Packard Forum Index » General

In the Prewar forum there were several entries about the poor quality of Fram filters. I'm one who likes to get the REAL story so I do basic fact-finding and thinking on my own.

I also looked at the internet and found that in 2007 or so Fram did a small recall of some GM application filters. The general automotive knowlege of the posters left much to be desired as did their common sense. I'd put them in the class of members of the Flat Earth Society..

Wes and Randy, we do disagree. You "heard" of problems, I did research and also saw there were thousands of posts on the subject of Fram failures. Also saw a video of someone urinating on a Fram filter, obviously emanating from his brain.

There were hundreds if not thousands of posts lamenting the fact that Fram filters use paper end caps since being bought by Allied Signal thus the quality has gone downhill.

I researched and found that that Allied-SIGNAL bought BENDIX/Fram in 1983, almost 30 years ago. I just cut apart a NOS 1970's Fram filter AND IT HAS PAPER END CAPS, so the oft repeated statement that Allied cheapend the filters with paper end caps is FALSE.

I also have in stock a Fram Filter from the '50 which I can date as the box has an address of Fram Co, Providence 16, RI. Zones were dropped and Zip codes started in about 1960.
IT TOO HAS PAPER END CAPS.

So the issue of paper end caps is a red herring, or in the case of Fram Filters, an orange herring.

The paper end caps which overhang the OD of the pleated filter media were pointed out as the reason for "failure" of the pleated media when it "collapsed". NOte that the media collapses inwards. Metal end cap such as some other brands might help the media from going outwards but the only pressure is inwards. Metal end caps will do nothing to prevent inwards collapse.

On one of the videos I watched the presenter pointed out that the Fram filter was bad because it had aluminum chips deep in the pleats. The purpose of a filter is to catch the junk, this engine was in the process of disintegrating and the filter did its job. He does not know what he's talking about bu the does sound VERY serious.

In 2000 consumer Reports reviewed oil filters and found Fram to be the best brand. I'm sure there are better and I'm sure there are worse. Just like presidential candidates, none of them will cause the country to fail.

If you think I'm an idiot, I hope you didn't rely on someone else's opinion. Read my posts and get it from the horse's mouth...or the other end.

PS
Yes, Fram was owned by Bendix, the same Bendix that made the BTV. My 734 Speedster was owned from 1947-52 by the future Pres of Allied Bendix. The plot thickens...

Yes, but, also consider how small the particles are to be filtered, and fram is never on top. Here are two filters for my pontiac 455. Also, the K&N holds more oil and is taller, but you can probably find a fram to match it:

summitracing.com/parts/KNN-HP-2003/
summitracing.com/parts/FRM-HP2/

K&N (i believe is a wix made filter?) 10 microns, 550psi burst
Fram 18 microns, 500 psi burst.

Not that there's much difference between those specs, but they're the same exact price. Why would you not get a filter rated higher burst and finer particle filtering for the same price even though your vehicle would likely never approach the maximum burst for either.

Re: Burst strength.

An engine oil pump output presure at maximum is about 80 psi and that is when the oil is cold and thick. The oil filter bypass valve's purpose is to allow the high presure to bypass the filter under these conditions, so the filter never experiences the 80 pounds. They could make filters for just a little more money that would withstand 600, 700, 900, 1500 pounds...just use heavier metal.....but why??
The pressure will never get up to 20% of the 500 pounds.

Re: Size of particles:

The original filter in the 1930 Packard, which is where this topic started, had what is basically a cotton sock type filter. The filters you are debating are probably ( a guess )capable of capturing particles 1/10th the size of the original. The clearances in the 1930 motor are much bigger and do not need the fine filtration of a modern filter.

In my opinion it makes no difference, except that with a finer filter (smaller particles) you are trading filtration for filter life. If an old motor that has blowby etc and produces much more particulate matter than a new style motor, it will clog a microfine filter much quicker. When that happens you filter goes on bypass and you have no filtration.

There's no such thing as free lunch.

Rusty

I have a problem with much of what I find on the internet. Most of it is posted anonymously and with no verifiable information. I watched a 6 minute anonymous video comparing 4 brands of filters, the FRAM came out poorly.
It had a leaf-type arched spring underneath while the other had a coil spring. The narrator said the FRAM was poor because "I don't like that kind of spring". Some scientific basis, huh?

The fram had about 42 pleats while other had 45, again Fram was bad. What is important is not the enumber of pleats but a combinaiton of the TOTAL SQUARE INCHES OF FILTER MEDIA AND THE MICRON SIZE IT TRAPS. If one filter traps 2 micron and the other 20 micron, the 2 micron will clog up very quickly. No comparison of these was done.

It appears to me that there are lots of people who like to feel important by putting something on the internet. The relevance and scientific discipline is sorely lacking.

Take a look at how many people say they cut open filters with tin snips. OK ,take a pair of tin snips and try cutting a 4 diameter filter can. You can't.

The photo of the filter with a hole proves nothing. If Consumer Reports had posted it, I'd take it as gospel.

Foolish things even when believed by many , are still foolish.

In the video I posted the Fram filter had a manufacturing defect that made it ineffective. The oil could pass through it without being filtered at all.

Maybe a Fram filter is good enough for your old Packard. That is up to you.

For my car I prefer to use something better than the cheapest filter on the market.

Failures of the first type:
ANy claims of ineffective filtration is one thing. And most likely would never be noticed by most owners.

Failures of the second type:
HOWEVER, claims of filter failure such as disintegration of the filter element causing the engine oil galleries to plug up and requireing a new engine or major overhaul is a CONSPICUOUS failure that could not in any way be ignored.

I've only heard of 2 incidents of Failure of the second type. But no evidence was saved to substantiate the claim. From personal experience i've had no problems with Fram filters. But then again, i have rarely used Fram brand nameed products.

As to the "former Fram employee" saying they do not testing, do you really think the largest supplier of filters to the OE's would get the contract without nay testing, both OE and SAE? Get real guys!.

Suggest you go to www.fram.com/proof and see some of their testing.

Furthermore as to the claim made by PackardV8 and others about filters having an internal failure and the filter paper getting into the engine. I get very suspicious when people say they have "heard" of something but no proof was saved.

A bit of logic here. Down the center of an oil filter is a metal tube with hundreds of small holes which let filtered oil through, the tube is quite strong.

Filters innards fail/collapse for primarily two reasons. First by having been in the engine too long and the filter paper gets clogged and collapses AS IT IS DESIGNED TO. Second the oil gets contaminated by coolant, the filter becomes clogged and proceeds as above.

OK guys, the moment of truth is here, how does filter paper disintegrate into tiny pieces and get through the 1/16" holes in the tube???. All the photos of "failed" filters show a badly distorted pleated filter which is still intact.

IF I AM SHOWN TO BE INCORRECT IN ANYTHING I WILL CORRECT IT IN THIS FORUM AS I ALWAYS DO.

Let me add a first-hand account of an oil filter failure.

It happened in the mid-1980s. I changed the oil and filter on my daughter's 1980 Honda Accord. I bought a Bosch oil filter. I had never used a Bosch filter before, but given the reputation of their electrical parts, I figured it would be a quality product. Wrong.

Shortly after the oil change, my daughter drove the Honda to visit a friend in T or C, New Mexico (yes, there is a town that is named after the old radio quiz show). T or C is about 150 miles from Santa Fe where we were living at the time. Anyway, on the way home the car lost oil pressure. She sat in the car waiting for help for several hours. Finally help came. She got the car towed back to T or C. Where it received a new filter and oil.

She called me to report the incident. I told her to keep the Bosch oil filter and bring it back with her. The Honda was drivable, but it was making a noise and some damage had been done.

I took the failed filter back to the parts store where it was bought looking for reimbursement for the engine repair and towing. The store management said they would need to send the filter back to Bosch for testing to see if the failure was because of a bad filter or incorrect installation. I figured that was the end of it, I'd never hear anything.

We had the engine repaired and paid for it. Several weeks later we heard from Bosch that the filter failed because of the gasket did not seal, and to send them the invoices for the engine work and towing charges and they would reimburse us for the costs. We did and they did.

It ended well, but I still shutter when I think of what could have happened to my daughter when she was stranded by the highway late at night.

(o{I}o)

Good story with a happy ending. It's alwasy nice when a manufacturer faces up and stands by his products. I'm having an interesting dispute with Ford Motor Co. at the moment regarding the optional chrome plated alloy wheels on my 2008 Lincoln MKZ. The chrome started peeling from the inside where it doesn't show) almost from new, but the dealer said it was normal and wouldn't progress to the outer and visible parts of the wheel. Well it did and I contacted Ford who said to see the dealer. Same round robbin. Now the chrome is really bad and I again wrote Ford who basically said, "tough luck". So today I sent them off one last letter - we'll see how much they really want to keep the reputation for quality polished, and how much they want to fight for every sale.

But back to the original topic for a moment, we have been primarily taking about full-flow spin-on filters which Packard never used. They are however used in the conversion kits by Ripley and R&A to simulate the OEM Purlolater EF-2, L-6 and L-8 filters, the latter two being full flow. Otherwise Packard used canister-type bypass filters and I went out in the garage to see what I had for the 56 Carib - I had five different makes; Sears, WIX, NAPA, Fram, and Purolator. NAPA and WIX were identical. None have paper end caps, all have full metal caps, exteriors, and interior tubes. Can't tell much about what's inside but the Fram was the only one to have a seal of any kind at the base where it meets the column stop, and WIX was the only one to have a pair of rubber cover gaskets, one of which is correct for the Packard.

Attach file:

---

  (154.51 KB)

An important lesson to be learned from these two incidents.

JW- If your daughter had been driving O-D's '56 Caribbean with an insert instead of canister oil filter this would not have happened.

O_D- If you had been driving a '34 V12 with chrome wire wheels first it would not have peeled and second if it did your Packard dealer would have made good on it.

The lesson: buy quality, buy Packard