My used coffee filters look better than that!!
FL-820s with a big hole.
- Thread starter jmb3675
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
That's a big hole. It's disappointing when you depend on a product to give reliable service. But if 4K miles wasn't too much, 10 months probably was.
Filters last a lot longer than 10 months while in use. Mileage is the main factor, time not so much.
If time in service doesn't matter so much, why do so many car manufacturers recommend intervals of xxx miles or six months, whichever comes first?
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
That's a big hole. It's disappointing when you depend on a product to give reliable service. But if 4K miles wasn't too much, 10 months probably was.
Filters last a lot longer than 10 months while in use. Mileage is the main factor, time not so much.
If time in service doesn't matter so much, why do so many car manufacturers recommend intervals of xxx miles or six months, whichever comes first?
I agree that this is either a manufacturing defect or a media blow-out...not one of the "usual" Purolator pleat tears, which only seem to occur at the interface between the pleat and the end cap.
Ouch.
Dumb question-was it used this past winter, and how thick was the oil? Possible bypass failure (stuck shut)?
It was used this past winter. I drove it on nights we were expecting a significant snow and on a few really cold nights. It wasn't started in the extreme cold nearly as much as the car, but it had a few mornings at or near 25 below.
It has been running Motocraft 5w-20 since new. Every previous oil chance has been done by a Ford dealer. Since the extended warranty expired last month, I did the last oil change myself. I used Motocraft oil and filter again.
While Purolator may be using Ford specs and better materials causing fewer problems by far, But this makes me think their quality issues run deep in the company.
I am disappointed with the way this filter looks. I know if it didn't have a hole it would still work fine, But considering it had only 4000 miles on it, the media just looks poor to me. It looks like the filters that I opened that had many more miles on them. How bad would it look if it didn't have the hole? I understand it's a cheap filter, But when compared to how good the FL-400s looks for the same price, it's just doesn't seem like a good bargain.
Even though I have been happy with Motocraft filters, and I think the FL-400s is one of the best filters, especially for the price, I think it's time to look for a new brand. Sure it's only hole, but it was made by a company with a history of poor quality.
It has been running Motocraft 5w-20 since new. Every previous oil chance has been done by a Ford dealer. Since the extended warranty expired last month, I did the last oil change myself. I used Motocraft oil and filter again.
While Purolator may be using Ford specs and better materials causing fewer problems by far, But this makes me think their quality issues run deep in the company.
I am disappointed with the way this filter looks. I know if it didn't have a hole it would still work fine, But considering it had only 4000 miles on it, the media just looks poor to me. It looks like the filters that I opened that had many more miles on them. How bad would it look if it didn't have the hole? I understand it's a cheap filter, But when compared to how good the FL-400s looks for the same price, it's just doesn't seem like a good bargain.
Even though I have been happy with Motocraft filters, and I think the FL-400s is one of the best filters, especially for the price, I think it's time to look for a new brand. Sure it's only hole, but it was made by a company with a history of poor quality.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
That's a big hole. It's disappointing when you depend on a product to give reliable service. But if 4K miles wasn't too much, 10 months probably was.
Filters last a lot longer than 10 months while in use. Mileage is the main factor, time not so much.
If time in service doesn't matter so much, why do so many car manufacturers recommend intervals of xxx miles or six months, whichever comes first?
How do you then explain Honda saying you can use a filter for 2 OCIs. It would certainly be well over 10 months on the filter.
People have called filter manufactures and asked how long a filter could be left on in situations where the guy only puts 1000 miles on his classic car a year and wants to change just the oil every year. The answer was somewhere around 2 years for the filter.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: NormanBuntz
That's a big hole. It's disappointing when you depend on a product to give reliable service. But if 4K miles wasn't too much, 10 months probably was.
Filters last a lot longer than 10 months while in use. Mileage is the main factor, time not so much.
If time in service doesn't matter so much, why do so many car manufacturers recommend intervals of xxx miles or six months, whichever comes first?
How do you then explain Honda saying you can use a filter for 2 OCIs. It would certainly be well over 10 months on the filter.
People have called filter manufactures and asked how long a filter could be left on in situations where the guy only puts 1000 miles on his classic car a year and wants to change just the oil every year. The answer was somewhere around 2 years for the filter.
jmb675, no matter what brand of paper filters there will always be that one chance it will fail and that destroys your engine. I always felt paper filters were made for the general public who were not gear heads easy to get and only cost couple of bucks!!! it's a no brainer for me you get what you pay for. go ahead and be like most on this site and use cheap stuff for your expensive cars.remember, 99% of people when using any brand of paper filter will not cut them open so most will never know what happened inside. I am just trying to help and share my experience's. looking at the above filter's what do you expect when oil rushing into paper at 2-4 gpm going to look like eventually will blow away that paper into your engine!!I have a lot of money in my vehicles and I am not using product like super tech, paper filters etc.good luck
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
The Rank Group owns Fram now, and they bought Champion as well. Fram makes Royal Purpil under unique specs of course. Its hard to keep track of since ownership changes means production might move around. For example, Fram now makes M1 oil filters since Rank stepped in.
True, perhaps I should have qualified my statement with "historically", given the recent ownership changes of some of these brands. WIX/Afinia has made AMSOIL filters in the past too, certain models, which was what I was driving at, that the Ford filters aren't manufactured as a Purolator filter but rather as a Ford-spec filter by in this case, Purolator. Ford's factory filters had very different assembly BTW and were Champion filters in the past.
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
Motorking says ExtraGuards are 95% and the web page too http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-extra-guard-oil-filter.aspx, and the PH2 in particular uses the same glass-cellulose blended media. (ToughGuards blend in a higher % glass.)
That link says the same thing I said earlier though, you'll note the superscript "2" beside the efficiency rating, which corresponds to the comment at the bottom of the page that reads:
Quote:
2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A, and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns
Which is a rather specific list of filters with the following dimensions:
PH8A - Height: 5.14", OD: 3.8"
PH3387A - Height: 3.36", OD: 2.98"
PH4967 - Height: 2.92", OD: 2.69"
Now the FL-820S/PH2 is larger than the 2nd two filters so I find it odd that it either isn't included in that list or that the list isn't an "applies to all filters except:" type deal.
IIRC, this was discussed before on here in the past and certain smaller filters were less efficient than the large cans. That may have changed, but if that's the case I find it curious that FRAM feels obligated to still note that the filtration efficiency rating is based on those specific filters. If the efficiency was the same for all cans one would think that they would not have to make that note
Perhaps Motorking can comment on this?
The Rank Group owns Fram now, and they bought Champion as well. Fram makes Royal Purpil under unique specs of course. Its hard to keep track of since ownership changes means production might move around. For example, Fram now makes M1 oil filters since Rank stepped in.
True, perhaps I should have qualified my statement with "historically", given the recent ownership changes of some of these brands. WIX/Afinia has made AMSOIL filters in the past too, certain models, which was what I was driving at, that the Ford filters aren't manufactured as a Purolator filter but rather as a Ford-spec filter by in this case, Purolator. Ford's factory filters had very different assembly BTW and were Champion filters in the past.
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
Motorking says ExtraGuards are 95% and the web page too http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-extra-guard-oil-filter.aspx, and the PH2 in particular uses the same glass-cellulose blended media. (ToughGuards blend in a higher % glass.)
That link says the same thing I said earlier though, you'll note the superscript "2" beside the efficiency rating, which corresponds to the comment at the bottom of the page that reads:
Quote:
2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A, and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns
Which is a rather specific list of filters with the following dimensions:
PH8A - Height: 5.14", OD: 3.8"
PH3387A - Height: 3.36", OD: 2.98"
PH4967 - Height: 2.92", OD: 2.69"
Now the FL-820S/PH2 is larger than the 2nd two filters so I find it odd that it either isn't included in that list or that the list isn't an "applies to all filters except:" type deal.
IIRC, this was discussed before on here in the past and certain smaller filters were less efficient than the large cans. That may have changed, but if that's the case I find it curious that FRAM feels obligated to still note that the filtration efficiency rating is based on those specific filters. If the efficiency was the same for all cans one would think that they would not have to make that note
Perhaps Motorking can comment on this?
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
That link says the same thing I said earlier though, you'll note the superscript "2" beside the efficiency rating, which corresponds to the comment at the bottom of the page that reads:
Quote:
2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A, and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns
Which is a rather specific list of filters with the following dimensions:
PH8A - Height: 5.14", OD: 3.8"
PH3387A - Height: 3.36", OD: 2.98"
PH4967 - Height: 2.92", OD: 2.69"
Now the FL-820S/PH2 is larger than the 2nd two filters so I find it odd that it either isn't included in that list or that the list isn't an "applies to all filters except:" type deal.
IIRC, this was discussed before on here in the past and certain smaller filters were less efficient than the large cans. That may have changed, but if that's the case I find it curious that FRAM feels obligated to still note that the filtration efficiency rating is based on those specific filters. If the efficiency was the same for all cans one would think that they would not have to make that note
Perhaps Motorking can comment on this?
Fram's quoted efficiency is based on the average of those 3 filters listed. They do seem to cover a pretty decent range of size which is better than doing it for one filter. This gives the reader some assurance that the efficiency of the Frams are pretty consistent regardless of the size of the filter.
Purolator uses only their largest filter (30001) to quote their efficiency spec. Plus, there are some Purolator filters that they rate at 40 microns instead of 20 microns, and you'd never know that unless you looked at the box those specific filters come in.
That link says the same thing I said earlier though, you'll note the superscript "2" beside the efficiency rating, which corresponds to the comment at the bottom of the page that reads:
Quote:
2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A, and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or XG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns
Which is a rather specific list of filters with the following dimensions:
PH8A - Height: 5.14", OD: 3.8"
PH3387A - Height: 3.36", OD: 2.98"
PH4967 - Height: 2.92", OD: 2.69"
Now the FL-820S/PH2 is larger than the 2nd two filters so I find it odd that it either isn't included in that list or that the list isn't an "applies to all filters except:" type deal.
IIRC, this was discussed before on here in the past and certain smaller filters were less efficient than the large cans. That may have changed, but if that's the case I find it curious that FRAM feels obligated to still note that the filtration efficiency rating is based on those specific filters. If the efficiency was the same for all cans one would think that they would not have to make that note
Perhaps Motorking can comment on this?
Fram's quoted efficiency is based on the average of those 3 filters listed. They do seem to cover a pretty decent range of size which is better than doing it for one filter. This gives the reader some assurance that the efficiency of the Frams are pretty consistent regardless of the size of the filter.
Purolator uses only their largest filter (30001) to quote their efficiency spec. Plus, there are some Purolator filters that they rate at 40 microns instead of 20 microns, and you'd never know that unless you looked at the box those specific filters come in.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram's quoted efficiency is based on the average of those 3 filters listed. They do seem to cover a pretty decent range of size which is better than doing it for one filter. This gives the reader some assurance that the efficiency of the Frams are pretty consistent regardless of the size of the filter.
Purolator uses only their largest filter (30001) to quote their efficiency spec. Plus, there are some Purolator filters that they rate at 40 microns instead of 20 microns, and you'd never know that unless you looked at the box those specific filters come in.
Right, it is the average efficiency of those three filters, which may mean the PH8A is better than the average and the smallest of the bunch is not as efficient (which, if we look at the Purolator numbers, makes sense FWIW).
The cited number, the percentage, is based on (the average filtering efficiency) those three filters. So that doesn't mean the FL-820S is exactly that efficient, which is what the comments in this thread, and FRAM's numbers, construed in the light in which they've been taken, would lead us to believe. That's why I've singled out that comment on their page because while I understand the quoted figure in reference to these "reference filters", that isn't to be taken as all of their filters are that efficient, if they were, they wouldn't need that statement to qualify the figure.
And yes, that brings us to Purolator's quoted efficiency too, which is, as you've noted, based on the freakin' huge FL-1A, which yields the "best" (best to advertise) efficiency ratings. It isn't until you look at the specs for a specific can (as you've noted) that many realize this.
Which takes me back to where I was going with my comments: We don't know what the exact efficiency is for the PH2 here, we just know that the series in which it is a part of is noted as carrying a stated efficiency rating, but it is an average of the three filters already mentioned, not an exact rating that goes with every part #. FRAM's data on the PH2 doesn't give a specific efficiency rating, which I was hoping it would.
So, as I said, I'd like to hear from Motorking on this. It would be nice to know what the specific ratings are for the three filters averaged as well as, if possible, the actual efficiency of the PH2. Maybe it is really quite close to the average figure, which would be great, but if that's the case, I'd still like to hear it from him.
Like you've touched-on, some of the really small Purolator cans aren't anywhere NEAR as efficient as the FL-1A sized filter, and while the FL-820S/PH2 is a reasonably big filter, so it may not be effected by this like they are, it still has me asking the question
Fram's quoted efficiency is based on the average of those 3 filters listed. They do seem to cover a pretty decent range of size which is better than doing it for one filter. This gives the reader some assurance that the efficiency of the Frams are pretty consistent regardless of the size of the filter.
Purolator uses only their largest filter (30001) to quote their efficiency spec. Plus, there are some Purolator filters that they rate at 40 microns instead of 20 microns, and you'd never know that unless you looked at the box those specific filters come in.
Right, it is the average efficiency of those three filters, which may mean the PH8A is better than the average and the smallest of the bunch is not as efficient (which, if we look at the Purolator numbers, makes sense FWIW).
The cited number, the percentage, is based on (the average filtering efficiency) those three filters. So that doesn't mean the FL-820S is exactly that efficient, which is what the comments in this thread, and FRAM's numbers, construed in the light in which they've been taken, would lead us to believe. That's why I've singled out that comment on their page because while I understand the quoted figure in reference to these "reference filters", that isn't to be taken as all of their filters are that efficient, if they were, they wouldn't need that statement to qualify the figure.
And yes, that brings us to Purolator's quoted efficiency too, which is, as you've noted, based on the freakin' huge FL-1A, which yields the "best" (best to advertise) efficiency ratings. It isn't until you look at the specs for a specific can (as you've noted) that many realize this.
Which takes me back to where I was going with my comments: We don't know what the exact efficiency is for the PH2 here, we just know that the series in which it is a part of is noted as carrying a stated efficiency rating, but it is an average of the three filters already mentioned, not an exact rating that goes with every part #. FRAM's data on the PH2 doesn't give a specific efficiency rating, which I was hoping it would.
So, as I said, I'd like to hear from Motorking on this. It would be nice to know what the specific ratings are for the three filters averaged as well as, if possible, the actual efficiency of the PH2. Maybe it is really quite close to the average figure, which would be great, but if that's the case, I'd still like to hear it from him.
Like you've touched-on, some of the really small Purolator cans aren't anywhere NEAR as efficient as the FL-1A sized filter, and while the FL-820S/PH2 is a reasonably big filter, so it may not be effected by this like they are, it still has me asking the question
Notice Fram's website, and note the + after 99% for the Ultra. The TG just says 99%.
Link: TG
Link: Ultra
-----------------------------------------------
99%+ filtration efficiency2
2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns.
-----------------------------------------------
In order for 3 filters to come in with an average of 99% or 99%+, anyone of those 3 can't be much below 99%. Even if one was 100%, and one was 99%, the last one would have to be 98% in order to satisfy that average claim.
Link: TG
Link: Ultra
-----------------------------------------------
99%+ filtration efficiency2
2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns.
-----------------------------------------------
In order for 3 filters to come in with an average of 99% or 99%+, anyone of those 3 can't be much below 99%. Even if one was 100%, and one was 99%, the last one would have to be 98% in order to satisfy that average claim.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The cited number, the percentage, is based on (the average filtering efficiency) those three filters. So that doesn't mean the FL-820S is exactly that efficient, which is what the comments in this thread, and FRAM's numbers, construed in the light in which they've been taken, would lead us to believe.
I think the efficiency of the Motorcraft FL-820S is specifically what is shown in the ISO test published by Amsoil, because it is specifically referenced, so they actually had the FL-820S independently ISO tested for that comparison test. As you already posted a while back with this graph (which we all know by now).
The cited number, the percentage, is based on (the average filtering efficiency) those three filters. So that doesn't mean the FL-820S is exactly that efficient, which is what the comments in this thread, and FRAM's numbers, construed in the light in which they've been taken, would lead us to believe.
I think the efficiency of the Motorcraft FL-820S is specifically what is shown in the ISO test published by Amsoil, because it is specifically referenced, so they actually had the FL-820S independently ISO tested for that comparison test. As you already posted a while back with this graph (which we all know by now).
oh god, just back to the forum and this is not what I want to heard
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, with the higher tier stuff it is going to be extremely close as you've noted. I wasn't thinking about the Ultra though, just the entry-level PH2 can (95%) that compares with the FL-820S. The higher efficiency stuff is meant to compete with the specialty filters not the OEM ones IMHO, though there is no denying the TG is priced well for the efficiency it provides, making it an excellent value.
With respect to the XG (95%), the big FL-1A sized one could be 98%, the middle one at 96% and the smallest at 90% and we still get the 95% average. This could also mean that the tiny Honda (and other mini Japanese filters) are closer to their OEM filtration ratings than one would assume when taking the 95% figure at face value, IE, down in the 80's.
Given that the FL-820S is 93.7% as per the AMSOIL test I posted earlier, this may mean that filtration-wise, the PH2 and the FL-820S are extremely similar in efficiency. This, IMHO, makes the FL-820S with its threaded-end bypass and silicone ADBV a better deal than the PH2 at the same price-point, which was the point I was trying to make earlier: the FL-820S, at the price you can get it at, and with the features it comes with, is a good value.
I don't think people should fear the Motorcraft filters just because Purolator assembles them, this failure isn't like the Purolator failures and you've already given an excellent explanation as to why this failure happened. They are a Ford-spec filter that happens to be assembled by Purolator at this time. That may eventually change and the construction will likely remain very similar, just like how it did when Mopar was shuffling around production for their filters.
With respect to the XG (95%), the big FL-1A sized one could be 98%, the middle one at 96% and the smallest at 90% and we still get the 95% average. This could also mean that the tiny Honda (and other mini Japanese filters) are closer to their OEM filtration ratings than one would assume when taking the 95% figure at face value, IE, down in the 80's.
Given that the FL-820S is 93.7% as per the AMSOIL test I posted earlier, this may mean that filtration-wise, the PH2 and the FL-820S are extremely similar in efficiency. This, IMHO, makes the FL-820S with its threaded-end bypass and silicone ADBV a better deal than the PH2 at the same price-point, which was the point I was trying to make earlier: the FL-820S, at the price you can get it at, and with the features it comes with, is a good value.
I don't think people should fear the Motorcraft filters just because Purolator assembles them, this failure isn't like the Purolator failures and you've already given an excellent explanation as to why this failure happened. They are a Ford-spec filter that happens to be assembled by Purolator at this time. That may eventually change and the construction will likely remain very similar, just like how it did when Mopar was shuffling around production for their filters.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The cited number, the percentage, is based on (the average filtering efficiency) those three filters. So that doesn't mean the FL-820S is exactly that efficient, which is what the comments in this thread, and FRAM's numbers, construed in the light in which they've been taken, would lead us to believe.
I think the efficiency of the Motorcraft FL-820S is specifically what is shown in the ISO test published by Amsoil, because it is specifically referenced, so they actually had the FL-820S independently ISO tested for that comparison test. As you already posted a while back with this graph (which we all know by now).
Yeah, I meant the FL-820S EQUIVALENT in that statement (the PH2) not the FL-820S, LOL! Since we DO know the actual rating for the FL-820S, but not the PH2.
DERP!!! LMAO
But then of course you knew that, hahahha
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The cited number, the percentage, is based on (the average filtering efficiency) those three filters. So that doesn't mean the FL-820S is exactly that efficient, which is what the comments in this thread, and FRAM's numbers, construed in the light in which they've been taken, would lead us to believe.
I think the efficiency of the Motorcraft FL-820S is specifically what is shown in the ISO test published by Amsoil, because it is specifically referenced, so they actually had the FL-820S independently ISO tested for that comparison test. As you already posted a while back with this graph (which we all know by now).
Yeah, I meant the FL-820S EQUIVALENT in that statement (the PH2) not the FL-820S, LOL! Since we DO know the actual rating for the FL-820S, but not the PH2.
DERP!!! LMAO
I have said this before. Some people over think themselves into imaginary problems. I hope that the people whom over think themselves into problems overcome this. I say that because I can not imagine them leading a happy life.
- Status
