, engine damaging FRAM.

You could even ask your FRAM factory buddies for the inside skinny. They might be honest with you and not hide behind the marketing/legal speak in their TBM.

You'll still be in denial afterward though. But to paraphrase Ron White, there are some things you can't fix.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ I'm not the one making the claim they actually smoked engines ... you are. So it's on you to come up with good enough proof (besides the nebulous bulletin) to show you're right. Otherwise you can just bail out and drop the whole thing like you usually do ... I really don't care.

And again ... does it even really matter since that was 15 years ago? It's just an obvious Fram hate ploy of yours to did up irrelevant cases that don't even correspond to what's going on today with oil filters.

I think I'll put a pop up reminder on my calendar to bring up all the Purolator tearing threads back to the top 15 years from now if BITOG board is still in existence by then - LoL