Filter Media Damage

[Filter guy]

Anyone want a plant tour?

The filters go down the same production lines. There is not a low ball line and a Mobil 1 line at Champ.

The difference is basically the media. When you are talking the majority of the private label brands.

It's not necessarliy "cheaper" media. Because the filter still has to meet or exceed OEM specs.

There are good, better, best type options in media. The private label account decides how they want to go to market.
----------------------------------------

Question for Lubeowner:

You say you've cut open hundreds and hundreds of filters.

Have you ever seen any Warner filters not "fail"? What percentage in your estimation were OK and what weren't?

And of those that were "OK"..why didn't they fail as well?

 

[ZR2RANDO]

"and no, I would never buy a Warner after seeing these images."

One customer helped already,
You, me, and who knows how many more...

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Filter guy:
snip....
Have you ever seen any Warner filters not "fail"? What percentage in your estimation were OK and what weren't?

And of those that were "OK"..why didn't they fail as well?

---

I hope Lubeowner elaborates when he gets a chance. In a post to an earlier thread, he was very specific about the failures being clicker valves on non GM applications. That would sound like much of the problem is due to a clicker valve sticking closed when it is needed.

Some here never have liked the clicker valves. Is it possible that the Warner line uses more clicker valves and a poorer media? I never have seen a Warner for sale, and do not remember any references to them here except at Lubeowners shop.

 

[Gary Allan]

The clicker design, IMHO, is harder to "manage". It's not like a dedicated spring. Those they puke out of a coil of wire spec'd for that run/filter/etc.) The resilience and strength of the end cap could vary quite a bit. I imagine that they have a +/- spec for it from a sampling of the stamped parts ..just like they have a +/- spec on the media. Those two probably breach tolerances of each other and are in conflict on the marginal/cheaper name brands ..or rather over the course of use they may more easily violate the others tolerance(s). The media decays ..the clicker doesn't (there's nothing to decay). Better media ..less problems ..cheaper media ..more problems.

So, although I think that the clicker is indeed a substantial contributor to the failures, I don't think that anything with a clicker is necessarily an "unwise" choice in a filter. You have to realize that the longer you use it, the more likely that the media will always be the weak link. It's like using cheaper tires over VR rated ones. If it's a grocery getter and doesn't see anything over 70 mph, or 10k a year ..why lay out the cash?

[ May 21, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[Filter guy]

Warner is Champs short line of coverage brand. Only the popular numbers are available. It's not full line like a Wix, Purolator, AC, Fram etc.

It is available to (smaller) automotive distributors as a secondary source as a price line item behind their primary full line filter offering.

It is also used by quick lubes for the same reason. Lower price, no advertising dollars available..what you get is the filter without any other marketing assistance.


The clicker valves were/are used by various brands. So that is not just a Warner brand issue.

 

[jsharp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:


OTOH, aside from the difference in media and other minor issues, the high cost of an M1 may very well be due to the rejection rate on the line. This I saw with medical tubing with very strict FDA standards. A 70% rejection rate wasn't unheard of. That's why, after filtering through the various hands (producer, vendor, distributor, etc.) you're paying $500 for a drinking straw or coffee stirrer sized piece of tubing made out of teflon (FEP) or PVC even.

---

You've just described somthing similar to the way semiconductor manufacturing works. Costs are driven mainly by something called "yield." With a new product the reject rate is high and because of that the costs are high. As the yield increases costs are reduced and the pricing can follow.

Further, some items are tested and documented more completely and the testing is more severe.

Same lines, same process, the difference is the specs, testing, reject rate and audit trail...

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
snip...

But I can't figure how you could determine that type of thing in process and still have the filter roll into the box with a Warner label on it.''

Just as easy to divert it to the Warner box as the dumpster.

Quoting Gary again ''OTOH, aside from the difference in media and other minor issues, the high cost of an M1 may very well be due to the rejection rate on the line. This I saw with medical tubing with very strict FDA standards. A 70% rejection rate wasn't unheard of. That's why, after filtering through the various hands (producer, vendor, distributor, etc.) you're paying $500 for a drinking straw or coffee stirrer sized piece of tubing made out of teflon (FEP) or PVC even.

---

Much of American industry abandoned efforts to inspect in quality 20-30 years ago and moved in the direction of zero defects and SPC.

 

[Filter guy]

If only..

If only someone from this forum would take a tour of the Champ plant, there might be some differentiation in thought patterns. Especially someone who has been critical should take the tour.

The same can, backplate, end caps, ADBP valve etc are the same in a Warner filter as tons of other private label brands Champ manufactures.
You only have to tour once to figure that out.

And Champ has a couple of complete in plant fab departments stamping out their own component parts.

They have, and are the only filter company to my knowledge, who has their own Chemistry lab which blends the different glues ( plastisols, urethane, etc ) in house. They are not reliant on someone else QC nor on rejection of bad batches from another supplier.

But the main point of interest would be inspection and the hand process used with respect to the media and element itself.

For metal end cap spin ons someone has to cut the media after it comes out of an oven during precure. They stretch the media out as they get ready to cut the next piece. Visual inspection.

Then the media goes through a seamer which glues the two ends together so that no fluid can get between the seam. This is another hand process. Not lapped over like some. Not using a metal clip like others which can have it's own inherant problems. Again, visual inspection of the last process and to see if the media was cut where it should have been.

So after the media is seamed it goes to another station where that person actually flips the media inside out by hand and puts one end in an endcap with the center tube. Again, visual inspection as one flips the media.

The next station, someone puts the other endcap on, and the element is sent through another oven to put the final cure on the entire element both the media and the endcap glues.

Then the element is put into the can with the tension spring, by hand. And another visual inspection of the complete element is done.
Then it's off to the can seamer, tested for leaks, and then paint booth.

So there are 4 area's where the media is looked at..coming out of the oven, at the seamer, before the media is used to make an element, and final inspection before the element is canned.
At any of those four area's can reject a piece of media or the element.

And this is after a sample of the incoming lot is tested by QC to make sure the roll of media is within the spec and conforms to the testing the media supplier sent to Champ of the incoming lot. So a verification of what the media supplier is doing and not relying on just their say so.

If only those who have all the questions would go through a filter plant, a lot of the assumptions or musing of why this or why that would disappear...imho.