Fram HM3600 cut open

Status
Not open for further replies.

MrQuackers

Site Donor 2024
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
2,794
Location
Oceania
OCI was only 2126 miles. The goop appears to have dissolved over that period. The oil was changed over a month ago and the filter has been base side down all that time. The amount of oil gushing out of the filter after cutting tells me Fram knows how to make a filter that holds oil. Kudos Jay.

2u6lgxy.jpg

2q2fubp.jpg

2805phc.jpg

144a3gx.jpg
 
The 3600's and 3980's are my preferred orange cans, although this one seems a little light on media on the seam side. Held up fine though, nothing out of line.

As always, thanks for cutting and posting!
 
Well, although I am happy with this filter I liquidated them and stocked up on Motorcraft FL-400S filters. I may get a few TG3600 filters if I find a sale though. Fram really has a good system for retaining oil over extended periods.
 
I bought the vehicle @ 16 years old ('93 SL2) with only 62k on the odometer. It was a short tripper so I guess I will be cleaning out this engine forever I suppose. It does run tip top though @ 98k
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
The 3600's and 3980's are my preferred orange cans, although this one seems a little light on media on the seam side. Held up fine though, nothing out of line.

As always, thanks for cutting and posting!

Fram Extra Guard and HM are a little lite on filter media. Fram Tough Guard and Ultra have more media, similar to competitors.

The main weakness of Fram Extra Guard is it has less media(and not very efficient) as Purolator, while it costs more.
 
I have used Tough Guards and they've done really well for me and I will probably use them again. The Ultras look pretty awesome also. I won't however use these HM ones with that goop in them. No way will I trust something that they won't even say what it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: ChevyBadger
I won't however use these HM ones with that goop in them. No way will I trust something that they won't even say what it is.


It's "engineered goo" ... just like "engineered fiber".
grin.gif
 
For a $1.25-$1.50 as a closeout special some posters got in on, one thing. For ~$6.50 everyday Wally price, not so much.

Goo basket, proprietary oil conditioner designed to reduce TAN and extend oil life.

Agree it looks fairly dirty for ~2100 mi., but filter looks ok. Still not keen on seeing centertube top with bypass removed, but most say no biggie so I'll leave it there.

Thanks for the pics.
 
Some people say that FRAM EXTRA GUARD or the HIGH MILEAGE Filter don't have enough pleats..
However if you go to the FRAM site, it claims it does not need as many pleats as other filters b/c the material is made out of is HIGH QUALITY then the others.


I use Honda OEM and they are basically FRAM Tough Guard without the screen on the bypass valve...

Who knows I might actually try a FRAM Tough Guard or even a FRAM ULTRA, but I will use the 7317,, not the 3593a

The 7317 looks exactly like a HONDA OEM, same size and shape and even the holes.

However.... looks like that filter did it s Job.

I have opened up a NAPA SILVER oil filter one time and the filter wasn't even dirty after its 4000 miles...

However each time i open a HONDA OEM Filter I can see DIRT in it.

Things that make you say HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
Last edited:
Jay from Fram that posts on here once in a while has made mention of the same, that competitors entry level filters use more media because it is lower quality and therefore they need more of it to achieve the same result.

I have no idea how on earth we would substantiate that but it's an interesting come back to a common criticism of the orange can.

My earlier comment was in regard to Fram itself, the pictured filter seemed to have a low number of pleats for a Fram 3600. I'd expect about 37-39 this one looked shy of that.
 
Quote:
..I use Honda OEM and they are basically FRAM Tough Guard without the screen on the bypass valve...

If by basically you mean, the A-02 is made by Fram, has fiber end caps and a silicone adbv, then yes.

However once you get past that, based on the specs of each filter, the similarities end. The TG is rated 99%>20um, otoh the A-02 tested at ~66%@20um, a huge difference. The medias, the critical component, are obviously very different. And the TG hasn't used the screen over bypass for some time now.

What one may see with the naked eye for dirt in a filter dissection, never invalidates ISO test spec results/rating.
 
Originally Posted By: David1

However if you go to the FRAM site, it claims it does not need as many pleats as other filters b/c the material is made out of is HIGH QUALITY then the others.


That's a claim I can't agree with... at least on the surface. When you are talking about cellulose, it's a surface loaded media. None of them are very thick and they carry most of the contamination on the surface. While there may be differences in capacity per square inch of media between one cellulose media and another (even given more or less equal efficiency), surface loaded media is going to be largely the same... per square inch of media ( I said largely, there are exceptions to the rule). While efficiency is a product of the density and pore sizes of the cellulose media, capacity is all about how many square inches of that media are in the can. You could conceivably have a high efficiency cellulose media in a filter but if you chintz out on the amount you get a high efficiency filter with a short life (a 3-5K filter). And low flow all the way thru that life (versus a filter with lots more of the same or similar media).

So, yes, the amount of media is an important factor. I think most of us know that. One common perceptive mistake I see here is when people forget to factor in the media type during visual comparisons. That mistake appears mostly when visually comparing cellulose and synthetic fiber. A cellulose media needs lots more media to achieve the same capacity and flow as synthetic fiber but we see some comments here when a syn filter is dissected, such as, "Oh look how few pleats it has.. it must not flow very well." Not true, of course, in this apples to oranges comparison. The syn media is thicker and caries a lot of contamination inside that thicker media. It may actually have (many do) variable (graduated) efficiency, where the outer part catches mostly the bigger stuff and the inner part catches the smaller.

So bottom line, if the media is of a similar type and efficiency, then comparisons on media area are valid and more of any type is better for flow and capacity.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: David1

However if you go to the FRAM site, it claims it does not need as many pleats as other filters b/c the material is made out of is HIGH QUALITY then the others.

That's a claim I can't agree with... at least on the surface. When you are talking about cellulose, it's a surface loaded media.
...
So bottom line, if the media is of a similar type and efficiency, then comparisons on media area are valid and more of any type is better for flow and capacity.

I agree.

Comparing the two filters EG and TG of the same size/model, the TG has more media.
 
I might have missed it but what was the reason for changing at 2,126? Any issues or are you trying to do a couple of short clean up runs?
 
I was all hopped up to try out the FL-400S. Blame KC. Sorry Gaia.

Also, I have too much oil
lol.gif
 
Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
I was all hopped up to try out the FL-400S. Blame KC. Sorry Gaia.



grin.gif




Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
Also, I have too much oil
lol.gif



I can identify with that remark too!
laugh.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top