Honda Car Forum

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:51:20 -0700, Sean Dinh <"seanny"@dinh@znet.com>
wrote:

>The purposes of the end caps are to hold the filter media in the folded state, and to seal the inlet from the outlet. Without them,
>the filter would flatten out. Taking the filter element out of its protective case and then putting it on the table to exam its
>structural strength point to major flaw in the observer's method. With the element on the table, you could flick your finger to
>bend the cardboard end cap. Try doing that with the backing of the case against that cardboard end caps and tell me how your finger
>feel.

The endcaps are an important part of the structure of the cartridge and its
structural integrity. The endcap does *not* butt against the "backing of
the case", not fully anyway, otherwise there would be no way to allow a
bypass down the center tube of the filter. In fact it is held away from
the inside end of the case by a leaf spring in most filters.

>As for the media flexing, that could occur with any material selected for end caps. When the media traps too much particles to a
>point of clogging it, it will collapse no matter how much support there are at the end. That is the reason why there is a
>perforated inner tube to support the media in the middle. In the case of collapsing media, the blame should be on the media being
>too efficient, or that the oil contains too much suspended particle for the filter to trap effectively during its service life.
>I've opened a used Fram filter. One of the fold had flatten out. I won't blame the end cap for inferior integrity to support the
>media in the middle. It's nonsense to blame the end cap.

Quite obviously there could be several reasons for a collapsed endcap
and/or filter media.

>My point is that ALL authors of filter studies referenced on this NG lack basic engineering background. They all have major flaws
>on their studies. Oil filtering is a complex process, involving oil pressure, flow rate, filter media, and bypass valve. All those
>authors ever done with their studies are to express opinions on visual observation out of context. People need to differentiate
>opinions from true scientific studies, and to not promote these opinions as facts.

The authors of the filter studies are in no way trying to conceal or
pretend any info about themselves - there is no conspiracy or witch-hunt
here. It doesn't take an engineer to study the construction of something
as simple as an oil filter and for the chemical composition of the
materials and their behavior under operating conditions, it generally takes
*more* than an engineer to do a scientific analysis.

The point here is: given the choice of materials for endcaps of an oil
filter and observing worst case operating conditions of aging oil, who in
their right mind would choose a glued cardboard or reinforced fiber
material which is susceptible to attack by acids, water and any other
by-products from combustion which get into the oil, not to mention the
additives in the fresh oil in the first place?

The bottom line is: if you want a material with relatively good shape
retention and chemical inertness under the temperature, chemical and
pressure attack inside an oil filter, metal is kinda obvious as the choice.
If you want a surface against which you want an anti-drainback valve to
have a good seal, fiber material is umm, not good!

You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
somewhat more credence - my choice!

>I've used Fram before. I'm using Supertech now because it's cheaper and have a better O-ring.

Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
the NTPOG site?

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald wrote:

> You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
> employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
> somewhat more credence - my choice!
>

I don't mind paying $2 more every 6 months for a Purolator Pure One
filter. It has sparkly paint, and it makes me feel smug.

> The authors of the filter studies are in no way trying to conceal or
> pretend any info about themselves - there is no conspiracy or witch-hunt
> here. It doesn't take an engineer to study the construction of something
> as simple as an oil filter and for the chemical composition of the
> materials and their behavior under operating conditions, it generally takes
> *more* than an engineer to do a scientific analysis.

arent they doing the equivalent of tearing into a house, stripping off
the wallboard/plaster/whateve, and making note of how the place is
framed (12" on center, 16" on center, etc), with what size wood, and how
the thing is nailed together?

just basic observations, but they can tell a lot.

> The bottom line is: if you want a material with relatively good shape
> retention and chemical inertness under the temperature, chemical and
> pressure attack inside an oil filter, metal is kinda obvious as the choice.
> If you want a surface against which you want an anti-drainback valve to
> have a good seal, fiber material is umm, not good!


frams are a mid to low priced filter... now what would really piss me
off is seeing a K&N or equivalent with crappy construction.
>
> You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
> employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
> somewhat more credence - my choice!
>
>
>>I've used Fram before. I'm using Supertech now because it's cheaper and have a better O-ring.
>
>
> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
> the NTPOG site?

the last time i looked at a $2 supertech, they still had a rounded
o-ring, with a coil spring , metal end cap/anti-drainback valve inside.


>
> Rgds, George Macdonald
>
> "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

I have no problem with your religion.

alan wrote:

> I don't mind paying $2 more every 6 months for a Purolator Pure One
> filter. It has sparkly paint, and it makes me feel smug.

The first paragraph I skimmed through was the description of the bypass valve. Since the description was already flawed, I did not
bother to read the rest.

I just looked at the picture of the Supertech filter since you insisted again. There is an obvious difference in the bypass valve in
that picture than the one on I used last month. I can't comment on the actual function of the bypass valve at this time. I need further
analyzing. I find the author trashing the operation of the bypass valve highly suspicious. Walmart won't be dumb enough waste money on a
defective design. Imagine the litigations...I would not comment had the author did a pressure test.

George Macdonald wrote:

> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
> the NTPOG site?

On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 22:32:01 -0700, alan <no-longer-valid@yahoo.com> wrote:

>George Macdonald wrote:
>
>> You can put the indictment of Fram at the minimopar Web site down to
>> employee discontent if you like - that's your choice. Personally I give it
>> somewhat more credence - my choice!
>>
>
>I don't mind paying $2 more every 6 months for a Purolator Pure One
>filter. It has sparkly paint, and it makes me feel smug.

Yep, that's what I've used when Honda brand Filtechs were not available and
I can buy them till 9p.m. on a weekday.:-) It's till not clear to me if
we'll be able to buy Honda brand Filtechs in the new form factor, though
the part does appear to exist.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 06:22:06 GMT, SoCalMike
<mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>I've used Fram before. I'm using Supertech now because it's cheaper and have a better O-ring.
>>
>>
>> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even look at
>> the NTPOG site?
>
>the last time i looked at a $2 supertech, they still had a rounded
>o-ring, with a coil spring , metal end cap/anti-drainback valve inside.

See the pic and what they say here:
http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml near the bottom of the
page.

Rgds, George Macdonald

"Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me??

George Macdonald <fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com> spake unto the
masses in news:vq9ac0dbmh14v37prsheb1sh6ihvgosrv4@4ax.com:

> Obviously you haven't heard about the new Supertechs. Did you even
> look at the NTPOG site?



The NTPOG contains some silly comments. Silly enough to make me wonder how
qualified these guys really are.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html

How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com

Sean Dinh <"seanny"@dinh@znet.com> spake unto the masses in
news:1086678573.728893@news-1.nethere.net:

> The first paragraph I skimmed through was the description of the
> bypass valve. Since the description was already flawed, I did not
> bother to read the rest.
>
> I just looked at the picture of the Supertech filter since you
> insisted again. There is an obvious difference in the bypass valve in
> that picture than the one on I used last month. I can't comment on the
> actual function of the bypass valve at this time. I need further
> analyzing. I find the author trashing the operation of the bypass
> valve highly suspicious.



One silly comment I found:
"It's possible that a hard enough impact at a sharp angle while the filter
was by-passing might cause it to jam open, but I suspect the fluid within
the filter would prevent this."

Talk about a stretch...



> Walmart won't be dumb enough waste money on a
> defective design. Imagine the litigations...I would not comment had
> the author did a pressure test.



That's part of the problem: Nobody is doing flow testing, media
effectiveness testing, particle counting, pressure testing or anything
else. Just visual observation based or erroneous ideas. "Cardboard" indeed.

And the pictures on NPOG are really crappy. Didn't the author have a
graphics program so he could lighten up the pictures a bit so you could
actually see some detail?

There is ONE organization that did *actual testing* on various filters:
Consumer Reports. It's dated, but just see what they say:
http://list.miata.net/miata/1996-01/1504.html

When the authors of all those "Internet wisdom" sites test their filters
according to the various SAE standard tests, then I will consider them
credible.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda FAQ
http://www3.telus.net/public/johnings/faq.html

How to find anything on the Internet or in Usenet Groups:
www.google.com
www.groups.google.com