New Microguard Ad.
- Thread starter mrfd222
- Start date
- Status
I would think a filter made in the US would say that. I'm thinking "North America" is code for another North American country.
Less pleats is better?
Looks like bullet items have been created for each BITOG filter hangup.
Less pleats is better?
Looks like bullet items have been created for each BITOG filter hangup.
"Manufactured in North America"
Technically speaking that could be Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, or Belize. But only if you wanted to include "Central America" in your definition of "North America"
Then we have "The Caribbean" which is technically apart of "North America". Which consists of Jamaica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas.
Then, finally we have Mexico, the USA, and Canada.
Where are they made?
My bet is that they are "Hecho en Mexico".
Technically speaking that could be Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, or Belize. But only if you wanted to include "Central America" in your definition of "North America"
Then we have "The Caribbean" which is technically apart of "North America". Which consists of Jamaica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and the Bahamas.
Then, finally we have Mexico, the USA, and Canada.
Where are they made?
My bet is that they are "Hecho en Mexico".
Any fool with a hacksaw and a tape measure can determine how much media a filter has. How good it is? Much tougher to determine. I must say the Purolator made Microguard I cut open last year had better of had a quality media for all there was of it. It was next to the bottom of a couple dozen different brands I have cut open.
Now, about the end caps? Could I have a factual, objective explanation of why steel ones are so much better? Any real reason other than that is how it was done in the 40's? Why don't the new cartridge filter elements have them?
As long as Oreiley's wants $3.49 for their no name filters, I won't make the mistake of going there again for a filter no matter who makes them.
Now, about the end caps? Could I have a factual, objective explanation of why steel ones are so much better? Any real reason other than that is how it was done in the 40's? Why don't the new cartridge filter elements have them?
As long as Oreiley's wants $3.49 for their no name filters, I won't make the mistake of going there again for a filter no matter who makes them.
Thats a orange can of doom in sheep's clothing!!!!!
run man run!!!!
run man run!!!!
Yeah the one I cut open was made in Canada.
And the pleats......LOL. Well if you need less to get the same or in this case "better protection", why not put more in.
Id rather run an Ecore anyday. Polymers are strong materials and atleast the ADBV on them seals better. Last I checked an AC Delco is 95 percent efficient and cheaper.
And the pleats......LOL. Well if you need less to get the same or in this case "better protection", why not put more in.
Id rather run an Ecore anyday. Polymers are strong materials and atleast the ADBV on them seals better. Last I checked an AC Delco is 95 percent efficient and cheaper.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mrfd222
I cant believe all of this is true?
What a joke!
What a joke!
What a bunch of tripe! Nothing bonds better to fiber media than fiber endcap.
Prove it. Where's the data showing that to be true? Why does every high line and/or extended OCI filter, inluding Fram's(XG), have metal endcaps? Anyone can make a claim.
The filter in the upper left hand corner doesn't even look like the cut open Microgard in the other thread. It actually looks to be a thread end bypass. It's strangely similar to another high line filter, previously posted here. I have to search when I get a chance, but it looks like they copied another filter's pic. IMO, the cut open illustration looks bogus.
As for the efficiency, same old Fram ambiguoius level. 94% at > 20mu. That could mean, any size greater than 20. Could be 30, 40, 50mu,...
And someone is telling a tale or mistaken on the other thread. O'R says the old Microgard is 93.8%, using the same ISO test. The new expert says it was only 88%. Again though, there's no micron level.
Bottom line, numbers aside, I prefer the Purolator constructed Microgard, and all Fram propoganda won't change that. And, it doesn't change my opinion that the orange can is overpriced.
The filter in the upper left hand corner doesn't even look like the cut open Microgard in the other thread. It actually looks to be a thread end bypass. It's strangely similar to another high line filter, previously posted here. I have to search when I get a chance, but it looks like they copied another filter's pic. IMO, the cut open illustration looks bogus.
As for the efficiency, same old Fram ambiguoius level. 94% at > 20mu. That could mean, any size greater than 20. Could be 30, 40, 50mu,...
And someone is telling a tale or mistaken on the other thread. O'R says the old Microgard is 93.8%, using the same ISO test. The new expert says it was only 88%. Again though, there's no micron level.
Bottom line, numbers aside, I prefer the Purolator constructed Microgard, and all Fram propoganda won't change that. And, it doesn't change my opinion that the orange can is overpriced.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
What a bunch of tripe! Nothing bonds better to fiber media than fiber endcap.
Prove it. Where's the data showing that to be true? Why does every high line and/or extended OCI filter, inluding Fram's(XG), have metal endcaps? Anyone can make a claim.
The filter in the upper left hand corner doesn't even look like the cut open Microgard in the other thread. It actually looks to be a thread end bypass. It's strangely similar to another high line filter, previously posted here. I have to search when I get a chance, but it looks like they copied another filter's pic. IMO, the cut open illustration looks bogus.
As for the efficiency, same old Fram ambiguoius level. 94% at > 20mu. That could mean, any size greater than 20. Could be 30, 40, 50mu,...
And someone is telling a tale or mistaken on the other thread. O'R says the old Microgard is 93.8%, using the same ISO test. The new expert says it was only 88%. Again though, there's no micron level.
Bottom line, numbers aside, I prefer the Purolator constructed Microgard, and all Fram propoganda won't change that. And, it doesn't change my opinion that the orange can is overpriced.
true..
over priced [censored] i wouldnt take one for free!!!!
What a bunch of tripe! Nothing bonds better to fiber media than fiber endcap.
The filter in the upper left hand corner doesn't even look like the cut open Microgard in the other thread. It actually looks to be a thread end bypass. It's strangely similar to another high line filter, previously posted here. I have to search when I get a chance, but it looks like they copied another filter's pic. IMO, the cut open illustration looks bogus.
As for the efficiency, same old Fram ambiguoius level. 94% at > 20mu. That could mean, any size greater than 20. Could be 30, 40, 50mu,...
And someone is telling a tale or mistaken on the other thread. O'R says the old Microgard is 93.8%, using the same ISO test. The new expert says it was only 88%. Again though, there's no micron level.
Bottom line, numbers aside, I prefer the Purolator constructed Microgard, and all Fram propoganda won't change that. And, it doesn't change my opinion that the orange can is overpriced.
true..
over priced [censored] i wouldnt take one for free!!!!
Propflux01
$100 Site Donor 2025
Originally Posted By: sayjac
What a bunch of tripe! Nothing bonds better to fiber media than fiber endcap.
Prove it. Where's the data showing that to be true? Why does every high line and/or extended OCI filter, inluding Fram's(XG), have metal endcaps? Anyone can make a claim.
Actually, it makes sense. The fibre media is porous, unlike metal. porous material will allow adhesive to 'sink in' better. Metal, being non-porous, will not. However, what they do not tell you, is that it's not the media sticking to it's end cap that is a problem, its the fibre end caps lack of rigidity that does not allow that nitrile seal to perfectly seal itself to the top of the filter. This is why higher end filters, including (as you pointed out) FRAM, have metal end caps. And is the most common reason lower-end FRAM's design has it's reputation for noisy starts (due to that non-sealing end cap allowing the filter to drain itself when the engine is shut off).
What a bunch of tripe! Nothing bonds better to fiber media than fiber endcap.
Actually, it makes sense. The fibre media is porous, unlike metal. porous material will allow adhesive to 'sink in' better. Metal, being non-porous, will not. However, what they do not tell you, is that it's not the media sticking to it's end cap that is a problem, its the fibre end caps lack of rigidity that does not allow that nitrile seal to perfectly seal itself to the top of the filter. This is why higher end filters, including (as you pointed out) FRAM, have metal end caps. And is the most common reason lower-end FRAM's design has it's reputation for noisy starts (due to that non-sealing end cap allowing the filter to drain itself when the engine is shut off).
Oh, please. The seal between the filter element and nitrile seal has nothing to do with oil draining out of the engine and filter. That seal is between the ADBV and the steel end plate.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
What a bunch of tripe! Nothing bonds better to fiber media than fiber endcap.
Prove it. Where's the data showing that to be true? Why does every high line and/or extended OCI filter, inluding Fram's(XG), have metal endcaps? Anyone can make a claim.
The filter in the upper left hand corner doesn't even look like the cut open Microgard in the other thread. It actually looks to be a thread end bypass. It's strangely similar to another high line filter, previously posted here. I have to search when I get a chance, but it looks like they copied another filter's pic. IMO, the cut open illustration looks bogus.
As for the efficiency, same old Fram ambiguoius level. 94% at > 20mu. That could mean, any size greater than 20. Could be 30, 40, 50mu,...
And someone is telling a tale or mistaken on the other thread. O'R says the old Microgard is 93.8%, using the same ISO test. The new expert says it was only 88%. Again though, there's no micron level.
Bottom line, numbers aside, I prefer the Purolator constructed Microgard, and all Fram propoganda won't change that. And, it doesn't change my opinion that the orange can is overpriced.
So you know better than the people who designed/built this filter? Do you work in filter production?
What a bunch of tripe! Nothing bonds better to fiber media than fiber endcap.
The filter in the upper left hand corner doesn't even look like the cut open Microgard in the other thread. It actually looks to be a thread end bypass. It's strangely similar to another high line filter, previously posted here. I have to search when I get a chance, but it looks like they copied another filter's pic. IMO, the cut open illustration looks bogus.
As for the efficiency, same old Fram ambiguoius level. 94% at > 20mu. That could mean, any size greater than 20. Could be 30, 40, 50mu,...
And someone is telling a tale or mistaken on the other thread. O'R says the old Microgard is 93.8%, using the same ISO test. The new expert says it was only 88%. Again though, there's no micron level.
Bottom line, numbers aside, I prefer the Purolator constructed Microgard, and all Fram propoganda won't change that. And, it doesn't change my opinion that the orange can is overpriced.
So you know better than the people who designed/built this filter? Do you work in filter production?
Didn't know working in filter production was a requirement to comment on what's advertised on a box. I know I wouldn't choose the new Honeywell special over the old design.
Notice you didn't answer the question about the Fram's ambigous filter specs. Or the fake picture on the box. Or the descrepancy between the statement of posted on the other thread and what's posted on the box. Don't need to be in filter production to raise those points.
I'll stick with a filters designed like the top quality filters, not cheesy fiber endcaps. Which btw, I can buy for the same or less money. If paying for fiber endcaps floats your boat, that's what you should do, I'll pass.
And, if working in filter production is a requirement to comment on this board, I didn't see it posted anywhere.
Notice you didn't answer the question about the Fram's ambigous filter specs. Or the fake picture on the box. Or the descrepancy between the statement of posted on the other thread and what's posted on the box. Don't need to be in filter production to raise those points.
I'll stick with a filters designed like the top quality filters, not cheesy fiber endcaps. Which btw, I can buy for the same or less money. If paying for fiber endcaps floats your boat, that's what you should do, I'll pass.
And, if working in filter production is a requirement to comment on this board, I didn't see it posted anywhere.
At the bottom, the ad says: "Engineered in Ohio."...
FRAM has an engineering department in Ohio? Actually, I'm not aware of ANY filter manufacturer that has their engineering done in Ohio...
FRAM has an engineering department in Ohio? Actually, I'm not aware of ANY filter manufacturer that has their engineering done in Ohio...
- Status
