New Ecore ST3675 Photos.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Filter Guy,
If Lubeowner had any interest in continuing use of the cheap Champs, then maybe he would want to spend time doing their “fleet”-testing for them …at the expense of his customers of course. Sounds more like he just had better customer relationship ethics and just decided to use a brand that would perform better.
If Champ really cared about their economy filters actually performing any better they would properly design/test them….themselves.

Lubeowners’ distributor may want to talk to them possibly if he wants to keep selling those cheap Champs to anybody else, but he also may just decide to stop selling them altogether..that’s his call on the matter.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Filter guy:

Again it does make one pause for reflection why lubeowner did not contact Champ first. (wouldn't you ? Or when you have a problem with anything you've bought..don't you call?? It is my experience, when my customers had a problem for any reason, they weren't shy about calling) [/QB]

It sounds like Lubeowner decided the filters he was using were bad enough that he wasn't going to use that supplier anymore. Why screw around with the supplier in that case? What's the supplier going to do, give him some replacement filters that he still won't trust enough to use?

BTW, it's not the customers that complain that you need to be most concerned about, it's the ones that are so disatisfied with your product that they don't bother telling you and tell others instead.

There is an old rule of thumb that for every customer that complains there are 10 more who are unhappy with your product/service and don't tell you but tell others instead. Lubeowner sounds like part of that 90%.
 
Just would like to add to this old thread. As FG stated that the holes would be blocked or not cut out on the GM applications of the Ecore, this is not the case. All of the Ecores we are getting in from various other shops look exactly the same as the originals. Two sets of holes, some combo valve. Hmmmmmmmm? BTW, anyone using Ecores I would think real hard before running them past about 4K, I have had time to cut quite a few open by now. The thermal bonding does not hold up well after that mileage.
 
quote:

Originally posted by ZR2RANDO:
I just called my local Chevy dealer service advisor and asked how dependable those block mounted bypass had proven to be in his experience. He said he’d never seen one with a failure either stuck open or closed in his 4 years as service advisor. Maybe anyone else reading this topic can chime in on failures they have seen?.

I've heard the same thing from the mechanics and GM engineers I've talk to over the years. Some race engine builders I talked to like to block them off, but I'm wondering if the problem they're trying to solve isn't caused by something else. Also, if they couldn't build reliable oil filter bypass valves, I think we would see many more failures of the bypass valves in oil pumps.
 
I went to auto zone the other day and looked at a valuecraft 3980,it was an ecore and had one set of holes. I also looked at the stp 3980 it was an ecore it had 2 sets of holes. the pf 52, bosch 3430, m1-201 were non ecores.....fwiw
 
Maybe they are just now getting around to fixing them. I was in my local AZ the other day and checked them. Date code was 042605 I think and they still had the bypass holes (STP and VC both). Maybe your local store has newer ones...
So much for Champ customer service...they told me they were keeping the bypass open and weren't going to blank them off.
The AC filters I saw were still the pre-ecores...
 
Bill, I don't mean ANY disrespect here, but jeez, dood. The ends on the Ecore is some kind of foam. The center-tube is plastic. The drainback/bypass is plain old nitrile rubber. You cannot tell me it's SUCH a remote possibilty that a section of the center-tube or bits of foam or glue from the filtering media could wind up in the engine someday. The cans on these things ARE thin, and the drainback rubber is the BYPASS? Come on. This filter and the PureOne are NOT equivalent. I'm no engineer, but I see what I see. Plus, how small a particle will that ST filter? 19-30 microns? Compared to a PureOne's 10? This is the filter I was thinking of when I mentioned being nervous about ST Filters. Ya had me on the old STs you showed me with the metal endcaps, but then you trot the Ecore out as further proof?

By all means, save 3 bucks on the filter for your engine if you like. You clearly have convinced yourself it's as good as a PureOne. But this showing us glued foam endcaps, plastic center-tubes, nitrile-rubber combi-valves in the thin tin can and presenting it as equivalent and labeling any contradiction as a "crusade" against SuperTech is preposterous.

I wouldn't run that filter on a $10.00 Briggs-powered lawn mower just on principle. The old ST? Except for the bypass, the thin tin can, and the bypass, we could call it "roughly equivlent" at a real stretch, to a Premium Plus if you wish, but still, even the old ST is not even close to the build/quality of the PureOne, owing to the PureOne's thicker can, Silicone ASBV, better gasket, media, and abilty to filter smaller particles from the oil.

They simply are not equivalent. If i'm demonstrably wrong about the differences in these filters, someone clue me in. I'm all ears, and I'll eat the crow with salt and pepper.
 
The ends are a fabric, well glued down that took quite a bit of force to pull off. (even after 4-5k miles)

The plastic center tube took more effort to crush than the metal ones.

I've never had to worry about a thin can (which it is not) and currently have a Encore on my truck as we speak.

I've run quite a few of these on my truck, my moms truck, My uncles PT Cruiser and cut open every one and all is ok.
grin.gif


I'll save the 3 bucks. See no reason to spend 2-3 times for something that will do the same for me..

For you, you need to spend the $$ and thats fine!

My UOAs come back fine and my outfits last a long time. Long enough for me to sell them to friends and watch them drive forever.

No offense taken.
cheers.gif


Take care, Bill
biggthumbcoffe.gif
 
Of course none of the metal center tubes ever shed little pieces of steel into the filtered oil.

I have cut open and compared many ST 3950's and L10193's and never saw much difference. Certainly not enough to make me spend the extra money on something that doesn't do that much anyway.
 
toocrazy2yoo

http://www.champlabs.com/ECOREBROCHURE.pdf

The ends on the E-core are not "foam".

They are a a special media that allows for thermal bonding.

The center tube is nylon..not plastic. Which, if you would do some research, is also found in 6,000 PSI rated hydraulic housings.


Champ is incorporating some technology found in other filtration applications into the automotive oil filtration world. Which makes it seem "new".

I realize it's all cheapness to you because it is also newness to you.

As for the Nitrile rubber anti-drain..it might come as a shock to your system that 90% of automotive filters sold have it. Last I saw..cars weren't conking out on the side of the road because they had a Nitrile anti-drain.

and btw..just had a German hydraulic filter come across my desk with a Nitrile anti-drain. It costs about $80.. it's also a 16 bar rated filter. For those people who use the word dood..that equates out to about a 225PSI pressure filter. Automotive filters are rated to 100psi. Now why on earth would the Germans use Nitrile to protect expensive hyraulic systems, dood?
wink.gif
 
Nylon is a plastic. As such, it is capable of many highly demanding applications. I first saw a plastic center tube in a Purlux filter which also had plastic end caps. All the expensive European filters including the Mann have used plastic center tubes in the cartridge elements in use for years. They are also very easy to inspect after removal. The plastic center tube is a phony issue. It was well proven before the Ecore came out.
 
FilterGuy:

quote:

As for the Nitrile rubber anti-drain..it might come as a shock to your system that 90% of automotive filters sold have it.

No shock at all. It is NOT equivalent to silicone however. It's not better. I'm not arguing they're inadequate, but they aren't as good particularly in single-digit and lower temps.

quote:

The center tube is nylon..not plastic.

Uhm, yes, I figured. I really didn't think they were PVC.

quote:

I realize it's all cheapness to you because it is also newness to you.

It's a cheapening of the process of manufacturing and the end product. Polish it up all you like. And the ECORE cage is NOT more rigid than the center tube on a PureOne. Is the Ecore cage "adequate"? Are the fiber ends and glue "adequate? Maybe? Yes? But they certainly are not equivalent to the endcaps and strength of the center-tube on a PureOne.

As for the Germans and their $80.00 filter and the nitrile anti-drain, they judged it to be "adequate" for their purposes. But it certainly isn't equivalent to silicone in a cold-weather app.

Labman?
quote:

I have cut open and compared many ST 3950's and L10193's and never saw much difference.

I actually mentioned the very thing awhile back. Not much difference in the old ST and the L-series Purolators. But, getting back to the PureOne, the PureOne's media filters finer particles, yes? No?

You folks obviously have a yen to save that 3 bucks, and good on ya. Adequate though an Ecore may be, it's not equivalent to the quality of build of a PureOne, or an Amsoil, Donaldson or other filters of that level of quality. All you "doods" have demonstrated is "adequacy", not equivalence, and certainly not superiority of Ecore over PureOne.

I have no ax to grind for PureOne, I don't even use them at this moment, but comparing the two by promoting the adequacy of an inferior, more cheaply-built Ecore burns credibility. Hey, I don't wanna hassle you guys, I just wanted someone, since I was contradicted, to prove equivalence to/superiority over a PureOne. And not in consideration for whether one is cheaper by three dollars, therefore justifying the cheaper build. I never argued adequacy.

Now, about that filtering media, again? Ecore over PureOne? Same? Better? Doesn't matter?
 
I remember my dad arguing vehemently against the initial trend to spin-on oil filters in the early-to-mid fifties. ("Tarnation* - they don't have a strong enough case to contain the pressure!") Change always seems to entail initial skepticism bordering on antagonism. Fortunately, such doesn't happen on BITOG...

*Actually, that wasn't the word my dad used.
 
Nah..

Never. PureOnes are obviously old tech, unnecessary, and a needless expense.

Hmmm.. It is interesting that the primary advocate of these Ecore things is the dood with the professional/financial ax to grind, though.

Belive I'll sit the rest of it out! I didn't realize the professional connection of the "antagonist", as you put it!

Thanks Ray!
 
Why do you keep comparing the Pure One to the ST? Are the Premium Plus, Motorcraft, Delphi AC's and other low end filters as good as the Pure One, or for that matter, better than the ST and other Champs?

Filter Guy claims he no longer works for Champ or has a financial interest in them. I noticed a great lull in the Champ bashing after the mods demanded people come clean about working for a filter company. That was about the time this thread went inactive. In fact, since then, Lube Owner never reported back on how well the WIX filters he switched to did. This is how I remember it.

I am not, and will not be using Ecore until it is available in my numbers.
 
toocrazy2yoo
"It's a cheapening of the process of manufacturing and the end product. Polish it up all you like. And the ECORE cage is NOT more rigid than the center tube on a PureOne. Is the Ecore cage "adequate"? Are the fiber ends and glue "adequate? Maybe? Yes? But they certainly are not equivalent to the endcaps and strength of the center-tube on a PureOne."

As you obviously haven't read the brochure, let me be the first to explain to you, there is no glue holding the end caps to the media.

So you had the fiber ends as foam, now you have them glued. Which is wrong.

The purpose of the end caps is to prevent oil from flowing past the media and going down stream unfiltered.

Now do you have any testing to suggest such is happening?

Wouldn't logically one conclude that competitive filter companies have tested the E-core design? And do you have anything whereby they show test comparisons of their product versus the E-core?

Otherwise why keep "assuming" you have answers when clearly you're jumping to conclusions.

Besides private labelling for various companies, including their competitors..Champ also does OEM business.

Would you not conclude..dood..that Champ knows what the testing requirement of a center tube is?

Now do you have any testing that the nylon cage collapses at less pressure than a metal one to back up your claim? I personally have taken people on plant tours and you can crush a metal lock seemed center tube with one hand. So can women. When you look down the center tube, see a straight seemed one..that's a lock seem core. There is also a spiral core. Those take more pressure to crush.


As for "cheapening the process"..how would you determine that when Champ tested, designed, and spent money on a purpose built production line which can manufacture the E-core and it cost them XX millions. Before the first filter was built. Why did they do that when they could have added just another metal endcap line?

btw..as your a newbie, I worked for Champ from 1982 to 2000. I never did, nor do I now, own any part of Champ, other than the filter I buy, as it was a Private held company. ( and yes I do buy my own filters)

I do not know what that has to do with how I answer posts but besides Champ..I was also on the technical committee of the Filter Manufacturers Council. That's the comittee that write and publishes industry tech service bulletins.

If you would do some research you'll not find where I have attacked any competitor. I even got grief over defending Fram.

My posts are to explain filtration. I don't care what brand you buy. It won't break Champ if you don't buy their stuff. Nor will it Purolator, Wix, Fram or any other filter manufacturer.

However, I will chip in when there is misinformation. And that leads me to responding to your posts..
wink.gif
 
WHAT misinformation? I mentioned cardboard in the same breath as ST, someone corrected me, I acknowledged the mistake, and that was that. Next thing is, Ecore pix were floating around, and being bandied as the sliced bread of the filter industry. With fiber ends, nylon centertubes, etc, etc. I asked for a demonstration of equivalence to PureOne (YOU folks were the ones that took off on Botts and his contention that PureOnes were better), and instead of a comparison, strength vs. strength, you go on with more story about Champ's investment, what a wonderful factory they built, and how the cheapening of a simple component, an oil filter, wasn't really a cheapening, and doesn't matter in any case.

You refuse, even though I've asked several times, to give me a micron rating for the Ecore. It's been wonderful hearing the history of the fiber-ended, plastic (nylon) center-cage, "thermo-bonded" Ecore. But that's not a comparison to a PureOne. There IS no comparison. Ecore may be adequate to the task they're selling them for, but they are a qualitative slip. It is not as solid a build, it doesn't filter as small a particle. That really is, pardon the pun, the core of the discussion.

If that's the way the filter industry is going, fine, what am *I* going to do about it? But they didn't spend millions to build a wonderful filter. They developed this thing and built that factory in order to manufacture an "adequate" product MUCH more cheaply, market it under several banners and attempt to garner support owing to what, it's recyclability? Its "adequacy"? How altruistic. And the suggestion is completely disingenuous. Misinformative, in fact. I felt compelled to chip in.
rolleyes.gif


What was the particle size filtration of the Ecore media vs. the PureOne again? My question regarding that issue remains unanswered. Dood.
 
If you want to know the ratings of a particular E-core part number..all you have to do is ask Champ.

There a sticky thread at the top with the filter manufacturers toll free number.

Bear in mind there are at least two different media's used in E-core style filters.

How many different grades of media are used in Pure One?

Your the one who has had his facts wrong from the beginning about the E-core. When all you needed to do was a little research.

I can state for the record the E-core filters are 1 micron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom