To Fram or not to Fram?? [Archive]

jgkmmoore

01-03-2010, 05:32 PM

I have seen quite a few folks in these threads seeming leaning away from, and discouraging others Fram use. Don't think it's fair.

WHY do that? Do Frams not have anti drainback valves? Does anyone, with valid engineering tests find reason to find fault any Fram Oil Filter ? Anyone had a PROVABLE engine oil pressure loss because of a Fram? Anyone had Fram buy them an engine because of faulty engineering? I'm 68 years old, and have owned at least that many cars. Always used Frams because they are convenient, and I know they will back their product without even asking questions. I prefer not to take 'my preference' advice unless giver can back it up with experience. I have NEVER met a single person that has had a Fram failure.
If you have, would like to hear about it. PM me if you wish.
I don't work for Fram, or suggest their use to others unless asked. How 'bout we, on this Forum, give 'em a break and at least not badmouth them unless you have specific proof. It's only fair.:D:thumb-up:

BackInA88

01-03-2010, 05:51 PM

Here is just one of the studies I have seen on the internet.
http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfilterstudy/oilfilters.html#avoid (http://people.msoe.edu/%7Eyoderw/oilfilterstudy/oilfilters.html#avoid)

Just do a Google search there are more.
Go to the bottom of the page and see the filters to avoid.

http://home.earthlink.net/~cewhite3nc/id3.html

Here is another, Fram is at the bottom end of this list as well.

Steve

Leslie

01-03-2010, 06:00 PM

No, a lot of Frams don't have anti-drainback valves.

Frams don't make the right size for a Rover V8. They say to use the 16, which is undersized.

Yes, research has shown that some Frams are okay, but a lot of them aren't as good as most other filters. (Search, you'll find a lot of info on 'em...) (edit: Steve posted some while I was still typing.)

Yes, I had problems on my '99 Disco using Frams. It was a contributing factor to sludging of that engine. Switched to Purolator, problems went away. Purolator makes the right size. So does Wix (Napa's are mostly Wix). Cooper makes the right size, as does Crosland (LR's OEM manufacturer).

I used to use Fram only, too. I learned the hard way, they, as many other companies have, built up a reputation, then sold out, and are continuing to function on their history.

FWIW, YMMV....

rwollschlager

01-03-2010, 06:15 PM

out of the two I've changed, I havent been able to remove one with out crushing it with the oil filter wrench, thats probably just something im doing though. (i've made sure to coat the rubber O-ring with oil before screwing on the new filter)

-Rob

yorker

01-03-2010, 07:52 PM

Fram is the only brand I ever bought that had faulty anti-drainback valves fresh from the box. When you can easily buy something better for the same $ or a little bit more - why not?

Nium

01-03-2010, 09:24 PM

I'd be happy to believe Fram is a bad filter if someone would point out a site, such as Consumer Reports or the such, with a scientific testing method that show results that are more then someone's personal opinion.

No offense BackInA88 but both of the links you posted start off with the author stating that everything on their website is nothing but their personal opinion and that they are not qualified to make any ascertations as to the quality or effectivness of the filters that they have listed on their site. It's nothing but their personal observations and opinions.

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfilterstudy/oilfilters.html#avoid
Very first line under Description on the site

"This page now contains my *personal* slant on oil filters."

http://home.earthlink.net/~cewhite3nc/id3.html
Very first few lines of the site

"In addition to my “opinion” rating of the filters, I am attempting to rate the filters based on a scoring system. This is also opinion based, but it provides details to the reasons for my opinions of the different filters."

jgkmmoore

01-03-2010, 10:02 PM

SafeAirOne

01-03-2010, 10:18 PM

How would one know if a filter did/did not have a drainback valve? I assumed that valve stopped drain to help provide quicker oil to the topend after startup. Correct, or not?

How would you test a drainback valve and find it NOT working?

The Fram website provides details of each filter, including valve, if I recall correctly.

One should be able to test checkvalve function by blowing or sucking (I can't remember which way the oil is supposed to flow) on the center hole of the filter.

yorker

01-04-2010, 07:23 AM

Andrew IIA

01-04-2010, 08:46 AM

BackInA88

01-04-2010, 09:51 AM

motorking

01-04-2010, 03:01 PM

Hello,
I am the Technical manager for FRAM. Just a couple points- The "tests" on the internet are just some guy cutting open filters in his shop and offering his opinions, much of what is there was done more than 10 yrs ago. There is simply no way a layman can tell how good a filter is at removing and trapping dirt by cutting open the filters. You should ask your favorite filter maker for test results of ISO 4548-12 testing. This is the ONLY OE recognized test standard for oil filters and FRAM tests very well in this test.
All of our aftermarket filters always exceed OE specs for efficiency, capacity and micron size. All of our filters have antidrainback valves if the OE filter has one. All of our filters have a high flow bypass valve if the OE filter has one. If you have filter questions, i can be reached at Jay.Buckley@Honeywell.com

amcordo

01-04-2010, 03:10 PM

Now THAT is good social media skills. +1 for them caring about their brand image on a tiny forum.

Hello,
I am the Technical manager for FRAM. Just a couple points- The "tests" on the internet are just some guy cutting open filters in his shop and offering his opinions, much of what is there was done more than 10 yrs ago. There is simply no way a layman can tell how good a filter is at removing and trapping dirt by cutting open the filters. You should ask your favorite filter maker for test results of ISO 4548-12 testing. This is the ONLY OE recognized test standard for oil filters and FRAM tests very well in this test.
All of our aftermarket filters always exceed OE specs for efficiency, capacity and micron size. All of our filters have antidrainback valves if the OE filter has one. All of our filters have a high flow bypass valve if the OE filter has one. If you have filter questions, i can be reached at Jay.Buckley@Honeywell.com

Leslie

01-04-2010, 03:25 PM

Hi Jay,

Quick question:

Land Rover V8's. What filter is recommended? What is the size of that filter, compared to the genuine Land Rover filter?

gudjeon

01-04-2010, 10:22 PM

Just my 2 bits. I have used FRAM filters for 25 years and have never had any issues. I do not work for FRAM or receive any compensation from them. I can go down to Wally's and get what I need too.:thumb-up:

Handy webby too: http://www.oilfiltersonline.com/

Linus Tremaine

01-05-2010, 03:07 PM

Meeting ISO test requirements doesnt mean that fram is as good as other filters.

Not knocking it but I would like to see a test result comparison before making a choice. I use wix for the record.

motorking

01-05-2010, 03:23 PM

Hi Jay,

Quick question:

Land Rover V8's. What filter is recommended?
PH16 standard, TG16 mid grade, EG16 for extended oil changes with synthetic oil.
What is the size of that filter, compared to the genuine Land Rover filter?

I do not have a OE Rover filter handy to measure it. The FRAM filter is 3.66 in diameter, 3.69 in tall. The standard filter holds 12 grams of dirt and is 96% efficient. The Extended Guard version is 97% efficiency and holds 20 grams capacity

motorking

01-05-2010, 03:27 PM

Meeting ISO test requirements doesnt mean that fram is as good as other filters.

The ISO test has no "requirements". It measures the ability of a filter to trap (efficiency) and hold dirt (capacity) with a measured particle size (20 microns)
Not knocking it but I would like to see a test result comparison before making a choice. I use wix for the record.
I can give you our test results (they are right on the box) but you should ask other filter makers for their results. What credibility would they have if I gave them to you?
BTW- WIX is around mid to high 80's% in efficiency, much lower than FRAM

Leslie

01-05-2010, 07:23 PM

I do not have a OE Rover filter handy to measure it. The FRAM filter is 3.66 in diameter, 3.69 in tall. The standard filter holds 12 grams of dirt and is 96% efficient. The Extended Guard version is 97% efficiency and holds 20 grams capacity

Jay,

The genuine ERR3340 is about 4-1/4" tall. So the PH16 is over a half-inch shorter than OEM/genuine. (I'll admit I don't know the capacity and efficiency of genuine.) The Purolator equivalent, L25195, is also 4-1/4", and is listed to only fit the Rover V8 engine. May I ask why would Fram cross-reference over to a shorter filter that fits so many other vehicles, instead of having an appropriate-length one, other than cost-savings? It can't be 'better' to have a shorter filter, can it?

Thanks for replying...

motorking

01-06-2010, 05:53 AM

Jay,

The genuine ERR3340 is about 4-1/4" tall. So the PH16 is over a half-inch shorter than OEM/genuine. (I'll admit I don't know the capacity and efficiency of genuine.) The Purolator equivalent, L25195, is also 4-1/4", and is listed to only fit the Rover V8 engine. May I ask why would Fram cross-reference over to a shorter filter that fits so many other vehicles, instead of having an appropriate-length one, other than cost-savings? It can't be 'better' to have a shorter filter, can it?

Thanks for replying...
Size doesnt always matter when it comes to filters (notice he trend in OE filters getting smaller and smaller). The ability to trap and hold dirt is what really matters. I gave you the capacity of the PH16, suggest you contact Purolater to see what theirs is. If you compare our PH16 to our EG16, they are the same size and the EG16 can trap almost twice as much dirt.

yorker

01-06-2010, 07:57 AM

Motorking- what are the stats for Fram CH-822PL & CH-834PL1
which are the original filters for our 2.25ls?

What issues might there be with replacing them with a PH16 and or a PH8a?

gudjeon

01-06-2010, 05:48 PM

I may be wrong, but unless there is something very wrong with your motor, or you just drove through a volcanic ash cloud, filter junk capacity shouldn't be an issue if changed with every oil change.:confused:

I like my old cannister and element. They are back in fashion again.:thumb-up:

Apis Mellifera

01-07-2010, 05:06 PM

I generally use Fram, but I have a flow-through oiling system and the oil never stays in the engine long enough to actually get dirty.

They're apparently good enough for Enzo
http://www.dkeng.com/media/16397/nart%20spyder_08391_engine.jpg

amcordo

01-07-2010, 05:47 PM

Is that a sack of windshield fluid? God feraris are weird.

I generally use Fram, but I have a flow-through oiling system and the oil never stays in the engine long enough to actually get dirty.

They're apparently good enough for Enzo
http://www.dkeng.com/media/16397/nart%20spyder_08391_engine.jpg

gudjeon

01-07-2010, 05:56 PM

Ford used a windshield washer fluid sack many years ago as well. It had the letters FoMoCo written in large on it.:thumb-up: Also, used a "tomato juice can" for a vacuum reservoir. Landies only have the "bean can" for b/fluid.

I guess designers raided the kitchen more than others.

LaneRover

01-07-2010, 08:31 PM

Its not a colostomy for the driver?

gudjeon

01-07-2010, 09:10 PM

Or the bag could be hooked up to replace the astronaut diaper:rolleyes:

yorker

01-07-2010, 09:25 PM

One of my 88s had the same windscreen washer bag setup. It connected to a manual rubber bulb type thing fastened on the bulkhead that you pushed to pump water.

superpowerdave

01-08-2010, 12:38 AM

One of my 88s had the same windscreen washer bag setup. It connected to a manual rubber bulb type thing fastened on the bulkhead that you pushed to pump water.

My 109 does as well. Is your's operable? It's not been a priority for me but I know it's not. Would love to see any pics you have of it's mounting if you had a chance.

yorker

01-08-2010, 06:49 AM

The plunger/spray bulb thing on the bulkhead still worked but the bag was shot so I binned it- I figured I'd replace it with a bigger container for washer fluid but have not yet gotten around to it. From the looks of it I think it was a dealer add on option, I am pretty sure I have seen it on a couple parts Rovers over the years.

motorking

01-09-2010, 06:19 AM

Motorking- what are the stats for Fram CH-822PL & CH-834PL1
which are the original filters for our 2.25ls?

What issues might there be with replacing them with a PH16 and or a PH8a?
I am having trouble with the FRAM numbers you are giving me, they do not seem to come up in our catalog. Can you tell me the year and engine size of the LR you are referencing? Then I will explain the ins and outs of using a different filter, how to do it ect.

yorker

01-09-2010, 10:00 AM

They are both originally for the 2.25l 4 cylinder engines, Land Rover changed filter size somewhere in the 1960's but they were both cartridge style oil filters:

http://www.ovlr.org/OVLR.alt.parts.html#engine

A lot of people nowadays replace the original filter housing with an adapter that allows them to use spin on filters(PH-8a) rather than the original cartridge filters (CH-834PL1, CH-822PL)

It is kind of funny that what was old is new again:
http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/00-2.pdf ;)