Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I'd ask you all, if you're so convinced that the Fram media is a joke, how the MC filter media is so much "better" .... ???? Neither has any tears, no excess waviness, good seal to the top/bottom, even pleat distribution, etc. Since you seem to think the media in the EG is "third grade" material, then I must assume you that the MC media is also unworthy? Looking at the Puro, it clearly has a tear, but the rest of the media is no different than the Fram media.
I ask anyone who dislikes this filter example here, be SPECIFIC in how you think this filter fails it's task, whereas the media in other brands (of recent note, Puro and MC) is soooooo much better. What measurable criteria are you applying to think this filter is a grade-school project? Could you please articulate the direct, tangible measurables that lead to the conclusion you've made?
The EG in this thread did it's job quite well, and could probably double the FCI given this condition.
The brand bigotry that is rampant here really is suffocating at times.
Nothing wrong with EG media(for its price range) other than not enough of them. I'll bet that the TG8A has more media than PH8A, also better quality too.
Currently I have Fram EG PH2849A(No TG available) on my S2000 now, I use it because I like to try a 2" longer filter to see how it effects the high strung engine at 7-8k RPM.
I also used Fram EG filter more than once in my LS400 for 1 year 15-16k miles OCI.
Nobody can say that I'm a Fram hater.