If it has no measurable effect, it's not very meaningful.
Partial flow filters work fine in many applications, and that's what a tear in filter media creates.
Best alternative to the FL820S?
- Thread starter ActualDinosaur
- Start date
- Status
If it has no measurable effect, it's not very meaningful.
Partial flow filters work fine in many applications, and that's what a tear in filter media creates.
Okay sure. You say you're big on statistics, where is your valid statistical analysis of wear based on UOA showing no correlation between torn and un-torn media? Surely you aren't suggesting you came to your conclusion based on an ad hoc viewing of UOA posted here?
The more you post the further away you are getting from all that statistics you talked about. You say it's not measurable but by what analysis are you making that claim?
You appear to be without any support for a position except (1) an opinion and (2) a picture of a tear.
You reject the value of Used Oil Analysis, which is the backbone of industrial and fleet lubrication management, and are unable to provide any measurable data that these occasional tears result in any damage.
Lol okay sure. That's a bit delusional but you're welcome to your opinion no matter what it is. You should apply that standard to yourself since you're the one making the claim that there is a statistical correlation to some data. Like others in this thread I am saying that the filter has had a demonstrated history of tearing and that in and of itself is a serious flaw. Further we are baffled as to why anyone could, or would defend that evidence. So far it has been you that has not produced any actual data to support your claim despite a lot of talk about statistical validity.
Again where is your statistical analysis showing there is no increased wear per UOA for torn media? I realize that's a leading question since you could not ever make that analysis based on anything posted here on Bitog.
If you happen to find some facts that support your position, particularly the notion that the lack of any evidence of wear in Used Oil Analysis is irrelevant, do post them.
The burden of providing statistical proof that small tears are meaningful rests on you.
I could never do such a thing based on the data presented in this forum. But then again that’s not the claim I’m making, unlike you. Read back in the posts here and if you’re at all honest you’ll see. You keep deflecting which is common when an individual makes untenable claims.
The video supports the conclusion that not changing your oil and filter can result in engine damage.
It does not support conclusions about a small tear in filter media.
What claim beyond "from time to time someone posts a picture of a small tear in filter media" are you making?
You have claimed that Used Oil Analysis is essentially meaningless.
You have claimed that the burden of proof that an occasional small tear in filter media is significant or not is on others.
Not a whole lot other than to make the claim that torn media is a fundamental failure in an oil filter. You wouldn't want a hole in your air filter, would you? In my somewhat limited thought process, a filter should filter, and one with a hole in the media has failed to perform the primary function.
I did not say UOA are essentially meaningless in an overall sense, just to support your claims. And later on you agreed with what I said. This is what I was referring to as deflection by you.
And once again you're the one who said the tears are statistically insignificant in terms of wear. Do you understand how intellectually vapid that statement is when you're basing it on a causal observation of UOA posted to an Internet discussion board? It's almost laughable that you'd bring statistical validity into this discussion. Once again the UOA posted here do not in any way support your claim in any manner whatsoever. That is what I described as delusional, plain and simple.
There is a way one could gather statistically valid data for filter tears, do you know what it is and how such a test would be performed?
I did not say UOA are essentially meaningless in an overall sense, just to support your claims. And later on you agreed with what I said. This is what I was referring to as deflection by you.
And once again you're the one who said the tears are statistically insignificant in terms of wear. Do you understand how intellectually vapid that statement is when you're basing it on a causal observation of UOA posted to an Internet discussion board? It's almost laughable that you'd bring statistical validity into this discussion. Once again the UOA posted here do not in any way support your claim in any manner whatsoever. That is what I described as delusional, plain and simple.
There is a way one could gather statistically valid data for filter tears, do you know what it is and how such a test would be performed?
Last edited:
No one has claimed that oil filter media tearing is a good thing.
What I began with is that a small tear in and of itself may not mean a great deal in terms of engine wear, that without an oil analysis to go with it - which no one going on about tears has provided - it's simply a picture, and that there is nothing supporting any statistic on how common the tears are - one in 10,000 or one in 2.
Based on the fact that a number of OEMs source these filters, that they are used in fleets worldwide with no apparent adverse results, and the complete lack of solid evidence of harm, I remain skeptical.
Have a nice day, or night depending on where you are, and moving on.
You claimed "But at the core a UOA does not show wear." to reject the suggestion that a picture of a tear should be accompanied by some evidence, such as a UOA, that it made an actual difference to the vehicle the filter was in.
I am pleased to read that you've given that argument up.
It does not in this instance, at least not the UOA posted here. Do you understand why?
I'll give you a clue, it is related to that whole statistically valid thing you talked about at first.
There is no substitute for a master's experience. There are people here who seem honest, like Trav, who have seen many engines dissasembled. I take his opinion over others counting three particles versus five.and graphing it out on paper. A little sarcasm but the idea is true imoo I have only taken apart one cylinder head in 20 years. It had 200k exactly on the engine. The valve stem tips were just polished and the original grinding marks still there. That is like a steady state of wear at that point, essentially zero. This car had only quick lubes changes of the cheapest parts, but pretty frequent changes, 3-5 k. All the parts measured like new tappets, valves everything.
But your defense of failure not being an issue implies that it is not a bad thing, or relevant at all as to the effectiveness of the product.
I agree there is no evidence of anything bad happening, but just as you said, lack of evidence does not prove anything.
A failure is still a failure.
If you want to use a 820s, that is fine, if you think they are fine, great. That is your opinion based on your experience and research.
Others have different experiences with these filters (and other Puro made filters), and choose not to use a filter with a know flaw for over 6 years that still has not been addressed (wide pleats near the seam with is a common failure point).
What exactly is the point of contention (s) here?
The correct tool is an ISO 5011 cleanliness measurement. Standard UOAs don't show much in terms of oil cleanliness with the "insolubles %" data. There is no solid correlation between insolubles % and ISO PC data from the UOAs I've seen on this chat board.
Last edited:
They mention that torn media can cause VCT issues due to filter screen clogging, etc. They don't get into any other possible issues with the oiling system, but it enough media tore and broke loose and went into the oiling system, it could also cause other lubrication issues. Every torn filter I've seen posted here came out of pretty clean running engines - ie, no signs of sludge, etc. So any torn filter can raise the concerns that are discussed in the Ford Tech Talk video.
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
What is statistically meaningful to me is that 100% of the FL820's seem to have larger surface area on some pleats potentially exposing them to tearing. It's just sloppy and cheaponing design. Yes, I know they're $4 but still. I'm pretty sure the Purolator equivalent, the xx4651, now has much tighter pleat construction...
Is it? If that many torn filters have just been found by people on BITOG cutting open filters, then what's that scale up to in the whole country? It would be statiscally astronomical if only torn filters landed in the hands of BITOG members who happen to cut open oil filters, and every other non-torn filter landed in the hands of everyone else.
How many would still buy them if they knew they seem to tear way more than other brands of filters?
And there is also blind fanboyism.
Last edited:
The designer and FOMOCO the buyer seem to think it is a fine design.
If you're opining that it is not your preference and you would choose some other filter, that's another thing.
That's a matter of taste.
There seems to be no evidence that this design or small tears from time to time endanger engines.
- Status