Fram Efficiency Ratings for 5 Models... Mel and Others??

[Gary Allan]

Yes, I believe that they just just plain 30 weight ..not even a multi visc.

It kinda made it hard to integrate the data for me. I think that they should have done a fixed flow ..and then listed the PSID recorded. That would have given you a better preception of how it really needs to be viewed in service. The way the data is listed, you get the (in most cases anyway) misimpression that there are high flow and low flow filters ..when it works out that they usually all flow the same and just change PSID(s) at given flows.

 

[Big O Dave]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
..when it works out that they usually all flow the same and just change PSID(s) at given flows.

---

Based upon what you're saying, Gary, then getting the filter that most efficiently filters out debris (without going into bypass) is more essential than picking one that flows more.

Moreover, Ug's concern about flow is most likely going to be resolved... Melling's specs are for the pump itself, and don't account for the restrictions posed by oil galleries and passages within the engine. It is probable that his pump actually flows more than unmodified oil galleries and passages can flow, and perhaps more than modified ones, too.

 

[Ugly3]

Well, major disappointment - Melling tells me that no longer make a pump for my engine (only a repair kit) and they do not know the flow rate.

Boo Hoo!

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by Gary Allan:
..when it works out that they usually all flow the same and just change PSID(s) at given flows.

Based upon what you're saying, Gary, then getting the filter that most efficiently filters out debris (without going into bypass) is more essential than picking one that flows more.

---

Generally, yes ..but it depends (naturally). The problem is you have a broad variance of oil/pressure/relief configurations on various engines that there is no blanket statement. One size doesn't fit all.

There are some engines, if we believe their pressure gauges, that are perpetually in relief off idle. They're peak'd all the time. This is where a filter CAN effect flow. More than likely, this is "factored in" by the OEM and it won't be of any appreciable consequence.

There can also be an engine that has 190k on it ..that the oil pump is worn ..the clearances are loose ..and it has an idiot light. So adding a "high resistance" filter could effect flow. This is the type of thing when you hear of a noise being eliminated by swapping filters (not startup rattle ..but the lingering HLA type noise that goes away when the oil gets thinner).

But otherwise, if you have a decent relief ceiling, that is well above normal operating pressure, then you should be able to use the finest (most trapping) media available without any fear in loss of flow. Only the longevity of the filter would be in question due to the amount of debris your service creates.

 

[Big O Dave]

Thanks, Gary, for the detail explanation.

Here's a fax I just received today from Fram, with (surprise!) multipass efficiency info (and other neat stuff, too):

 

[Winston]

That is some nice info. I am a still a bit confused. Your original post showed that the PH8A was as good at filtering as the XG8A. The XG is their $10 X2 filter with full synthetic media. That is strange.

The latest data in the fax seems to make more sense. However, I am surprised they don't have multipass data for the XG filters. However, I assume that 96% efficiency for single pass could be better than 99% efficiency for multi pass. Right? Or are they saying that the Tough Gaurd has better media than the XG? Thinking out loud, that could be true. The main marketing behind the X2/XG filter is that it is good for longer OCI, which would mean it has more dirt holding capacity.

 

[Big O Dave]

Winston, I think the first guy just looked it up without doing much research because I needed the info quickly for my fleet account, and the second guy was responding to a voicemail message I left, asking for the info. He likely took his time to get me the most current and complete info.

 

[D$]

This information is very good. Industry standards are not towards Single pass or multi-pass. It all depends on the filter and the company. What the industry depends on is up to marketing and what they want to "claim."

As for what type of dust is used for testing, SAE has standards that say what type must be used. For example, single pass requires the use of glass beads, whereas multi-pass uses test dust. That is not something that is determined by the company, but rather SAE.

From the looks of that list, FRAM filters do not look bad at all. Does anybody have any information on other brands of filters, but same models? If so, I would like to see what they are at. I have always used a FRAM filter in my car and havent had any problems. An oil filter gets blamed for a lot for problems that actually originated in the engine itself.

 

[Gary Allan]

D$

Frams haven't, to my knowledge, ever been blamed for failure in an engine ..nor damage to an engine. The reason that you see such dislike for them is that they are mainly a product that is sustained on heavy marketing and low quality ..at a high price.

There's no reason to use a Fram when less money can get you a better constructed and (probably) superior functioning filter. You cannot buy one without feeling taken advantage of when you compare what you get for your money

 

[D$]

I would agree that FRAM is a highly marketed brand. But I disagree that they are of low quality. Dont they have to be put through testing and quality before they can hit the shelves? If they were making a filter that didnt live up to SAE standards, wouldnt they be forced to fix the issues?

Back to the marketing... I believe it is necessary to market heavily. People are starting to do less and less oil changes themselves for many different reasons. So the marketing has to be there to bring those people back into the stores to buy the filters. This can lead to the price of the filter... the consumer is paying for the marketing. Is it right? No, but thats how a lot of things work. Us, the consumer, gets hit with the bill for almost everything. Who else is supposed to pay for it?

 

[Gary Allan]

Although it can happen to any filter, Frams are notorious for leaky ADBVs. Now this in itself is not a performance indication ..but it is a quality indication. ADBV are there to prevent backwashing of the media. They have to hold for xx minutes blablabla...beyond that ..they're an apendix. The auto manufacturers don't seem to worry about it ..otherwise they would put Fram on a 'does not meet manufacturer's spec" list or something or other. They don't. It would reason that it's because it doesn't mean squat in terms of engine longevity. That doesn't mean that it isn't annoying.

So, Fram can do a decent job ..but it just makes no sense to spend more for less. There is no sensible reason to support a low quality product with high quality and hard earned money when you can get a better value elsewhere.

 

[TurboLuver]

"Frams haven't, to my knowledge, ever been blamed for failure in an engine ..nor damage to an engine"

Fram's have been proven to have caused catastrophic engine damage, in fact here is the associated TSB. In fairness fram has since came out with an upgraded filter with a different part# but, according to the service writer I spoke to at the dealership a while back he still adhere's to the above TSB.