quote:Why are those that want to clarify and verify fact being labeled as not being able to blindly accept apparent evidence as thoough Moses brought it down from the mountian?
Why is it that those of us that question Champ made filters being labeled as not being able to understand things?
quote:Are you saying that some people do? This is the first time, IIRC, that you've said this.
It was said that it seemed unfathomable for us to realize that people do neglect their cars.
quote:How do you know this?
The many failures that we have seen can not all be contributed to the neglect of the owner.
quote:How do you know this?
Theres just too high a number too be all the car owners fault.
quote:What? That you assume a great deal and consider it a fact? I can see that as clear as day. Now you may be right ..but without any facts to back up your opinion ..that's all it is. Why is it so hard for you to see that??
Why is it so hard for some to see this?
quote:How many? Half of them? 30% of them? 68% of them? Tell me what % is from owner neglect and what % is from lame cheap negligent manufacturing.
While some of the failures are probably because of neglect,it is implausible to label the many failures as such.
quote:Does this mean that they are? No.
I recently cut open 2 Champ made filters. They were an ST and an AutoValue filter(Autozone brand). They seemd to have done fine,no noticable failures. I also cut open a Purolator filter. It too did not fail. The Champ filters are the older design with metal endcaps and no by-pass valves.These filters are for a GM product. Does this mean that Warner labeled filters are not failing?
quote:No. It's probable that Warner is the lowest of the low at Champ.
It is possible that Warner is the lowest of the low at Champ.
quote:It's highly probable that these filters have little tolerance for anything outside OEM recommendations (properly applied). 7500 miles doesn't always mean 7500 miles under all conditions. 15000/1 year doesn't always mean under any and all conditions. It's also possible that these are just trash filters and anyone who uses them is taking their engines life in their hands. I don't know ..either way ..and neither does anyone else. They are just guessing and haven't the least bit of bona fide proof. I would appreciate it if you actually read what I have said. I really didn't want to even engage in this topic. I merely ask, "How do you KNOW?". That's it. You may be right ..but can you prove it? I don't think you can. It's that simple. Motorguy222- Please, by all means, believe anything that you want to about Champ low cost filters ....REALLY. But you're talking to deaf ears if you are trying to convince me that your belief is anything but opinion based on hype and apparent evidence. You aren't lubeowner ..you personally haven't witnessed the failures ..you're just speaking your mind. That is surely within your right. Your mind ..your opinion. I have no intention of changing that ...but I'm not going to call it anything that it isn't. It's just your opinion and nothing more. It is even shared by others. It's their right as well ..but they too can only offer opinions...and nothing more. [ July 04, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
It is possible that these filters barely meet OEM spec and are good for a limited amount of mileage/time.
quote:This statement is disingenuous. You've done nothing but state assumptions and conjecture as though it was fact "where there is smoke ..there's usually fire" ..and lots of other inuendo that's about as useful as udders on a bull for determining the facts.
Those of us that question Champ dont know either,that is the main point we have been trying to get across.
quote:But I can. My "side" (me) has ONLY EVER SAID that YOU have NO PROOF. YOU yourself FINALLY ADMIT THAT. Case closed. Now that you've FINALLY figured out MY ENTIRE MESSAGE, FROM THE BEGINNING, ..I can rest my case.
You too cant prove your side.
quote:No. I'm definitely correct. I've only ever said that everyone is jumping to some pretty severe conclusions based on limited data from one source that is counter to the available data before that single source was present ..and the limited data contained within apparent evidence was vague and totally lacking in substance. This is an undeniable truth. Everyone has missed this one little message and has lauched a 1000 ships to prove me correct.
Gary,you too may be correct
quote:That is correct. But how many normal OCI's has lubeowner showed us? What's he calling normal? He doesn't even know ..at least enough to say "Okay, this filter came off of a 2002 Taurus with a Vulcan 3.0 ...it had 89k on it and it has been 5 months and 5k miles since it last shows up on my database". Normal to him may be "typical" for his business. Typical arrests for Fort Apache the Bronx isn't normal or typical for Mayberry RFD. Normal is a nebulous term that tends to form itself around the milue that it's viewed from.
You can use your own filters for the basis of such but that still doesnt mean that Lubeowner hasnt seen many failures in normal OCI's.
quote:Not at all. It all comes down to those who are convinced that lubeowner's experience is enough to assume that Champ makes bad products ...and those who aren't convinced that lubeowner's experience is enough to form an opinion upon. See the difference? btw- I'll assume that you really meant poor low end products since Champ makes some of the most highly regarded filters as well.
It all comes down to those that think Champ is making bad products and those that think they are good.
quote:We have pics that show none...what's your point? You actually have pics that show failures. That's somewhat different than "defects".
We do however have pics that show defects.
quote:Are those defects (failures, really) all the fault of the manufacturer? Could be but it just seems that to say this is to ignore all of the other things that could cause a failure. (hint - hint- you still don't know -and neither do I)
Are those defects the car owners fault. Could be but it just seems that to say this is to ignore all of the other things that could cause a failure.
quote:Not at all true. It's the main thing that comes to your, and a few others, mind as the most reasonable explanation. It is surely true that they are cheaper filters ..and one can assume that they aren't going to perform with the same distinction of more expensive filters ..but that doesn't at all mandate that they are trash and junk ..nor designed and constructed with the evil intention of ripping off the public in some deceptive ploy to sucker them (I'm exagerating your previous statements)
The main thing that comes to mind and that is the most reasonable explanation is,they are made cheap and are not a good product.
quote:Well, lubeowner is the buyer. If he sees that these aren't meeting his customers demands ..then he has to upgrade. It doesn't matter if the customers are abusive or not. The stuff he bought wasn't doing the job it needed to do in the way it was applied. It would be the same if I was a fleet supplier for a sales force ..and the fleet spent more time in the shop instead of on the road. I could drive the same car without difficulty ..yet my salespersons ..sent them to the shop very often. Obviously ..it is easier and wiser for me to get a vehicle that will endure the demands of my salesforce ..instead of trying to modify their behavior. Lubeowner has no control over how a customer is going to treat their car once it's outside his shop. Whatever they're doing ..the Warners aren't working in some installations. He needs a more durable filter in his use to cover his customers needs.
Now,if they are the low end product that they seem to be,they need to inform the buyer of such.
quote:How do you know this? How do you know that other filters just exceed man specs that much further? You don't. You're guessing again ..and stating it as fact. You assume this as a truth ..yet it doesn't have any basis in reality. Do you know the specs? If you don't ...then how can you say this?? What are the specs??
Since they dont do this and are evidently made on the lower end of the spectrum,they are being misleading by stating that they meet OEM specs.
quote:Perhaps they should. I don't know since I have no idea how long they can last in any car under ideal conditions. I don't know because I have no idea how long they can last under worse case conditions. I don't have a clue. Now we can reasonably assume that other, more expensive filters (other than perhaps Fram) will endure insult better than a cheaper filter. Sorry, I just have got to have all the doors close to take something as fact. There can be no escape. So far ..there's enough escape left (a good bit) for these filters. If I was trying to prove that MMO was definitely the best thing that you can do for your car by adding it to your fuel...I would be a liar. Hence I only reported what my experience was with it ..and strongly highlighted that the main evidence that I presented showed what DID NOT happen in that use. I was challenged on the showing of my pistons and combustion chambers. They had 170k on them. There was the obscure possiblity that there were no deposits on them before I used the MMO ..so I was NOT able to say that MMO cleaned them up. I only PROVED that it didn't add any deposits to them. That is a fact...not an opinion. It is a matter of honesty when you state things as facts. If you can't prove your assertions ..they aren't facts. To state or imply otherwise is dishonest. [ July 04, 2005, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
Fram states that they are good for 3month/3K mile OCI's. Maybe this is what Champ needs to do with the Warner filters.