Fram's answer to Daimler/Chrysler

[Mystic]

Chris 2421, I did not refer to you.

Bror Jace, sorry if I got upset. There is a person who comes to this web site who attacks the posts of people who dare to say anything negative about FRAM oil filters.

I am most definitely not an apologist for FRAM. I used to use FRAMs a long time ago, but I have not used FRAMs for a very long time. FRAM oil filters failed me twice, on two different vehicles. I am talking about personal experience. I moved away from FRAM oil filters even before the Oil Filter Study on the internet.

I have tried to be nice to the person who has attacked me, and I have tried to say something nice about FRAM from time to time so he does not get so upset.

If this person truly has not used anything but FRAMs for so many years, how does he know that FRAM is the best?

If you say something negative about FRAM oil filters, he will challenge you-apparently expecting you to have a degree in engineering and that you have to design oil filters for a living to dare to say anything negative.

Bottom line is, a person can use any oil filter they want to. But I am going to try to use a good one at a good price, regardless of the brand.

I am shocked that some people can have so much brand loyalty. There is no oil filter manufacturer who signs my paycheck.

 

[Chris 2421]

No problem here,even if it was me that was the "Fram" person.I just figured it was me,because I have said in the past on several posts that I don't think Fram is a bad filter,and that is based on personal experience.But due to the wealth of great info on this site,that is the reason I use SuperTech filters now.

So if I offended anyone in any way,please accept my sincerest apologies

Sometimes we all react in an improper way,and I did in regards to this post.

 

[Mystic]

Chris 2421, you are not the person I am talking about. There is a person who comes to this web site who challenges me if I say anything negative about FRAM oil filters. Nothing I say is good enough for him-not personal experiences, nothing.

I don't mind at all if somebody disagrees with me on what I put in one of my posts or replies to posts. There is supposed to be a difference of opinion on the part of people who go to this web site.

But personal attacks are something else. If somebody disagrees with something I say on a post-tell me how you disagree. But don't attack somebody personally.

In all the posts I have put on this web site, I don't think anybody can say that I have made a personal attack.

The person who constantly challenges me seems to require that I have an engineering degree to say anything negative about FRAM oil filters or even some other stuff I have talked about. Well, it is no big deal, but I worked in an engineering office, and I have a little chemistry, physics, and calculus myself. I wonder what the qualifications of this individual who always opposes me are.

 

[Chris 2421]

Mystic and Bror Jace,...check your P/M's,as I sent you both something.

 

[Bror Jace]

Chris & Mystic, no problem.

kctom: "The Daimler-Chrysler TSB never mentions Fram specifically."

Have you read the actual TSB and do you have the language/text saved somewhere? That link in the first post in this thread is merely a bulletin put out by Fram ... and it cites recommendations by a "few" DaimlerChrysler technicians to avoid Fram which led to a bulletin. Nothing really specific except the traces of contaminents found in the stoppages and an admission that they chamged their design as a result of the evidence.

In keeping with what kestas said, I don't think we know the whole story here ... and that's by design. Still, as you read between the lines, it doesn't look good for the boys in prison orange.

I personally would like to know why some of the better aftermarket filters you mentioned were not included in that recommended list. I noticed that all the filters recommended were OEM for one brand or another.

I'd guess that, at the very least, DaimlerChrysler is being extra, extra careful of filters they recommend. They absolutely don't want to go through this again as they would look foolish and their recommendation might legally expose them to some pricey rebuilds.

A filter is not d@mned by its absence on their list, but I'd still like to know more.

--- Bror Jace

 

[Kestas]

I see dealings going on with Daimler-Chrysler everyday. I can honestly say they are NOT overcautious. They let a lot of cheap, crappy designs through in the name of cost-savings, and their only intent is to meet warranty. This leads me to believe that the evidence found in the lab STRONGLY points the accusing finger at Fram filters and that the "hedge" in the report that Allied folks strongly picked up on was actually an insignificant hedge.

 

[kctom]

Bror Jace

Yes, I read the original Daimler Chrysler TSB. It was posted on a discussion group. I do not have it saved. I assume that it was not doctored. The TSB never mentions Fram. You can find it if you want. I am not trying to prove anything. I am not trashing anyones product.

I believe that Fram answer is solid. It clealy presents Fram's case and clearly lays down the criteria to challenge their conclusions. At least Fram did something. Hastings/Baldwin and Wix seems to have left their customers hanging.

Mystic

As far as jumping down peoples throats who criticize Fram, yes I will. I don't believe that intelligent people trash other peoples work or products without solid evidence. If you do, then yes, I will jump down your throat. People and corporations have a right to their good name unless they do something to destroy it. In my mind, the fact that you do not like Fram is not sufficient evidence to trash them. And unless you have some type of engineering degree specializing in lubrication, you have no legal right to declair anyones oil filter trash.

Kestas

What evidence do you have that the lab found problems with Fram filters at all? The TSB did not single out Fram. I think there is an unfair assumption here.


Tom

 

[Mystic]

kctom, I will not engage in personal attacks on other people at this web site. People at this web site should be able to engage in discussions about any product without attacking another in a personal manner. I do not believe that engineering degrees and chemistry degrees are required for people to post and reply to posts at this web site. I believe that anybody, regardless if they have a GED or a degree in chemical engineering, should be allowed to post at this web site.

I worked in an engineering office. And I have college level training in chemistry, physics, and calculus. If I had a difference of opinion with the senior engineer at the engineering office I used to work at, there is no way that I would be alowed to make personal attacks on that engineer-I could not call him senile, stupid, over the hill, or not qualified to have the opinion or opinions that he had. I would have to present logical reasons why I disagreed with his point of view.

I am not going to engage in some silly emotional argument with you over the quality or lack of quality of FRAM oil filters. You like and use FRAM oil filters. I do not use use FRAM oil filters. 'nuff said.

 

[Rick]

I have cut open 3 different filter painted differently. All three happened to be frams. So they had carboard end caps, what ever. But the real issue was how the pleats were divided. I can not say that these filters are junk because they didn't damage anything. But when you look at the care that went into these filters. It's sad. Some areas were packed to tight and other areas were wide open. I have a mechanical guage in my car so I see the pressure. I desided to cut the filter open because if was looking very restrictive. I have no idea if the filter would have caused more wear. People have done UOA with the frams and the results looked good.
I desided to use these different filter to see for myself. But after doing what I did, I realise that the acdelco filters are made better, the pleats are well divided and I see better flow in my guage. I have not bashed fram but from what I have done I can say that fram is not my fav filter at the moment. If they pack there filters better in the future and it won't prove to be restrictive like the ones I just used then I won't mind using them at all.

 

[Mystic]

Chris 2421, thank you very much for that email.

Rick, I agree with your post. I want to use the best oil filter I can for the best price. If I were to find out tomorrow morning that FRAM makes the best oil filter, then I would use FRAM. If I found out that the best oil filter was Purolator, then I would use Purolator. It is not the brand that is important for me, but the quality and the price. Hopefully, the BOBISTHEOILGUY oil filter study will provide good information so that we can make better oil filter choices.

 

[kctom]

Mystic

I agree with you. I have no problem with those people who do like like Fram or any other filter. I do have a problem with people who believe that just because they believe that fram is junk, that give them the righ to publically declare Fram junk or without recriminations. I am going to jump down their throats. They have asked for it.

This entire discussion demonstrates the inability of many people in automotive discussion groups to think critically.

Basically Fram has done nothing wrong. They simply addressed an alledged defect in their product. Yet people are jumping on the anti-Fram bandwagon. It's my belief that the only problem Fram has is this incessant anti-Fram bias, based in flawed logic. If we, as a group, are going to enlighten ourselves on this subject, or any other subject, we need to get out heads out of our butts.

By the way, something said in the privacy of your office, gets an entirely different level of protection than something published in a public forum.

 

[Kestas]

Tom

I don't have any hard evidence that the lab found
problems with Fram filters. But having read the Bulletin from Fram, I couldn't help but relive much of the nonsense I see between companies on a daily basis.

Like I said before, at one point I worked at Chrysler where one of my duties was examination, identification, interpretation, and reporting results of contaminant debris analysis. I still do this same work to this day. I've also seen how technical results from a lab can get so twisted in legal definitions, that the original shades of meaning are lost.

If you insist on reading the document in pure legal terms, then you are correct, Fram is not guilty.

But if you read between the lines, as I've gotten good at (I have the gray hairs to prove it), I find it significant that Daimler-Chrysler has actually put in writing a warning against using these filters. To me this fact speaks volumes. I simply offerred my interpretation because I felt uniquely qualified to provide some insight and make this observation.

 

[Greaser]

All I can say is..if it looks like crap...smells like crap...guess what

 

[Ray H]

Chrysler has to walk a fine line, here. If the company states outright that certain Fram filters are substandard, the company will find itself in court. Unless Chrysler could prove shoddy design/workmanship by a preponderance of evidence (the means to deliver a verdict in a civil case), and get that across to a jury (likely few if any of whom have an engineering background), Fram gets a nice libel award. It's one thing to state a specific product design is faulty. It's quite another to report on collected evidence that undesirable and repeatable consequences occur when that specific product is used in its intended application. This puts Fram in the uncomfortable position of defending its product, refuting Chrysler's claims with evidence of its own, or redesigning the product to comply with Chrysler's requirements for safe operation.