I wouldn't think that you would, but that doesn't mean the filters haven't been torn. "Several BS UOAs later" isn't the proper tool to determine that.
Best alternative to the FL820S?
- Thread starter ActualDinosaur
- Start date
- Status
So the posts and pictures of torn filters aren't sufficient for that?
I use OEM filters on my cars, but if I saw pictures on here from members where the media was tearing I'd drop them in a heartbeat and use something else. At some point one should face reality rather than hiding from facts.
Last edited:
There's a small percentage that had tears. I only had one, unfortunately that was one too many for me. They just look sloppily constructed. The other models look good and I do not know why only 820's look they way they do.
Id go with the WIX/Napa models people suggested.
The FoMoCo 820 filter that came on the car from the factory is made by WIX.
The FoMoCo 820 filter that came on the car from the factory is made by WIX.
Sure it is, you don't think torn media would show up in contaminates?
UOA "insolubles %" don't correlate with ISO 5011 oil particle count data from what I've seen.
That is your choice. There are many more pictures of a sasquatch out there than there are of "torn" filter media...are you a believer?
There's been many torn media photos posted in this forum over the last 5~6 years.
I'm aware. There have been even more pictures posted of sasquatch and flying saucers during that time.
I kept on using them during "the bad years" of BITOG where MC filters were junk and Fram became the new ultimate filter, during all that time I never has a UOA come back with any elevated levels of anything. I'll stick with them, everyone else can do whatever they please.
Well like I said, (a reasonable) person would at some point look at the evidence that's been posted and eventually face reality. If you're dragging some goofy reference to Sasquatch and UFOs into this discussion then I get where you're coming from. Everybody does.
And the UOA will not show what you're looking for as I noted. You can keep bringing that up but it doesn't change the facts. Sasquatch or no Sasquatch and given your comments in this thread I think you should continue using the filters. I'm sure your loyalty will make up for torn media somehow. It has about the same relevance to your other comments.
Last edited:
Jackson_Slugger
$50 Site Donor 2022
I don't need pics of tears, the pics of the 820's with very wide spacing between pleats is a enough for me and I won't use them. NAPA Platinum and Gold are my current go to's....
I'm sure it's well constructed but for that kind of money I go with a Baldwin...
I'm sure it's well constructed but for that kind of money I go with a Baldwin...
Which is statistically meaningless.
Millions of Purolator-made filters are sold and used every year in fleets which do oil analysis, yet they still buy them.
What I have not seen in the "torn media" campaign of the last few years is a post in which pictures of torn media was accompanied by an actual oil analysis showing bad results.
Nor have I seen a study of random samples of these filters that would provide the basis for forming a statistically meaningful conclusion as to the failure rate.
There is science and statistics, and then there is anecdotes and "I favor/disfavor X".
It's less meaningless than the posts that say "I cut mine open and it wasn't torn".
And for the 834,333rd time a UOA is the wrong tool for showing the results of torn media. People here are sometimes desperately confused on what a UOA shows, or doesn't show.
If it doesn't result in increased wear, it's meaningless.
But at the core a UOA does not show wear. What about when the filter media comes loose and enters the oil stream?
And above and beyond, why would anyone with a right mind use a filter that has been shown to tear? Is that all you can buy at the store or are you so emotionally invested in the brand that you cannot think straight? That's really the issue here. I cannot understand why anyone would defend a known defective product when there are products that do not exhibit defects which are just as easy to procure.
Damage occurring to the motor because of the failure is not my point, the failure itself is.
Yes the sample here is low and is anecdotal, but the fact still remains that Purolator made filters are the only one we are consistently seeing with this issue (primarily in the 820s). Do other filters have issues, yes, but not to the extent as Purolator made ones.
As I have said many times, why buy a filter that has a higher chance of failure and not filtering properly, regardless of the outcome of the failure?
Do you accept failure of other products even if nothing bad happens? Would you keep buying it if there were reasonable alternatives?
At the core the only way to SHOW wear is to disassemble the engine, transmission, or other assembly and make measurements.
Oil analysis doesn't do that.
Based on elemental analysis we INFER wear and other internal conditions without disassembly.
- Status
