Virgin FE7317 cut open w/light to bypass seal area.

[Sayjac]

.....Applying pressure to the leaf spring doesn't seem to reduce the gaps.

At least in the two anecdotes I c&ped that's what I found. As noted several times, there's not much pressure inside the can with the stamped spring anyway, very little or no extra pressure needed. Exert too much pressure and that flat spring will deform.

The BR testing isn't official, might not even be ranking them accurately without official ISO tests to verify. Send one out to an ISO test lab with $2000 and you'll get an answer.

Spot On! And further, all meaningless/irrelevant to the OP pic finding. Also, the idea posited a couple times that the openings seen could/would actually mean oil flowing back to the dirty/upsteam side of the filter, in some "passive leakage" and "negative dp".... . With that one I was reminded of a saying I like, 'if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bovine excrement.' I appreciate you shooting down the "recirc" idea with facts.

As the majority who frequent this forum know, it's simple. The opening seen is analogous to tear(s) in the media, the light seen indicates the areas of oil bypass. Not difficult to comprehend

As an aside, having watched and seen @53' Stude with his many c&p's, I now have a greater appreciation for how he quickly and in plain speaking handled any extraneous spamming of his thread starters.

 

[Urshurak776]

Makes you wonder if all bypass valves leak to some extent. Some worse than others.

 

[Glenda W.]

I’ll be doing a c&p sometime today on an OG titanium without the original fiber gasket. I’ll try a flashlight test. Ironically an Endurance will be going on despite my dislike of the gap seen on whip city and here.

 

[Sayjac]

Makes you wonder if all bypass valves leak to some extent. Some worse than others.

Personally, I think the bypass valves themselves are fine, and not the specific issue in the OP. It's the seal area of the bypass piece and the dome endcap. Also, not all spin on filters have a detachable bypass piece, some/many are endcap integral. For the latter, seal area moot.

I’ll be doing a c&p sometime today on an OG titanium without the original fiber gasket. I’ll try a flashlight test. Ironically an Endurance will be going on despite my dislike of the gap seen on whip city and here.

Just one suggestion, if/when you do a flashlight test, don't touch/remove the bypass before you do it. Eliminate a variable that way. If you do it with the FE you're putting on, it's possible your FE will have a better seal area fit and finish than the one in the OP. And fwiw, if I had already purchased an FE. I'd use it too. I'm not as familiar with OG Titanium without the gasket, no idea what to expect.

 

[Glenda W.]

Just one suggestion, if/when you do a flashlight test, don't touch/remove the bypass before you do it. Eliminate a variable that way. If you do it with the FE you're putting on, it's possible your FE will have a better seal area fit and finish than the one in the OP. And fwiw, if I had already purchased an FE. I'd use it too. I'm not as familiar with OG Titanium without the gasket, no idea what to expect.

Will do!!

 

[Joenpb]

This entire argument is being “propped up” by a flaw in the language Fram has decided to use by bootstrapping the ISO certification for Endurance to ISO results of other prior “EQUIVALENT” models using equal or lesser medias. Sounds ok, but it leaves Endurance results open to criticism, albeit a RED HERRING as far as I’m concerned .

That may be true, but why should anyone purchase a premium oil filter that has a questionable "design" shown by the flashlight test for it's bypass valve seal when there are many oil filters that don't have that issue? When purchasing a premium filter I don't want questions, or have to take a MFGs word that a far from perfect seal design doesn't matter.

 

[Ronn]

The BR testing isn't official, might not even be ranking them accurately without official ISO tests to verify. Send one out to an ISO test lab with $2000 and you'll get an answer.

Not talking about ranking. Look at the PARTICLE test they did comparing just the Fram line of filters. Keep in mind, it’s still a CONTROLLED test, since the conditions are the SAME for all the filters tested! It’s pretty straightforward isn’t it? Guess I beat the dead horse one more time lol

 

[Glenda W.]

Not talking about ranking. Look at the PARTICLE test they did comparing just the Fram line of filters. Keep in mind, it’s still a CONTROLLED test, since the conditions are the SAME for all the filters tested! It’s pretty straightforward isn’t it? Guess I beat the dead horse one more time lol

View attachment 238132

 

[Ronn]

Award graciously accepted!
I want someone here to debunk that “Dead Horse”. Lol
It’s not about ISO …It’s a LEGITIMATE CONTROL test between various Fram filters on ONE single parameter…Particle Filtration efficiency. Nothing more….nothing less.

 

[Glenda W.]

Award graciously accepted!
I want someone here to debunk that “Dead Horse”. Lol
It’s not about ISO …It’s a LEGITIMATE CONTROL test between various Fram filters on ONE single parameter…Particle Filtration efficiency. Nothing more….nothing less.

View attachment 238142

The BR test has been discussed ad nauseam here. Almost weekly.

 

[Ronn]

This thread has attracted a LOT of attention because it uses a popular flashlight test (shown on various videos) to question the effectiveness of the filtration in the Endurance filter due to a faulty bypass design. So….,it’s a HOT TOPIC here. To fan the flames further, it has been pointed out that the ISO test associated with this filter “MAY” be open to debate, given the ambiguous language of Fram on this filter.
I keep beating the drum on the ONLY test “out there” that addresses the particle filtration capabilities of an INTACT Endurance filter UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. In my opinion, this test “should” answer the question as to whether the bypass valve design compromises filtration. This goes right to the crux of what the “flashlight test” tries to imply..,faulty particle filtration from contamination of bypass oil. What am I missing??
The test show’s the undisputed superiority of the Endurance filter compared to similar Fram models with the same basic design,
but different filtering capabilities. Apparently many here simply dismiss this test….”It’s not ISO”….etc.
Keep in mind the tester here has no agenda or axe to grind….it is what it is and it’s a well controlled demonstration.
So..,, people here say it’s a “Dead Horse”?? Fine and dandy….. But the results are alive and well.

 

[earthbound]

Good grief...and now this shows up after I bought a few FE's...I guess these days it's just too much to ask for a quality OF..

 

[Ronn]

Good grief...and now this shows up after I bought a few FE's...I guess these days it's just too much to ask for a quality OF..

Take this “flashlight” hysteria with a grain of salt . Look at my “Dead Horse” screen shot of the Fram Test on particle filtration posted here. I’ve got the FE on my car right now and several more on the shelf.

 

[Glenda W.]

This thread has attracted a LOT of attention because it uses a popular flashlight test (shown on various videos) to question the effectiveness of the filtration in the Endurance filter due to a faulty bypass design. So….,it’s a HOT TOPIC here. To fan the flames further, it has been pointed out that the ISO test associated with this filter “MAY” be open to debate, given the ambiguous language of Fram on this filter.
I keep beating the drum on the ONLY test “out there” that addresses the particle filtration capabilities of an INTACT Endurance filter UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. In my opinion, this test “should” answer the question as to whether the bypass valve design compromises filtration. This goes right to the crux of what the “flashlight test” tries to imply..,faulty particle filtration from contamination of bypass oil. What am I missing??
The test show’s the undisputed superiority of the Endurance filter compared to similar Fram models with the same basic design,
but different filtering capabilities. Apparently many here simply dismiss this test….”It’s not ISO”….etc.
Keep in mind the tester here has no agenda or axe to grind….it is what it is and it’s a well controlled demonstration.
So..,, people here say it’s a “Dead Horse”?? Fine and dandy….. But the results are alive and well.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The BR tests have been discussed here in the oil filter section for months now. Feel free to search out some info on actual controlled and repeatable tests. Very interesting reading.

 

[Ronn]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The BR tests have been discussed here in the oil filter section for months now. Feel free to search out some info on actual controlled and repeatable tests.

I'll ask you this....
Was is it about that test that you see as flawed and not properly controlled? Do you think if it was repeated that it would be any different? If so...why?
Again, show me any other test that demonstrates this filter has been compromised in any way. Right now, we have the exact opposite...an independent test that CONFIRMS filtration superiority.... Yet..... we have this thread, using a flashlight on a dissembled filter, to draw conclusions that go counter to an ACTUAL TEST using an intact filter flowing and filtering oil!

 

[Glenda W.]

I'll ask you this....
Was is it about that test that you see as flawed and not properly controlled? Do you think if it was repeated that it would be any different? If so...why?
Again, show me any other test that demonstrates this filter has been compromised in any way. Right now, we have the exact opposite...an independent test that CONFIRMS filtration superiority.... Yet..... we have this thread, using a flashlight on a dissembled filter, to draw conclusions that go counter to an ACTUAL TEST using an intact filter flowing and filtering oil!

Please start here. Again this has been covered over and over here for months.

https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/62763/51caea884e4b43939a357cfe0fcd9c25/ISO-4548-12-2017.pdf

 

[Ronn]

Interesting...This is one of the first videos on this subject
Here's the comment the Video Creator made. It's in the "Comments Section", not in the video itself>>>>>

"This small space between the bypass valve and end cap wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, definitely, more oil will get filtered than not filtered. I still think these are very good oil filters."

 

[Ronn]

Please start here. Again this has been covered over and over here for months.

https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/62763/51caea884e4b43939a357cfe0fcd9c25/ISO-4548-12-2017.pdf

I had already read the entire document previously. This does not address my comment that you are attempting to answer...does it?
Just because the test I refer to doesn't have the blessing of ISO, doesn't mean it's not a valid controlled test. Again. show me ANY test...ISO or NOT..... that debunks or is contrary to the results I posted.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Not talking about ranking. Look at the PARTICLE test they did comparing just the Fram line of filters. Keep in mind, it’s still a CONTROLLED test, since the conditions are the SAME for all the filters tested! It’s pretty straightforward isn’t it? Guess I beat the dead horse one more time lol

View attachment 238132

Yes, it's a "controlled" test for the most part, but as has been discussed in other threads, if every filter brand and model they tested was also ISO 4548-12 tested, would they all rank exactly in the the same order? I don't think so. When you look at the available official ISO efficiency numbers on some of the filters they have tested, they won't rank the same as their tests show. The Boss's efficiency ranking is a good example of that, and was discussed in the other various threads where this comes up.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This thread has attracted a LOT of attention because it uses a popular flashlight test (shown on various videos) to question the effectiveness of the filtration in the Endurance filter due to a faulty bypass design. So….,it’s a HOT TOPIC here. To fan the flames further, it has been pointed out that the ISO test associated with this filter “MAY” be open to debate, given the ambiguous language of Fram on this filter.
I keep beating the drum on the ONLY test “out there” that addresses the particle filtration capabilities of an INTACT Endurance filter UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS. In my opinion, this test “should” answer the question as to whether the bypass valve design compromises filtration. This goes right to the crux of what the “flashlight test” tries to imply..,faulty particle filtration from contamination of bypass oil. What am I missing??
The test show’s the undisputed superiority of the Endurance filter compared to similar Fram models with the same basic design,
but different filtering capabilities. Apparently many here simply dismiss this test….”It’s not ISO”….etc.
Keep in mind the tester here has no agenda or axe to grind….it is what it is and it’s a well controlled demonstration.
So..,, people here say it’s a “Dead Horse”?? Fine and dandy….. But the results are alive and well.

If you believe the BR testing and ranking info on the Endurance, then you should also believe Fram's ISO 4548-12 efficiency claim on the Endurance. It's been pointed out a few times already why not all of their efficiency statements are not written well, and others have been corrected to be accurate after Motorking pointed it out when members here got all bent out of shape on how they were written.