OG Fram Titanium FS7317 C&P with bypass flashlight test

[garageman402]

It's already been shown that putting a lot of force on the leaf spring ears will not close the gap. The area of the leaf spring around the center tube will not deflect by putting force on the ears, it's too stiff in that area. If a gap is seen when the filter is inspected after cutting it open and a decent force is put on the ears, it will also have the same gap if assembled and never cut open.

Only way to have a good metal-to-metal seal is to have flat and smooth surfaces on both sides of the interface.

We have seen the OG Titanium's leaf spring, the bypass valve mount goes deeper into the filter housing than the Endurance's. You don't think that is a weak spot 90 degrees from the ears? There's no chance that "putting a lot of force on the leaf spring ears" onto a flat bench will cause the ears to move outward, thereby creating the arch that produces the gap? If it is in fact a "spring" as you say it is, wouldn't the tension relax when it is removed from the can? Laterally as well as longitudinally? You don't think the can squeezes it to flatten out the arch?

Agreed the Endurance seems to have a manufacturing defect in that the "leaf spring" is too thin & weak.

 

[Ronn]

Bottom line, let the testing do the talking.
We can always find flaws in design and manufacturing, testing will ultimately decide which filter’s performance is superior overall. There’s no substitute for standardized testing. Random selection of samples and strict controls insure a level
playing field. Let the numbers and overall data be your guide, not subjective critiques on which filters “appear” to have flaws. If the flaws are crucial, they will reveal themselves and impact overall performance under the scrutiny of testing.
If the “flaws” are inconsequential to the ultimate superior performance of one filter over another, I’m likely to base my choice on that factor, rather than interpretations of design and appearance of its components.
Is there room for improvement in these filters? Of course, and that’s where “autopsies” using flashlights and examining fit and finish of various components post testing “may” be insightful. But that’s all “after the fact”…
It doesn’t demonstrate that a filter is inferior to one it surpasses in testing.

 

[Glenda W.]

Bottom line, let the testing do the talking.
We can always find flaws in design and manufacturing, testing will ultimately decide which filter’s performance is superior overall. There’s no substitute for standardized testing. Random selection of samples and strict controls insure a level
playing field. Let the numbers and overall data be your guide, not subjective critiques on which filters “appear” to have flaws. If the flaws are crucial, they will reveal themselves and impact overall performance under the scrutiny of testing.
If the “flaws” are inconsequential to the ultimate superior performance of one filter over another, I’m likely to base my choice on that factor, rather than interpretations of design and appearance of its components.
Is there room for improvement in these filters? Of course, and that’s where “autopsies” using flashlights and examining fit and finish of various components post testing “may” be insightful. But that’s all “after the fact”…
It doesn’t demonstrate that a filter is inferior to one it surpasses in testing.

Garageman402 and I were discussing new vs og titanium/ultra…

Now this thread is a field of dead horses too.

 

[Ronn]

Garageman402 and I were discussing new vs og titanium/ultra…

Now this thread is a field of dead horses too.

View attachment 238697

“Agreed the Endurance seems to have a manufacturing defect in that the "leaf spring" is too thin & weak.”

This was in the post prior to mine and what prompted my response. Seems like “DEAD HORSE” is your default response when you can’t come up with anything else

 

[ZeeOSix]

Bottom line, let the testing do the talking.
We can always find flaws in design and manufacturing, testing will ultimately decide which filter’s performance is superior overall.

Again, you nor anyone else here doesn't know if the ones tested for efficiency were leakers or not. You're assuming they were, but they could have been built better then, and not have had any leak paths. This is why I keep saying the only way to know would be a cut open and inspect after every test. Or get Superman in the test lab.

 

[Glenda W.]

“Agreed the Endurance seems to have a manufacturing defect in that the "leaf spring" is too thin & weak.”

This was in the post prior to mine and what prompted my response. Seems like “DEAD HORSE” is your default response when you can’t come up with anything else

Your default seems to be capitalized letters in the color red. Repeating the same argument over and over doesn’t make it so.

We’ve all heard everyone’s opinions multiple times. No reason to keep posting the same thing over and over. We know how you feel. We’re discussing individual parts, fit and finish, other filters etc. You like Endurance and will keep using them. Perfect no problem…I respect your decision even though it’s different than mine.

 

[Ronn]

We all base our decisions on a host of different things. “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”.
For me it’s one thing to make observations, some of if which are very interesting and informative, and quite another to SPECULATE about interpreting what they imply. I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES
very compelling tests, using sophisticated controlled set ups, that have demonstrated the superior filtering of the Endurance compared to its own filter line up as well as others….even with>>>>>>>
“Weak Leaf Springs” and ”Flashlight Gaps”.
Now, some here try and argue that those “defects” may not have been present on the samples tested. Really??? What are the odds? All tear downs to date of the Endurance and it’s “clones” have demonstrated the same identical “defects”.
The samples tested weren’t cherry picked, they were chosen at random. So what are the odds of that particular Endurance filter being an “outlier” without them? The “Immaculate Filter” . That line of reasoning simply defies common sense and logical thinking.
So all this is “Dead Horse Chit”???
Ok…I’m comfortable peddling it then.

 

[ZeeOSix]

We have seen the OG Titanium's leaf spring, the bypass valve mount goes deeper into the filter housing than the Endurance's. You don't think that is a weak spot 90 degrees from the ears? There's no chance that "putting a lot of force on the leaf spring ears" onto a flat bench will cause the ears to move outward, thereby creating the arch that produces the gap?

If it is in fact a "spring" as you say it is, wouldn't the tension relax when it is removed from the can? Laterally as well as longitudinally? You don't think the can squeezes it to flatten out the arch?

Here's a link below to the Endurance leaf spring in the other thread by @Sayjac. It also has some depth that goes down into the end cap, and that depth around the center tube makes it very stiff in that area that resists any bending when force is put on the ears. The problem with that leaf spring is it's not formed very well around the area that seals to the center tube area. It's not flat and it's not smooth like the Titanium leaf spring in this thread. That's why the ratty looking leaf spring in the Endurance doesn't seal properly. Putting force on the ears doesn't make the area around the center tube hole deflect. The ears will probably permanently bend before the area around the center tube defects ... it's too stiff in that area.

So the key to making a metal-to-metal seal successfully is to have two surfaces that are flat and smooth - simple as that.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...light-to-bypass-seal-area.386625/post-6993872

Agreed the Endurance seems to have a manufacturing defect in that the "leaf spring" is too thin & weak.

The Endurance leaf spring is not formed as well as the Titanium leaf spring. The Endurance leaf spring looks pretty ratty in the link above, especially in the area where it seals to the end cap on the sides where the light leaks are seen. It also has a very short shelf on the sides where the light leakage is seen. All of that is why it doesn't seal well on the sides.

 

[ZeeOSix]

We all base our decisions on a host of different things. “One man’s meat is another man’s poison”.
For me it’s one thing to make observations, some of if which are very interesting and informative, and quite another to SPECULATE about interpreting what they imply. I have seen WITH MY OWN EYES
very compelling tests, using sophisticated controlled set ups, that have demonstrated the superior filtering of the Endurance compared to its own filter line up as well as others….even with>>>>>>>
“Weak Leaf Springs” and ”Flashlight Gaps”.
Now, some here try and argue that those “defects” may not have been present on the samples tested. Really??? What are the odds? All tear downs to date of the Endurance and it’s “clones” have demonstrated the same identical “defects”.
The samples tested weren’t cherry picked, they were chosen at random. So what are the odds of that particular Endurance filter being an “outlier” without them? The “Immaculate Filter” . That line of reasoning simply defies common sense and logical thinking.
So all this is “Dead Horse Chit”???
Ok…I’m comfortable peddling it then.

You talk about "speculation", but then you speculate that every Endurance ever built has this defect. Nobody can say one way or the other without proof, which would be to tear down and inspect every Endurance ever made and efficiency tested. I highly doubt that has happened. And yes, it's entirely possible the ones officially ISO tested were not leakers. Production quality changes all the time, so the ones we see with ratty leaf spring metal stamping may be a result of machines wearing out or not setup properly.

 

[garageman402]

You talk about "speculation", but then you speculate that every Endurance ever built has this defect. Nobody can say one way or the other without proof, which would be to tear down and inspect every Endurance ever made and efficiency tested. I highly doubt that has happened. And yes, it's entirely possible the ones officially ISO tested were not leakers. Production quality changes all the time, so the ones we see with ratty leaf spring metal stamping may be a result of machines wearing out or not setup properly.

So this could be a developing issue, a defect has popped up. I have gotten lower particle counts with Fram FE than Amsoil EaO, I’m wondering if the Amsoil filters were defective. WCW vid of an Amsoil looked pretty rough.
I basically agree with @ZeeOSix that it’s unlikely the spring will seal better under pressure. The part that’s recessed adds rigidity, but from the surface it looks like it could bend. The link you posted is very enlightening that spring looks horrible. I think that’s the sister thread to this. Lol.
AAP mail order is notorious for having old stock, I experienced that a few years ago when I ordered Purolator One & received the old yellow Pure One filters about 7 years old.

 

[Glenda W.]

So this could be a developing issue, a defect has popped up. I have gotten lower particle counts with Fram FE than Amsoil EaO, I’m wondering if the Amsoil filters were defective. WCW vid of an Amsoil looked pretty rough.
I basically agree with @ZeeOSix that it’s unlikely the spring will seal better under pressure. The part that’s recessed adds rigidity, but from the surface it looks like it could bend. The link you posted is very enlightening that spring looks horrible. I think that’s the sister thread to this. Lol.
AAP mail order is notorious for having old stock, I experienced that a few years ago when I ordered Purolator One & received the old yellow Pure One filters about 7 years old.

I cut holes in the can and tested under pressure.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/fram-endurance-flashlight-test-in-canister.386911/

 

[edhackett]

Again, you nor anyone else here doesn't know if the ones tested for efficiency were leakers or not. You're assuming they were, but they could have been built better then, and not have had any leak paths. This is why I keep saying the only way to know would be a cut open and inspect after every test. Or get Superman in the test lab.

We don't even know if the filters tested had a bypass valve, or if it was sealed for the test.

ISO 4548-12
8.1.1 Ensure that the test fluid cannot bypass the filter element to be evaluated. Unless agreed between the purchaser and manufacturer, the bypass valve of the filter element shall be kept operative. If the bypass valve has been made inoperative, this shall be clearly stated in the test report.

Ed

 

[Ronn]

So this could be a developing issue, a defect has popped up. I have gotten lower particle counts with Fram FE than Amsoil EaO, I’m wondering if the Amsoil filters were defective. WCW vid of an Amsoil looked pretty rough.
I basically agree with @ZeeOSix that it’s unlikely the spring will seal better under pressure. The part that’s recessed adds rigidity, but from the surface it looks like it could bend. The link you posted is very enlightening that spring looks horrible. I think that’s the sister thread to this. Lol.
AAP mail order is notorious for having old stock, I experienced that a few years ago when I ordered Purolator One & received the old yellow Pure One filters about 7 years old.

I can post results of a particle Filtration test (That I have referred to and shown here ) showing Amsoil edging out the Fram FE, with Amsoil ranked #1 and FE Endurance #2 in filtration. I suspect those results may be due to slight variations among different models and normal variations in testing (you're not going to always get identical results). I refrain from doing so due the blow back I'll get for "Beating a Dead Horse".....

 

[garageman402]

We don't even know if the filters tested had a bypass valve, or if it was sealed for the test.

Ed

Doesn’t matter. The leaf spring is on all filters, bypass or not. The non bypass leaf doesn’t have a hole in it for the poppet.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Doesn’t matter. The leaf spring is on all filters, bypass or not. The non bypass leaf doesn’t have a hole in it for the poppet.

Not sure on that ... may differ by brand/model. Would have to see some C&Ps. Some filters have a solid end cap on the dome end when there's no bypass valve, and they still use a leaf spring.

 

[garageman402]

Not sure on that ... may differ by brand/model. Would have to see some C&Ps. Some filters have a solid end cap on the dome end when there's no bypass valve, and they still use a leaf spring.

The FE3980 is good example.

 

[edhackett]

Doesn’t matter. The leaf spring is on all filters, bypass or not. The non bypass leaf doesn’t have a hole in it for the poppet.

That's true for the Fram filters built that way, if submitted as designed. It appears ISO-4548-12 allows the manufacturer every chance to insure the test is only testing the filter element and one that is free of defects. Part of the testing includes bubble testing the element and any that fail the manufacturer's specifications are not included in the testing.

ISO-4548-12
8.1.2 Subject the test filter element to a fabrication integrity test in accordance with ISO 2942 using MIL-H-5606 fluid prior to the multi-pass test or following the multi-pass test if the element is not readily accessible as in the spin-on configuration.

8.1.3 If the integrity test has been made prior to the multi-pass test and if it fails to meet the test pressure agreed between the purchaser and the manufacturer, disqualify the element from further testing.

The point I'm trying to make is that a manufacturer's ISO testing of the element is not from random samples pulled from the line. They can be modified by disabling(removing?) the bypass valve and any elements with flaws are not included as part of the test. The ISO 4548-12 results on the box are no guarantee that the filter in the box, as a whole, will meet that standard. It only means that the filtration media is capable of that performance.

I choose my filters based on those that have the fewest design elements that rely on manufacturing precision in order to work properly. Right now that seems to be the Premium Guard manufactured filters. I think anyone using anything other than Premium Guard EX based filters are nuts.

Ed

 

[ZeeOSix]

The FE3980 is good example.

The Bosch 3430 in the same specification has a solid end cap, but still uses a leaf spring. Like said ... "may differ by brand/model."

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/20-micron-battle-bosch-3430-vs-fram-fe3980.370879/

 

[Fair enough]

That's true for the Fram filters built that way, if submitted as designed. It appears ISO-4548-12 allows the manufacturer every chance to insure the test is only testing the filter element and one that is free of defects. Part of the testing includes bubble testing the element and any that fail the manufacturer's specifications are not included in the testing.

The point I'm trying to make is that a manufacturer's ISO testing of the element is not from random samples pulled from the line. They can be modified by disabling(removing?) the bypass valve and any elements with flaws are not included as part of the test. The ISO 4548-12 results on the box are no guarantee that the filter in the box, as a whole, will meet that standard. It only means that the filtration media is capable of that performance.

I choose my filters based on those that have the fewest design elements that rely on manufacturing precision in order to work properly. Right now that seems to be the Premium Guard manufactured filters. I think anyone using anything other than Premium Guard EX based filters are nuts.

Ed

I was following Whip City Wrencher about this light leak issue, which means oil leak. Ascent filtration did a bubble point test by putting a cork in the filters with removable bypass valves. He made the point if a filter fails the bubble point it is a fail. Fram must be doing the same and getting pass on the bubble point just like Ascent.
Looking at bypass filtration, there is a section here for that, it is seen even though maybe 10% of the oil is filtered, and 90% flows through unfiltered, the oil is cleaned to a high standard when analyzed.
Fram and others can test assembled filters with a slight oil leak at the bypass and still achieve the same efficiency numbers. The small leak doesn’t matter is how I see it. It still tests the media. Maybe it means the media is even better than the test numbers.

Toyota oil filters also have light leak the same way, I looked at some. The ears of the spring slightly raise the center of the spring under pressure, and the resin seal is not that smooth. One had a noticeable bump on the resin, and that leak was very visible. It still is under 10 thousandths I think. My conclusion, for myself only, is it does not matter.

I think Fram did test the efficiency and saved a few cents per filter by removing the gasket as they found nothing changed. Maybe they never saw the light leak issue but it was to save money. They still offer the Ultra for $8-9, or less, while others have raised their prices. Same way they changed the expensive Ultra media with the screen, had to be to keep the price down. It works for me as a consumer.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Looking at bypass filtration, there is a section here for that, it is seen even though maybe 10% of the oil is filtered, and 90% flows through unfiltered, the oil is cleaned to a high standard when analyzed.

A bypass filtering system usually also employees a full-full filter in the system. Who here has tested an oiling system for cleanliness with only using a bypass filter without a full full also in the system?