Ph3675 cut after just 52 miles

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mrsandman

Joined
Aug 26, 2015
Messages
379
Location
Texas
This was cut on 6-1-14 after only 52 miles. A link is provided below the pics https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showthread.php%3Ft%3D630939&ved=0CDkQFjAHahUKEwiQxMycguzHAhVOMYgKHVnqDUs&usg=AFQjCNHpwEksKB1ZBewYPOMSGUNX0enHHg&sig2=37eSNlJtC2NsPr4Ofd6D2g
 
Something doesn't smell right here. Why would anyone pull a filter off after only 52 miles. Regardless of the reason given, im not buying it, sorry. Someone's trying to drive an agenda IMO.
 
#1 Old 06-01-2014, 08:01 PM clinebarger's Avatar clinebarger clinebarger is offline Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Fort Worth Texas Posts: 5,462 Fram oil filter failure. Filter came off a '99 Tran Am 5.7L LS1, In service for 57 miles (Customer ran over something & cracked the oil pan). To this day, These filters still have terrible build quality. Where the pleat ends are glued together, 1/4" of the pleat is not glued, The gap is open all the way through allowing unfiltered oil to bypass the filter media. Attached Images __________________ 2006 Chevy 2500HD Crew Cab 6.6 LBZ/Allison 1000 2001 Chevy Camaro, 5.3L/4L65E, Former V6 car.
 
Why don't you give them a chance to explain instead of just jumping on them feet first? I have removed filters a couple miles if they created excessive start up tick. That very well may be what happened here.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
Nope, not buying it. 52 miles of use seems like a witch hunt is brewing.
They said he had something come up and crack his oil pan. I suppose they cut the filter to inspect for damage signs and discovered this. You can clearly see they didn't properly glue the seem. The filter is positioned above the oil pan on this car and there no damage to the can so y'all, looks like a legitimate failure
 
It's a failure plain and simple. It's time to acknowledge the facts about this companies short comings and quality issues, as well as customer care.
 
Last edited:
What's the best way to deflect a negative comment about Fram? Mention Purolator! banana
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
What's the best way to deflect a negative comment about Fram? Mention Purolator! banana
LoL ... it wasn't a deflection, it was a joke - similar media failure and all - ya get it? Please try to keep up. wink
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
What's the best way to deflect a negative comment about Fram? Mention Purolator! banana
Lol, that's apparently been working for to long now.
 
All I have to say is.... Let us see a whole bunch of Fram extra guards start showing up on this here site with tearing problems. Then.. I will gladly buy in. Maybe the problem is on this site no one hardly dissects Fram EG filters. Generally we see the Ultra filters cut up. That could be the reason for such a lower number of Fram EG filters not showing up on here. Or maybe just maybe this is no where near as prevalent as the Purolator problem seems to be. I'm leaning 80\20 its the latter. I have zero issues with Purolator. I would gladly run a Purolator Synthetic oil filter on my car. Any day of the week. Only problem is the only place that sells them is Pep Boys and they are $12 plus on price there. Too high compared to the Fram Ultra which is a very good product in its own right for $10.29 at AAP and $8.97 at Wally world. Just not worth the extra cost in my opinion. The Purolator Synthetic oil filter is a very good product at the end of the day. Just high priced and poor availability for me. That having been stated... I wouldn't run a Purolator classic or Pureone right now. If Fram had as many issues as these have obviously had in the past year and more I wouldn't run them at all either. Period. This is not about brand in my book. It's about overall quality control issues and flaws that have yet to be corrected as of yet. I hope they will be straightened out soon because Purolator has a very long time history and was a great sponsor in NASCAR too. They just have to get their proverbial ducks in a row and get this straightened out. It is my strong supposition that zee0six and many others are just looking at what they are seeing on here. It's an observation based upon evidence that has been presented on here. IF and I mean IF Fram started having has many documented failures I feel that many people on here would say so. Truth is in my opinion... Fram coming out with the Ultra filter greatly helped their brand immensely. Before this... They were getting trashed for poor quality too. But the Ultra has helped them turn that ship around in a very positive way. Purolator can very easily do the same thing. I hope they do has well smile because having more good quality choices to choose from is a good deal for us all smile
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
What's the best way to deflect a negative comment about Fram? Mention Purolator! banana
It is in the Fram handbook. That is why you always see the same reaction from all of them. You may need to check with zee o six but I believe it is in section 3 appendix A subsection 62.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Why don't you give them a chance to explain instead of just jumping on them feet first? I have removed filters a couple miles if they created excessive start up tick. That very well may be what happened here.
Originally Posted By: Mrsandman
Originally Posted By: wemay
Nope, not buying it. 52 miles of use seems like a witch hunt is brewing.
They said he had something come up and crack his oil pan. I suppose they cut the filter to inspect for damage signs and discovered this. You can clearly see they didn't properly glue the seem. The filter is positioned above the oil pan on this car and there no damage to the can so y'all, looks like a legitimate failure
Ok, that does make sense. Forgive my abrupt assumptions. And BTW: i still use both, Fram and Purolator. So no agenda here.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: dishdude
What's the best way to deflect a negative comment about Fram? Mention Purolator! banana
It is in the Fram handbook. That is why you always see the same reaction from all of them. You may need to check with zee o six but I believe it is in section 3 appendix A subsection 62.
Is there an OR statement in that clause?
 
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
And I see Motoking stepped in to offer assistance. Can't say that about Purolator after 70+ reported tears and constant contact with their home office. http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showp...mp;postcount=19
Hilariously enough if you read the rest of the thread, the general consensus is avoid the oc and he never heard back from Fram. http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=6825037&postcount=46
Yeah, I saw that too. But just because the guy didn't post anything up doesn't mean something didn't happen. People on both ends don't always follow through.
 
No, it just says that deflecting the argument against Purolator may or may not be successful less than or equal to 60% of the time....
 
Originally Posted By: bbhero
All I have to say is.... Let us see a whole bunch of Fram extra guards start showing up on this here site with tearing problems. Then.. I will gladly buy in. Maybe the problem is on this site no one hardly dissects Fram EG filters. Generally we see the Ultra filters cut up. That could be the reason for such a lower number of Fram EG filters not showing up on here. Or maybe just maybe this is no where near as prevalent as the Purolator problem seems to be. I'm leaning 80\20 its the latter. I have zero issues with Purolator. I would gladly run a Purolator Synthetic oil filter on my car. Any day of the week. Only problem is the only place that sells them is Pep Boys and they are $12 plus on price there. Too high compared to the Fram Ultra which is a very good product in its own right for $10.29 at AAP and $8.97 at Wally world. Just not worth the extra cost in my opinion. The Purolator Synthetic oil filter is a very good product at the end of the day. Just high priced and poor availability for me. That having been stated... I wouldn't run a Purolator classic or Pureone right now. If Fram had as many issues as these have obviously had in the past year and more I wouldn't run them at all either. Period. This is not about brand in my book. It's about overall quality control issues and flaws that have yet to be corrected as of yet. I hope they will be straightened out soon because Purolator has a very long time history and was a great sponsor in NASCAR too. They just have to get their proverbial ducks in a row and get this straightened out. It is my strong supposition that zee0six and many others are just looking at what they are seeing on here. It's an observation based upon evidence that has been presented on here. IF and I mean IF Fram started having has many documented failures I feel that many people on here would say so. Truth is in my opinion... Fram coming out with the Ultra filter greatly helped their brand immensely. Before this... They were getting trashed for poor quality too. But the Ultra has helped them turn that ship around in a very positive way. Purolator can very easily do the same thing. I hope they do has well smile because having more good quality choices to choose from is a good deal for us all smile
The thing is this isn't a post about puro. Puro shouldn't be used to divert the focus off the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
Chevron website issue?
Replies
5
Views
676
Mad_Hatter
P
2015 Kia Optima LX QT/300 Miles Oil Burned Solved/Fixed
2
Replies
33
Views
16K
PLANAR'tor
Nick1994
  • Locked
Toyota OEM Cartridge Filter, Cut Open 12,669 Miles
Replies
14
Views
3K
CR94
Kamele0N
  • Locked
Time of exploitation and detergency properties of low SAPS engine oils
Replies
1
Views
925
Linctex
T
Best Way To Desludge This New-To-Me Dodge Dakota w/4.7L V8?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
26K
kschachn
Top