Personally, I thought Frams were junk too - but now I feel they're overpriced for what they are, I wouldn't hesitate to use one if it was part of an oil change deal. And besides, Honda and Subaru use Fram as aftermarket service filters.
The real deal - FRAM from their test lab with pic
- Thread starter chad8
- Start date
- Status
And then of course, some filters have no end caps.
An internet favorite is to try to rip or pull the endcaps off... the exact OPPOSITE direction the oil pressure is pushing it by the way. Most who abhor the endcaps have little understanding of filter function IMO. Tell them some filters have no endcaps at all and you get "Huh?".
Now if the orange can cost $2.99, had ADBV's that worked better, and had more pleats they'd really have something. Even then the PH3980 is my preferred filter for our old Chevy 3.1.
Now if the orange can cost $2.99, had ADBV's that worked better, and had more pleats they'd really have something. Even then the PH3980 is my preferred filter for our old Chevy 3.1.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Now if the orange can cost $2.99, had ADBV's that worked better, and had more pleats they'd really have something. Even then the PH3980 is my preferred filter for our old Chevy 3.1.
I've used the orange can for decades before I finally stopped using them. I even favored them over Motorcraft oil filters, ah, the power of tv advertising back then. The only problem I ran into is when I bought my 1980 F-100 with the 4.9 L6. It had dry start sounds. Since it had a carburetor it took a few cranks to start so there was some oil flowing by the time it caught. My 1989 F-150 with the same engine, only fuel injected, would catch and fire on the first crank. The dry start noises were much worse. I guess this didn't allow as much time to get the oil circulating. I blamed the oil and went to Mobil 1 10W-30 from GTX 10W-30. There was no difference. I decided to try the Motorcaft FL1A oil filter. Low and behold no more dry starts, not even in the dead of winter. I don't think the ADBV is that great on the orange Fram's and with the design of the Ford 4.9's and the horizontal installation made for problems. And as KC points out I can get a Motorcraft FL820S for $3.97 or a PH2 for $4.27 at my local Walmart. Even the AAP store sells Motorcraft the FL820S for $3.99
Whimsey
Now if the orange can cost $2.99, had ADBV's that worked better, and had more pleats they'd really have something. Even then the PH3980 is my preferred filter for our old Chevy 3.1.
I've used the orange can for decades before I finally stopped using them. I even favored them over Motorcraft oil filters, ah, the power of tv advertising back then. The only problem I ran into is when I bought my 1980 F-100 with the 4.9 L6. It had dry start sounds. Since it had a carburetor it took a few cranks to start so there was some oil flowing by the time it caught. My 1989 F-150 with the same engine, only fuel injected, would catch and fire on the first crank. The dry start noises were much worse. I guess this didn't allow as much time to get the oil circulating. I blamed the oil and went to Mobil 1 10W-30 from GTX 10W-30. There was no difference. I decided to try the Motorcaft FL1A oil filter. Low and behold no more dry starts, not even in the dead of winter. I don't think the ADBV is that great on the orange Fram's and with the design of the Ford 4.9's and the horizontal installation made for problems. And as KC points out I can get a Motorcraft FL820S for $3.97 or a PH2 for $4.27 at my local Walmart. Even the AAP store sells Motorcraft the FL820S for $3.99
Whimsey
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Whimsey
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Now if the orange can cost $2.99, had ADBV's that worked better, and had more pleats they'd really have something. Even then the PH3980 is my preferred filter for our old Chevy 3.1.
I've used the orange can for decades before I finally stopped using them. I even favored them over Motorcraft oil filters, ah, the power of tv advertising back then. The only problem I ran into is when I bought my 1980 F-100 with the 4.9 L6. It had dry start sounds. Since it had a carburetor it took a few cranks to start so there was some oil flowing by the time it caught. My 1989 F-150 with the same engine, only fuel injected, would catch and fire on the first crank. The dry start noises were much worse. I guess this didn't allow as much time to get the oil circulating. I blamed the oil and went to Mobil 1 10W-30 from GTX 10W-30. There was no difference. I decided to try the Motorcaft FL1A oil filter. Low and behold no more dry starts, not even in the dead of winter. I don't think the ADBV is that great on the orange Fram's and with the design of the Ford 4.9's and the horizontal installation made for problems. And as KC points out I can get a Motorcraft FL820S for $3.97 or a PH2 for $4.27 at my local Walmart. Even the AAP store sells Motorcraft the FL820S for $3.99
Whimsey
FRAM, ARE YOU READING THIS? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Now if the orange can cost $2.99, had ADBV's that worked better, and had more pleats they'd really have something. Even then the PH3980 is my preferred filter for our old Chevy 3.1.
I've used the orange can for decades before I finally stopped using them. I even favored them over Motorcraft oil filters, ah, the power of tv advertising back then. The only problem I ran into is when I bought my 1980 F-100 with the 4.9 L6. It had dry start sounds. Since it had a carburetor it took a few cranks to start so there was some oil flowing by the time it caught. My 1989 F-150 with the same engine, only fuel injected, would catch and fire on the first crank. The dry start noises were much worse. I guess this didn't allow as much time to get the oil circulating. I blamed the oil and went to Mobil 1 10W-30 from GTX 10W-30. There was no difference. I decided to try the Motorcaft FL1A oil filter. Low and behold no more dry starts, not even in the dead of winter. I don't think the ADBV is that great on the orange Fram's and with the design of the Ford 4.9's and the horizontal installation made for problems. And as KC points out I can get a Motorcraft FL820S for $3.97 or a PH2 for $4.27 at my local Walmart. Even the AAP store sells Motorcraft the FL820S for $3.99
Whimsey
FRAM, ARE YOU READING THIS? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: Russ300H
Sorry, I just don't buy the glued end cap explanation. Anything that flexes for a number of cycles is going to tear at some point. I'll buy their improved quality control statement and feel comfortable using one for a short OCI, but I am not convinced the reason for the paper end caps is not cost (ie: Profit). The tests prove they can get away with it. Their better filters use metal end caps and almost ALL competitors use metal.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If you don't know why the Ultras have metal end caps then your opinion of fiber endcaps carries little weight.
I think Russ was just stating a fact. And, if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters. The orange can is the base model with no bells and whistles and cardboard (fiber) is a lot cheaper than metal.
Originally Posted By: Russ300H
Sorry, I just don't buy the glued end cap explanation. Anything that flexes for a number of cycles is going to tear at some point. I'll buy their improved quality control statement and feel comfortable using one for a short OCI, but I am not convinced the reason for the paper end caps is not cost (ie: Profit). The tests prove they can get away with it. Their better filters use metal end caps and almost ALL competitors use metal.
Sorry, but you don't know what you are talking about. If you don't know why the Ultras have metal end caps then your opinion of fiber endcaps carries little weight.
I think Russ was just stating a fact. And, if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters. The orange can is the base model with no bells and whistles and cardboard (fiber) is a lot cheaper than metal.
Originally Posted By: solorexpy
if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters.
Two possible reasons I can think of:
1) that particular production line also produces filters for applications other than automotive oil-based;
2) consumers perceive metal to be superior, and are thus willing to pay more for a filter that has metal end caps.
It's surely true that fiber is much cheaper in production, but cheaper in production isn't necessarily inferior in use. In our industry, we often find cheaper ways of producing a like-or-better quality product at a cheaper cost. We (might) pass on some of our savings to the consumer -- and take the rest as a better margin -- until the market eventually squeezes all of it out of us anyway. Then we do it all over again. Successful companies can keep doing that long-term; unsuccessful companies eventually go bankrupt trying to do that. You'll notice FRAM is still around as a brand after many decades, and is selling about as well as it ever has...
if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters.
Two possible reasons I can think of:
1) that particular production line also produces filters for applications other than automotive oil-based;
2) consumers perceive metal to be superior, and are thus willing to pay more for a filter that has metal end caps.
It's surely true that fiber is much cheaper in production, but cheaper in production isn't necessarily inferior in use. In our industry, we often find cheaper ways of producing a like-or-better quality product at a cheaper cost. We (might) pass on some of our savings to the consumer -- and take the rest as a better margin -- until the market eventually squeezes all of it out of us anyway. Then we do it all over again. Successful companies can keep doing that long-term; unsuccessful companies eventually go bankrupt trying to do that. You'll notice FRAM is still around as a brand after many decades, and is selling about as well as it ever has...
Originally Posted By: solorexpy
And, if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters. The orange can is the base model with no bells and whistles and cardboard (fiber) is a lot cheaper than metal.
FRAM uses metal end caps on ONLY one filter ... the Ultra.
The reason they use metal end caps on the Ultra is because they HAVE TO from an engineering viewpoint. The synthetic media has a wire mesh backing, and there is no way to bond it and the dual layer synthetic media to fiber end caps. Therefore, they use metal end caps and a lot of potting material to capture an secure all that structure of the wire backed, dual layer media to the end cap.
And, if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters. The orange can is the base model with no bells and whistles and cardboard (fiber) is a lot cheaper than metal.
FRAM uses metal end caps on ONLY one filter ... the Ultra.
The reason they use metal end caps on the Ultra is because they HAVE TO from an engineering viewpoint. The synthetic media has a wire mesh backing, and there is no way to bond it and the dual layer synthetic media to fiber end caps. Therefore, they use metal end caps and a lot of potting material to capture an secure all that structure of the wire backed, dual layer media to the end cap.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: solorexpy
And, if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters. The orange can is the base model with no bells and whistles and cardboard (fiber) is a lot cheaper than metal.
FRAM uses metal end caps on ONLY one filter ... the Ultra.
The reason they use metal end caps on the Ultra is because they HAVE TO from an engineering viewpoint. The synthetic media has a wire mesh backing, and there is no way to bond it and the dual layer synthetic media to fiber end caps. Therefore, they use metal end caps and a lot of potting material to capture an secure all that structure of the wire backed, dual layer media.
I can understand this, and it only makes sense.
Is the FRAM fiber end cap a patented design? Why don't others, like Purolator, Wix, Bosch, use fiber/cardboard end caps on their filters instead of metal?
Originally Posted By: solorexpy
And, if metal end caps are inferior, please explain why they are on Fram's premium filters. The orange can is the base model with no bells and whistles and cardboard (fiber) is a lot cheaper than metal.
FRAM uses metal end caps on ONLY one filter ... the Ultra.
The reason they use metal end caps on the Ultra is because they HAVE TO from an engineering viewpoint. The synthetic media has a wire mesh backing, and there is no way to bond it and the dual layer synthetic media to fiber end caps. Therefore, they use metal end caps and a lot of potting material to capture an secure all that structure of the wire backed, dual layer media.
I can understand this, and it only makes sense.
Is the FRAM fiber end cap a patented design? Why don't others, like Purolator, Wix, Bosch, use fiber/cardboard end caps on their filters instead of metal?
"""Mrblaine has been telling me the same thing for years, that Fram’s filters are fine and that the internet claims are either false or grossly exaggerated. Blaine, you were right."""
I was/is right too, as I've been saying the same thing for years. Had a 2 door 83 Cutlass Supreme with the 307--exclusively fed Castrol 10-40 & Fram orange can. Car only went 256K miles till tranny did it in. And BTW, car never consumed any measureable oil---it's entire life
I was/is right too, as I've been saying the same thing for years. Had a 2 door 83 Cutlass Supreme with the 307--exclusively fed Castrol 10-40 & Fram orange can. Car only went 256K miles till tranny did it in. And BTW, car never consumed any measureable oil---it's entire life
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Is the FRAM fiber end cap a patented design? Why don't others, like Purolator, Wix, Bosch, use fiber/cardboard end caps on their filters instead of metal?
I doubt that the design of using non-metal end caps is patented. Super Tech filters used "fiber" end caps, but the material was somewhat different. Could be the "engineered fiber" material itself is patented.
Is the FRAM fiber end cap a patented design? Why don't others, like Purolator, Wix, Bosch, use fiber/cardboard end caps on their filters instead of metal?
I doubt that the design of using non-metal end caps is patented. Super Tech filters used "fiber" end caps, but the material was somewhat different. Could be the "engineered fiber" material itself is patented.
The exact formula/process Fram uses may be patented but Fram isn't the only one using engineered fiber endcaps. I posted a pic some time back of a dissected Japanese-made Nissan filter that has fiber endcaps. There are others.
This whole discussion is deja-vu all over again. Ground Hog day. Same question gets asked. Same answers given. The sad part is that many of the same people are doing the asking.
This whole discussion is deja-vu all over again. Ground Hog day. Same question gets asked. Same answers given. The sad part is that many of the same people are doing the asking.
Jay Buckley had posted on here before the cost difference between the fiber and metal endcaps was only a few pennies per filter. They claim the main reason for them is better bond to the media which actually makes sense, and the exact same reason they use metal endcaps on the Ultra.
This is a valuable, informative and encouraging contribution by chad8, regardless of wether or not it is an accomplice to a larger PR rehabilitation campaign.
There is no need for the OP or anyone else to obliged to "eat crow" or revise history. In fact, the anecdote from Paraghraph 8 of the post is vindication for the activist bloggers and critics here and on other automotive boards - the Nerds effectively cyber-bullied Fram into improving their base product - as well as better marketing their premium lines and adopting a new opern & responsive relationship with consumers.
The immediate beneficiary is not so much us, but rather the majority of passive consumers who walk inot a parts or hardware store to be confronted with a huge wall of orange along with a logo they recognize from sponsorship & advertising, and without further consideration reach for one of those (hopefully) according to the application guide.
The ultimate beneficiary will probably be Fram itself. There must have been voices who argued that the "haters" were a small minority of cranks who would never influence enough people to take a significant bite out of sales & market share - nothing that couldn't be offset by layng off some workers and further cheaping out on the product. Fram desrves credit for apparently chosing a better way: to actually address the qulaity perception issue.
But I doubt it would ever happen without the pressure & awareness made possible by the Internet Age.
There is no need for the OP or anyone else to obliged to "eat crow" or revise history. In fact, the anecdote from Paraghraph 8 of the post is vindication for the activist bloggers and critics here and on other automotive boards - the Nerds effectively cyber-bullied Fram into improving their base product - as well as better marketing their premium lines and adopting a new opern & responsive relationship with consumers.
The immediate beneficiary is not so much us, but rather the majority of passive consumers who walk inot a parts or hardware store to be confronted with a huge wall of orange along with a logo they recognize from sponsorship & advertising, and without further consideration reach for one of those (hopefully) according to the application guide.
The ultimate beneficiary will probably be Fram itself. There must have been voices who argued that the "haters" were a small minority of cranks who would never influence enough people to take a significant bite out of sales & market share - nothing that couldn't be offset by layng off some workers and further cheaping out on the product. Fram desrves credit for apparently chosing a better way: to actually address the qulaity perception issue.
But I doubt it would ever happen without the pressure & awareness made possible by the Internet Age.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
The exact formula/process Fram uses may be patented but Fram isn't the only one using engineered fiber endcaps. I posted a pic some time back of a dissected Japanese-made Nissan filter that has fiber endcaps. There are others.
This whole discussion is deja-vu all over again. Ground Hog day. Same question gets asked. Same answers given. The sad part is that many of the same people are doing the asking.
I think what I said was accurate. Most other manufacturers use metal end caps and every premium filter I know of uses metal end caps. I don't believe there is enough difference between Fram media and all other manufacturers to require a different sealing method. If they save a few pennies on a filter and you make millions of filters, it can be worthwhile to the bean counters. Again, I am using the High Mileage filter with no trepidation as I believe it is good enough. As the Ultras are competitive with Pure Ones price wise, I will probably switch if I get good results. I don't think my previous statement, or this clarification can be construed as Fram bashing.
The exact formula/process Fram uses may be patented but Fram isn't the only one using engineered fiber endcaps. I posted a pic some time back of a dissected Japanese-made Nissan filter that has fiber endcaps. There are others.
This whole discussion is deja-vu all over again. Ground Hog day. Same question gets asked. Same answers given. The sad part is that many of the same people are doing the asking.
I think what I said was accurate. Most other manufacturers use metal end caps and every premium filter I know of uses metal end caps. I don't believe there is enough difference between Fram media and all other manufacturers to require a different sealing method. If they save a few pennies on a filter and you make millions of filters, it can be worthwhile to the bean counters. Again, I am using the High Mileage filter with no trepidation as I believe it is good enough. As the Ultras are competitive with Pure Ones price wise, I will probably switch if I get good results. I don't think my previous statement, or this clarification can be construed as Fram bashing.
nice reading however i am happy with the filters i use in the shop and will not buy any of those filters
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Also, all but one of every oil filter "study" I've ever seen involves somebody pulling various filters apart, then judging them on how icky or impressive they look inside. And then everybody else cites those fashion shows to justify their own biases. Nobody does functionality tests, just a fashion show. And when I see one particular brand of filter fail every fashion show without a shred of objective performance data being offered in support of the fashion shows' voting results, I get suspicious.
BINGO! I came here today to see if anyone had done instrumented tests of oil filters, specifically the performance of ADBVs and I found this thead.
Yup, some companies do a better job of making 'em real purty on the inside, but if my side-loading oil filter drains all its oil back into the engine after shutdown it doesn't matter if they used really great-looking rubber or metal endcaps--my engine has no oil under pressure for a couple seconds and my connecting rods tell me they don't particularly care for that.
How useful are all those filter disections? Is it really useful information being produced or is about as relevant as reading animal entrails to determine one's fortune?
Also, all but one of every oil filter "study" I've ever seen involves somebody pulling various filters apart, then judging them on how icky or impressive they look inside. And then everybody else cites those fashion shows to justify their own biases. Nobody does functionality tests, just a fashion show. And when I see one particular brand of filter fail every fashion show without a shred of objective performance data being offered in support of the fashion shows' voting results, I get suspicious.
BINGO! I came here today to see if anyone had done instrumented tests of oil filters, specifically the performance of ADBVs and I found this thead.
Yup, some companies do a better job of making 'em real purty on the inside, but if my side-loading oil filter drains all its oil back into the engine after shutdown it doesn't matter if they used really great-looking rubber or metal endcaps--my engine has no oil under pressure for a couple seconds and my connecting rods tell me they don't particularly care for that.
How useful are all those filter disections? Is it really useful information being produced or is about as relevant as reading animal entrails to determine one's fortune?
Originally Posted By: Glued
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Also, all but one of every oil filter "study" I've ever seen involves somebody pulling various filters apart, then judging them on how icky or impressive they look inside. And then everybody else cites those fashion shows to justify their own biases. Nobody does functionality tests, just a fashion show. And when I see one particular brand of filter fail every fashion show without a shred of objective performance data being offered in support of the fashion shows' voting results, I get suspicious.
BINGO! I came here today to see if anyone had done instrumented tests of oil filters, specifically the performance of ADBVs and I found this thead.
Well, I don't know how you would "instrument" the functionality of an ADBV, but you can do a test like I did which is described in the thread linked below. At least this tells me the ADBVs seem to work as intended on the PureOne filters.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...807#Post2042807
Originally Posted By: Tegger
Also, all but one of every oil filter "study" I've ever seen involves somebody pulling various filters apart, then judging them on how icky or impressive they look inside. And then everybody else cites those fashion shows to justify their own biases. Nobody does functionality tests, just a fashion show. And when I see one particular brand of filter fail every fashion show without a shred of objective performance data being offered in support of the fashion shows' voting results, I get suspicious.
BINGO! I came here today to see if anyone had done instrumented tests of oil filters, specifically the performance of ADBVs and I found this thead.
Well, I don't know how you would "instrument" the functionality of an ADBV, but you can do a test like I did which is described in the thread linked below. At least this tells me the ADBVs seem to work as intended on the PureOne filters.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...807#Post2042807
^^ Well said Jim^^ I used Fram filters for decades prior to joining Bitog. There are many times when I can get a good filter for less money with these oil change specials so I switch filter brands from time to time. I usually go with P1 or M1 filters with the oil change specials. But Fram filters always served me well. In fact when Purolator changed over to the vomit color there were issues with the paint they used, and paint flecks on the gaskets and inside the filters, which was not good. There were a lot of complaints.
- Status
