E-core (so much for all the testing)

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

There are many people who have cut open their Champ made filters and posted those pics in here. Clicker valve and E-core style. They have not had the problem lubeowner has encountered. So they look at their filter, look at what lubeowner posts and wonder how can the filters be so different.

---

Mel makes a very valid point that I've brought up a few times. I've cut open quite a few of my ST's and haven't encountered anything beyond a little spread where the media is glued. No rips ..no holes ..nada. If they were "typically" junk ..then everyone should "typically" find junk when they cut them open. We don't.

Now I don't for a minute think that lubeowner (or anyone for that matter ..unless they had a real bone to grind with Champ and had other issues that can't ever be solved outside of a padded room) would "fabricate" the multitude of filter failure instances just for the fun of it. That would be crazy. What we don't know, however, is the service duty that these filters were subjected to. 3k ..6k....6months ..1 year .. We don't know if they were little old ladies that drive 2 miles every 4 days and only change the oil @ 3000 miles ..and then they forget sometimes. We have nothing other than the failure itself.

We only get one piece of the puzzle ..and that doesn't fit into anything that we typically "put together" here amongst the membership. So it is very difficult to say that this could possibly assert proof positive that these filters are junk.
Now some had to be defects ...but most were probably subjected to use that we don't typically see here ...and there are some here that go pretty far out of bounds on OCIs (not the vast majority ..but enough).

 

[lubeowner]

Hootbro and other conspiracy theorists,

We are cutting open all makes and models of filters, I am posting any that have failures. It is a fact that the majority of the failures happen to be Champ. It is as simple as that. We probably cut open more filters in a week than most people have access to in a lifetime. The sampling pool is large and we get all different types of filters in here. We had been using Champion built filters for 7 years so obviously we have access to a lot of them.

Why the comment about being elusive? I am the owner/operator of a commercial fishing boat and am out in the ocean about 3 days/week from May 1 through October 20th. The seasons are such that they open and close with little notice. Why I am justifying myself to you I don't know. I came to this board thinking that you guys would be interested in access to a large number of oil filters. Now I am essentially being called a liar and have to endure some members here accusing me of this or that. What more proof do you want??? Are pictures not good enough? Does someone really need to come investigate me? Why don't I ask all of you where you live and if I can investigate your findings? Maybe send out the FBI.

Again thanks to those who appreciate the time and effort I have put into this study. The results were very informative for myself and ultimately resulted in switching filters suppliers (now using Wix through NAPA). I will continue to monitor this board but I really am reluctant to post many more pics. Tired of trying to defend myself every time I post. I can just imagine what some here would do if I posted a pic of the Pure-One filter we cut open yesterday with a torn pleat. I am sure this would warrant a federal investigation of me.

 

[Winston]

I too have wondered about lubeowners authenticity. I was also surprised when he said he may be out of town in September when Filter Guy wanted to visit. I wondered why lubeowner would not just allow Filter Guy to meet with one of his employees at the shop. I have also wondered what are his tricks to cutting up filters. It takes a lot of time to cut one open, let alone 20-30 a day.

However, my doubt arises due to the nature of forums. We rarely get to meet the guys posting. We get pictures, but they can be set up(it would be easy to rip the filter media and then take a photo and say "Look another failed filter").

Filter Guy should not take my doubt personally. If he is being honest and truthfully relaying what he has found from cutting up filters, I really appreciate his effort.(I put 75% chance in this category) If he is doctoring the filters and taking pictures, I am angry that he is getting enjoyment out of watching us waste time with his faulty data. (25% chance) I do not believe it is a conspiracy, just some people get enjoyment out of playing these types of games.

 

[lubeowner]

Winston,

It takes about 15 seconds for me to cut them with my Snap-On air powered mini die-cutter. It leaves a perfectly clean cut and I can control exactly where the cut is. It is much better than some of the hack jobs I see people posting here. Does no one own any good tools?

What possible benefit to me would come from staging photos. You must think I have a real boring life to waste my time staging photos. To tell you the truth I could care less if you think this is some sort of setup, I know what I see and that is all that matters. Take the photos for what they are worth. What I find funny is all the Super Tech fanatics get so uptight about all this. How about this: USE WHAT FILTER YOU WANT, I REALLY DONT CARE. FURTHERMORE I DO NOT FEEL THE NEED TO DEFEND MY CREDIBILITY EVERYTIME I TRY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE WEB.

Sorry I can't be around for a filter cutting party, I have a family to feed and my income from my commercial fishing boat is more important to me than cutting filters open so some on this board won't think I am full of s&^t everytime I post.

 

[lubeowner]

Forgot to add something,

If anyone wants to send a prepaid UPS tag I will be happy to box up and send anyone here all the used filters they want. Cut them open yourself, that way I can't be blamed for "doctoring" the photos.

 

[labman]

One of the reasons I hate and despise liars and phonies is that it makes it that much harder to sort out stuff like this. My stand at this point is that I don't enough information to make a good decision. It would seem strange for somebody to go to all the work Lubeowner would have had to to fake his posts, and I see little reason to. He even give his business name and location in an early post. If it was all made up, somebody could have exposed him. Let's be polite until we have some real evidence.

 

[ediamiam]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lubeowner:
If anyone wants to send a prepaid UPS tag I will be happy to box up and send anyone here all the used filters they want. Cut them open yourself, that way I can't be blamed for "doctoring" the photos.

---

Like lubeowner says, put your money where your mouth is. All it will take is a pp UPS tag and time to cut open all the filters he sends you. I've already found a filter that works for me and have no plans for doing more than an annual filter internals check.

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

He even give his business name and location in an early post

---

I reread a lot of the old posts and could not find the business name and address. Is it still listed?

Lubeowner,
I hope you do not quit posting data/photos. You might consider not responding to criticism of your authenticity. After looking at a lot of the old posts, there has been a lot of questioning of your integrity. I can understand your frustration of the effort required to respond to the attacks.

I would like to thank you for all the time that you have spent to share the data/photos. We have all learned a lot about filters from your data.

[ April 29, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Winston ]

 

[Gary Allan]

Winston, I've only seen one question as to lubeowners validity here. We've asked for some more information ..and there seems to be problems with grafting a filter to an OCI ..and I can understand that. No problem. The thrust of any criticism, if you can call it that, is the lack of apparent parallel in our personal findings. One would surely think that out of our membership, and the number of filters cut open, that there would be a higher frequency of failure. This infers that although many here have used Champ filters ..they aren't subjecting them to what lubeowner's users do.

That's all I believe anyone has ever said (maybe one excpetion).

That is, although no one doubts that lubeowner found these filters ...there is reasonable doubt that this is "common" in normal usage.

So, given this point, I have a hard time NOT buying Champ filters based on these findings.

 

[lubeowner]

As for my customers doing abnormal things:

I just ran a database report in our internal computer system. Average drain interval of the 8723 vehicles in our system is 3989.10 miles. Nothing too strange here. We pump mostly 5w-30 and 10w-30 Chevron in the majority of vehicles we see. 5w-20 is also getting a lot more usage here in the past few years.

BTW, I really am not trying to bash Champ. I have said before I will post all pics of damaged filters, not just a certain brand, but the fact is that most of the ones with problems are Champ therefore those are the ones with pictures. We have cut open hundreds of Wixes and Purolators, Denso, Tokyo Roki, and Fram among others. The problems have all been with the Fram and Champs as the pics have shown. The only other failures I have seen were with 2 Wix filters that had been run for 20,000+ miles and were obviously severely damged and sludged (customer neglect). The only Purolator I have seen a problem with is the Pure-One we saw yesterday with a pleat torn loose from the endcap. If there are failures from any brands I will post pics, I don't care who makes them.

 

[jbas]

lubeowner - if you get a reply from Champion, or your supplier, resulting from their inspection of your shipped filter samples, could you post it on here? maybe that would end all the endless questioning of your motives...

 

[Winston]

Gary, I was referring to other threads, not posts. His validity was questioned in his very first thread. If I were honestly posting data. I would get tired of defending myself too. He has spent a lot of posts defending himself. So, I suggested he quit defending.(but keep posting)

One thing to remember is that he is ONLY posting photos of failed filters.(not a criticism, why post photos of good filters, we know what they look like) I would like to know an approximate failure rate (percentage) for various brands/types/devices. Even if he has not tallied up exactly how many of each type that he cut up.

Something like:
Nitrile ADBV x% failure rate
Silicon ADBV x% failure rate
Filters with Clicker valves. x% failure rate
Fram Filters x% failure rate.

 

[Gary Allan]

Point taken

I think that lubeowner has basically stated that all his problems appear to be with clicker type bypass(ed) filters from Champ. Since his supply of filters is/was from Champ ..they have to represent virtually all of his failure findings. Frams are just junk anyway ..so abused Frams are lousy looking junk.

My opinion (or poor theory as how a theory is defined) is that these are over used filters.. subjected to severe (but consumer typical to a certain %) service. Those with clicker bypasses ..do decay ..just like any other filter ..but in the case of the clicker, it doesn't have a separate dedicated spring/flap that may decay with it. It has a resilient metal surface that probably retains it's tensile strength indefinitely ..while all other components do not.

So (and this is supposition), if you have a non-clicker bypass valve filter and abuse it, it will probably be less likely to damage the media since as the media decays ..so shall the bypass mechanism (the individual little spring) and may bypass at lower and lower PSID ...while the clicker maintains its spec'd threshold ...well beyond the media's ability to withstand this media protection level.

 

[HardbodyLoyalist]

Lubeowner: Please keep cutting open filters and posting the pics. I, for one, take your posts at face value.

 

[John W. Colby]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:


That is, although no one doubts that lubeowner found these filters ...there is reasonable doubt that this is "common" in normal usage.

---

LOL, if LubeOwner's filters aren't "normal usage" exactly what is? Do you truly believe that members of this board, changing their oil at 2,999 mile intervals is normal?

This has been my gripe with the posters here the entire length of this discussion is attempting to call "real life" not normal and the experiences of the people who frequent this board "normal".

ANY lube shop encounters "normal usage" all day, every day. YOUR vehicle has NEVER seen "normal usage". Normal implies what the majority does, and members of this board are NOT the norm.

The norm is EXACTLY the grandma who forgets to change her filter. These filters are failing under normal usage, and are NOT failing under YOUR very non-normal usage. Your perspective is bass-ackwards.

 

[Hootbro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lubeowner:
As for my customers doing abnormal things:

I just ran a database report in our internal computer system. Average drain interval of the 8723 vehicles in our system is 3989.10 miles. Nothing too strange here. We pump mostly 5w-30 and 10w-30 Chevron in the majority of vehicles we see. 5w-20 is also getting a lot more usage here in the past few years.
. ............

---

"Averages" still do not define what the duty cyle was for the failed Champ filters were. Are the Champ failed filters you picture come from 4K mile vehicles or 10K+ ones? Everything has a designed MTBF (mean time between failure) rate. Some filters are designed for 3500 mile replacement and others 10,000 plus. If you are not dicking up the fliters when opening, my best guess it is these filters are going beyond their MTBF design. As a business owner, I doubt you have the time to be matching what filter came from what car at the end of the day to figure out the duty cyle of the "failed" filter.

Hootbro

 

[99]

Has anyone taken Lubeowner up on his offer to send out filters directly to someone? If no, let me put this politely, put up or shut up. Lubeowner has put the ball in the skeptics court.

Lubeowner, for what it's worth, please keep posting filter info...good or bad. Unlike some people here, most of us can handle the truth.

[ April 30, 2005, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: 99 ]

 

[Filter guy]

Poor ol' lubeowner..he's going to take his ball home and not play anymore.

99, you're right it's time to put up or shut up. So apparently lubeowner wants to shut up.

What a baby.

I'm tired of his woe is me attitude.

If he wants to think people are questioning his credibility, so be it. It's tiresome and stupid.

He's posted some interesting pictures. Not ONE person has questioned the pics.

What people do want to know is more information about the pictures. There is where lubeowner has taken his ball home and refused to play.

If he ( and others in here) can't seperate the difference between the filter and lubeowner himself. Then be children and take your ball home.

That's all most of us have been asking. About more information on the filter . It is the filter that has had the problem. Not the picture. Not lubeowner.

I find it real interesting that lubeowner sells a particular brand of filter and after cutting open their product that he has not contacted the filter manufacturer about what he is finding. Champ has a toll free number. He can contact them via internet. But he has time to post in here and spend weeks on threads about them.

It's not about lubeowner sending filters to joe consumer who reads these forums. It's about sending them in to be tested. I don't personally care if it is a Champ, Fram, Wix, Baldwin, Purolator, Fleetguard, Donaldson, Mann..or whatever brand. If you have a problem send it to them. They have all the testing equipment, do you--joe consumer?

I have also offered my unemployed son , who lives with 15-20 minutes of his shop, to go by and help document the information that has been asked. So far..no responce.

I offered to come by, on my vacation months from now, and help. So far nothing but excuses about being gone.

I offered assisitance. But all I'VE heard are excuses about not being available.

So yeah, someone's taken their ball home..

I suppose those who are so intellectual can look at pictures and say...see, see, see..

So the next time you see a picture of a car that's been in an accident..you know exactly why. Just from the picture. You'll make a great witness on the witness stand with your ability to "know" what happened. The same with looking at a picture of a cut open filter and "knowing" the answer. I'm glad you filter detective super sluths can look at a picture and know without a doubt the reason for the problem in the picture.

Heck, Champ, Fram, Wix, Purolator, etc might as well scrap their test equipment and hire you lot. Why, the filter companies have 50 years plus of data and test information and all you have to do is look at a picture and you know the answer. It will be way more cost effective to hire you. ( where's that tounge in cheek smilie)


ANY filter company will want information about a filter that is returned. Would you return one off your car without telling the manufacturer how many miles were on the car and how many miles there had been between oil changes? Well if you don't. I'll guarantee you they will ask you for it.

So why won't lubeowner post that information? And any other information that might be relivant. Does his lube shop not log in the vehicle miles? I don't care if you cut open one filter, ten, a hundred..if you find one of interest..have the basic information on the one that is of interest.


So, to me, it's not lubeowner that is being questioned..it's the filter and the information about the filter.

Anyone that thinks otherwise, go ahead and take your ball home.


PS: Lubeowner claimed he had sent a box of filters back to Champ and he would post the results of what Champ tells him.

Then when I asked if they have arrived yet..they were sent to his distributor because his distributor want to see them first.

I have asked twice to see if he has followed up with his distributor to see if the box of filters were sent to Champ.

And the answer is??? We still haven't heard.

This is one item lubeowner himself can clear up.

 

[ZR2RANDO]

Since when does LUBEOWNER, or any shop owner, or any shadetree mechanic have an obligation to a vendor to keep using their products. A shopowner has an obligation to himself and his customers only. If the shopowner wants to continue using some particular product maybe he does want to spend time/effort working with them on product issues, but he also has the option of just changing products/(mfgr). The distributor in this case understandably wants to see any defective/ damaged products...he has the option of no longer selling those products to his customers as well. If the vendor is very concerned about a customer, particularly a high traffic/shopowner type, seems to me they would be sending someone ("OFFICIAL" company rep..) out to the customer to see first hand the issues that are being reported, they of course have the option of just letting the customer go. The shopowner in this case has already gone further in reporting problems than most would have. People can choose to believe the pics or to think he's making it all up. Some people can continue blaming every detail BUT the products themselves...must not have ever learned any kind of "customer first" philosophy. Sounds like they went to "blame the customer first" school to me.

[ April 30, 2005, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: ZR2RANDO ]

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

LOL, if LubeOwner's filters aren't "normal usage" exactly what is? Do you truly believe that members of this board, changing their oil at 2,999 mile intervals is normal?

This has been my gripe with the posters here the entire length of this discussion is attempting to call "real life" not normal and the experiences of the people who frequent this board "normal".

ANY lube shop encounters "normal usage" all day, every day. YOUR vehicle has NEVER seen "normal usage". Normal implies what the majority does, and members of this board are NOT the norm.

The norm is EXACTLY the grandma who forgets to change her filter. These filters are failing under normal usage, and are NOT failing under YOUR very non-normal usage. Your perspective is bass-ackwards.

---

I've already sent this to you in a PM ..but for the benefit of our other members ..I'll reply here as well.

You're confusing normal with typical. In keeping it brief here, I'll recite my best example.

Typically teenage drivers of rice burners abuse their cars and drive like they're auditioning for Fast and Furious. Therefore, out of all rice burners, those owned or driven by teenage male drivers have abnormal wear levels.

The teenage behavior, and the service duty that they inflict upon their rice burners, are not "normal" ..but they are typical for that demographic of the population.

So, grandma typically subjects filters to abnormal service. Her service duty is not normal.


We here, although not typical to the general population, typically subject our filters to normal service.