Note the last sentence
Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister
- Thread starter Glenda W.
- Start date
“However, according to the test data, they are still performing as prescribed after the manufacturing change.”
From BR results, late last year. In FILTERING…not talking about overall rankings…..
Amsoil came out #1 and Endurance was a tad behind #2. No surprise, they’re essentially the same filters.
You can bet your A$$ that they had “gaps”
Last edited:
Endurance is leaking “as built”
We just don’t know if as designed
I’m leaning not as some have seals and the ultras/titaniums don’t leak even without seals.
As your AAP Fram made Titanium c&p with metal-on-metal seal area shows.
'If' the FE7317 seal area as shown is an intentional design with open bypass areas, then all I can say is, wow.
Again, we're told this is normal for this filter at this time, however, due to some other conversations had, we're leaning on the supplier for a little better explanation at this time. However, according to the test data, they are still performing as prescribed after the manufacturing change.
Thanks for this. What catches my eye is “normal for this filter at this time”. Seems like they are aware of the defect and may be working on a solution.
Something is afoot
Sounds like Amsoil is being cautious with what they say, but leaving the possibility that we may be onto something. They are not being definitive:
“however, due to some other conversations had, we're leaning on the supplier for a little better explanation at this time.”
The last sentence here still makes sense *IF* this is a defect and retesting has not occurred due to an unplanned flaw. Obviously, data is still data but what is the context and the screenshot? When and which filters? They did not say “we have retested the filters with this leak and performance is the same as before; data unchanged…” the below indicates acknowledgment of a design change. Flawed manufacturing of the change is a different conversation.
“However, according to the test data, they are still performing as prescribed after the manufacturing change.“
“however, due to some other conversations had, we're leaning on the supplier for a little better explanation at this time.”
The last sentence here still makes sense *IF* this is a defect and retesting has not occurred due to an unplanned flaw. Obviously, data is still data but what is the context and the screenshot? When and which filters? They did not say “we have retested the filters with this leak and performance is the same as before; data unchanged…” the below indicates acknowledgment of a design change. Flawed manufacturing of the change is a different conversation.
“However, according to the test data, they are still performing as prescribed after the manufacturing change.“
My best “guess” is Champ Labs is falling back on iso results. Again no way to know if the tested filters were leakers or not or when the iso testing was performed. I believe Fram, RP, and Amsoil rely on CL for testing this line of filters. No doubt even without a seal but with properly stamped leaf springs this would perform as specified.
Last edited:
It’s more UNLIKELY those tested don’t have gaps and don’t leak. Show me an Endurance/Ultra or equivalent Amsoil cut open without a gap.
Another point …Im convinced the speculation that… “10% of total flow through the filter is bypass leakage getting through” ….is bogus.
The gap under the leaf plates is not the same as a space of an equal area located on top adjacent to the valve itself. The direction of flow is completely different.
Being located UNDERNEATH the plate results in obstructed flow as opposed to direct flow if located on top near the valve itself. Same with the analogy of a “hole in the filter” itself.
Fact of the matter it’s all pure speculation, but as I point out, ACTUAL test results point to the notion that these filters still perform very well, gaps notwithstanding.
You don’t have proof of your conclusions and are taking what is said at face value. Either you are concerned or not. You believe based on faith; not 100% unbiased data. Until someone tests a known leaker and the data is verified; it’s all guess work. A need to be right here doesn’t make you right; which in the end there is still that possibility. Drawing conclusions and making leaps of faith is blind until otherwise proven.
Exactly! Is a gap and the passing of unfiltered oil by design? Common sense says no. That is why we are awaiting an explanation. so far, indirectly answering. We have seen media Tears become common in the past. Did that mean the testing for that filter line was still valid? This still sounds like a PR response under the pretense of a technical answer. They aren’t going to throw themselves under the bus. Amsoil shouldn’t, as they are not the supplier, and Champ Labs won’t publicly address something directly. This isn’t a big enough story, where we need engineers to cross examine lol.
We also know that the three iso tested Endurances have different leaf springs than the FE 7317. We’ve only seen leaking 7317’s and the equivalents so far with no official or garbage tests on them.
Last edited:
Unless in the case of the PH shown here where the end of the center tube is preventing the leaf spring from seating all the way down on the end cap.
From what I see, no leaf spring is sealed around the radiused intersection - except for perhaps the OG Ultra with the fiber seal ring in the end cap. In other cases (like the others seen in this thread), it's always on the top of the end cap surface. If that interface is not flat an smooth in the case of metal-to-metal seals, then there will be leakage.
There's some, you just can't notice it like a compressed coil spring. The leaf springs have a very high spring constant, so they only need to deflect a very small amount to get an adequate compressive force. A coil spring needs to compress way more to get the same force, so they "spring" open more when the compression force is relieved. If the leaf spring didn't compress and hold the gut tight together, you'd be seeing a lot more filters that "rattled" because the guts weren't tight.
That looks like another case where the end of the center tube interfered with the complete sealing on the end cap.
This thread original postings was with a look at the leaf spring gap inside an assembled filter. Still a gap. As mentioned many times, even after cutting the filter open, putting a lot of force on the leaf spring ears does not close the gap because the section of the leaf spring the seals on the end cap is too stiff to deflect. Instead, the leaf spring ears will bend before the sealing area deflects.
As I said, this is all still speculation. I was talking about what I thought was most likely/unlikely. Likely the results on testing came from the filters in question that had the bypass imperfection. The test comparing Fram models (shown below) are from late last year, well AFTER the dates of manufacture that failed Whip City flashlight tests on an Endurance filter. Bingo. So, NO…I’m not saying the Endurance results shown here had the defect …there’s no way of knowing….but MORE LIKELY than not. To date NO FRAM ENDURANCE or ULTRA filters that were made from last year on, have passed a flashlight test.
Fram models on particle filtration less than a year ago.
Last edited:
Still, there is no real test data that correlated a leak to the effect on ISO efficiency. Nobody (Ascent, BR, whoever) has shown how a leak seen in these leaf springs effects the ISO efficiency. But on thing is certain, if there's an obvious gap there will be a leak.
Similar threads
