Best no BS motor oil/filter comparison?

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:49342cd8$1@kcnews01...
> What $3 Fram filer? I checked on-line prices at local auto parts stores
> (Advance and AutoZone). The $3.99 Fram (PH2) and the $6.99 Fram (TG2)
> equivalents to the Motorcraft FL820S ($3.68) both include the same glued
> cardboard end caps and the same mediocre relief valve. The $6.99 Fram
> filter does buy you a silicone anti-drain back valve. However, the CHEAPER
> Motorcraft FL820S includes the silicone anti-drain back valve, a very
> robust pressure relief valve, and potted metal end caps. There is no
> comparison, the Fram filters are a rip off, at least for this application.
>
> Maybe for other applications, the Fram filters are better. I can't say for
> sure. I've only cut open Fram filters for a few applications (FL820S, FL1,
> a Honda Filter) and they all had the same basic construction that I don't
> like.
>
> Ed

I think the price of the ExtraGuard is closer to $3 at Walmart, although I
admit I haven't checked the price recently.

Even though I explicitly mentioned to you the ExtendedGuard filter (which
costs about $11) you are still ignoring it as though it does not exist. By
your won admission you have never examined one.

Fram also makes a Racing Oil filter, which although I have not used, I
assume it is of suitable quality (not sure if there is a problem with using
it in a normal street application).

The point is not whether Fram filters are too expensive compared to others,
the problem is that you claimed all Fram filters are junk, when the fact is
they make some excellent quality filters in addition to the less expensive
ones.

So please, if you don't like the Fram ExtraGuard or you think the
ExtendedGuard is overpriced, that is fine, but don't lump all Fram filter
together.

SMS wrote:

> Alway a pet peeve that the manufacturers don't put in some sort of an
> audible warning of when to pull over and stop the vehicle.

My wife's 93 Eagle (Chrysler) does exactly that and it saved the engine
at least once. I'd replaced the timing belt and waterpump at 90k miles
(100k interval on the belt) and the replacement waterpump was a dud- the
pulley came off the shaft, wedged against the timing cover, and the
engine overheated. She heard the "ding ding ding" sound, saw the "check
gauges" light, and noticed the temp gauge headed for the red. She let it
cool a bit then got it the remaining half mile home. I finally figured
out what was wrong by the smell of burning timing belt as it rubbed
against the locked waterpump pulley, and no damage was done other than
me having to do a second timing belt and waterpump (from a different
parts store) in less than 10k miles. In fact we're in the process of
cleaning that car out to (probably) donate it to a charity. 256,000
miles, never had the engine open at all (3.5L v6, first-gen iron block
version). I'll miss it a lot, but its time. It doesn't owe me a thing.

jim wrote:
>

>>> -jim
>> Like everything, its a trade-off. If every car owner went to a 6000-mile
>> versus the ridiculously short 3000 mile change interval, the savings in
>> crude oil or natural gas (the raw material for synthetic oils), the
>> reduction in energy required to produce the oil, and the reduced load on
>> the recycling infrastructure would be non-negligible.
>
> Just simply conserving by doing any number of things would have a far far
> greater impact. But nothing gets the people who are pretty much careless in
> conserving in almost every other respect so riled up as finding out someone is
> changing oil at 3000 miles.
>
> -jim

Oh, it doesn't rile me. Just pointing out one line of reasoning.
Outlawing daytime running lights would probably save a similar amount of
energy each year and I'd heartily approve. So would lowering speed
limits, but I'm ABSOLUTELY against doing that. Everyone has their own
idea of what should be conserved, and it usually involves things that
annoy us anyway.

Besides, more recycled oil means more fuel for the excursion railways'
oil-fired steam locomotives to burn :-)

SMS > wrote:
>
>They're wasting an enormous amount of money, time, and resources on
>something that will provide absolutely no benefit in terms of the
>longevity of their vehicle. Ask them why they don't do 1000 mile oil
>changes rather than 3000?

The severe use maintenance schedule in the owner's manual says 3000
miles. So I do that.

If it said 1000 miles, I'd do that, sure.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

jim wrote:

>> Like everything, its a trade-off. If every car owner went to a 6000-mile
>> versus the ridiculously short 3000 mile change interval, the savings in
>> crude oil or natural gas (the raw material for synthetic oils), the
>> reduction in energy required to produce the oil, and the reduced load on
>> the recycling infrastructure would be non-negligible.
>
> Just simply conserving by doing any number of things would have a far far
> greater impact. But nothing gets the people who are pretty much careless in
> conserving in almost every other respect so riled up as finding out someone is
> changing oil at 3000 miles.

But it's not either-or. Certainly keeping tires inflated properly,
removing roof racks, etc., would also help conserve resources, but it's
not like you can't do these things _AND_ not change your oil
ridiculously often.

It's basically a matter of education of vehicle owners to counter the
advertising of places like Jiffy Lube, as well as educating them as to
_why_ 3000 mile oil changes were a good idea 30 years ago, but no longer
provide any benefit over following the manufacturer's specifications.
They think that if the manufacturer says 5000 miles then 3000 miles
changes will somehow make the vehicle last longer or run better, when in
fact this is not the case. Alas, myths die hard. You can have every
mechanic in the country explain the reality, and someone will insist
that the mechanics just want engines to fail sooner so they can make
more money on engine repairs. You can have independent organizations
with no vested interest do extensive testing and analysis, and someone
will insist that the tests simply must be bogus for any number of
imagined reasons.

Maybe the solution needs to be what's done in some European countries,
where motor oil is heavily taxed and very expensive. It oil were $8 a
quart instead o

SMS wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
>
> >> Like everything, its a trade-off. If every car owner went to a 6000-mile
> >> versus the ridiculously short 3000 mile change interval, the savings in
> >> crude oil or natural gas (the raw material for synthetic oils), the
> >> reduction in energy required to produce the oil, and the reduced load on
> >> the recycling infrastructure would be non-negligible.
> >
> > Just simply conserving by doing any number of things would have a far far
> > greater impact. But nothing gets the people who are pretty much careless in
> > conserving in almost every other respect so riled up as finding out someone is
> > changing oil at 3000 miles.
>
> But it's not either-or. Certainly keeping tires inflated properly,
> removing roof racks, etc., would also help conserve resources, but it's
> not like you can't do these things _AND_ not change your oil
> ridiculously often.
>
> It's basically a matter of education of vehicle owners to counter the
> advertising of places like Jiffy Lube, as well as educating them as to
> _why_ 3000 mile oil changes were a good idea 30 years ago, but no longer
> provide any benefit over following the manufacturer's specifications.
> They think that if the manufacturer says 5000 miles then 3000 miles
> changes will somehow make the vehicle last longer or run better, when in
> fact this is not the case.

People put pin stripes on their cars also. It doesn't make their car run
better or last longer. Why doesn't anyone rant about that for a while?

The fact is if you have 2 engines with 150000 miles and one has had 3000
mile oil changes and one has had 6000 mile oil changes you can tell the
difference if you look on the inside of the engine. That does not mean one
is going to last longer or one will run better, but you can tell the
difference.

Some people wash there car regularly some people don't.

Some people have a life. Others don't, so they spend their time worrying
about how often other people change their oil or what filter they use.

-jim


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

HLS wrote:
>
> "Steve" > wrote in message >
>> If you believe that particular engines are "not suitable for synthetic
>> oil," then there's no use trying to have an intelligent,
>> engineering-based discussion.
>
> No, there isnt.. I went back to the distributor on this and they told me
> that B&S did not recommend synthetics in this engine, and I shouldnt
> have assumed that the Mobil 1 would be a good choice after break-in.
>

That is a big fat juicy crock.

> I went into the B&S, honed it, installed new rings, etc, and it lasted a
> few
> hours, but quickly went to hell again. Got rid of it, dont want to hear
> that
> technically the synthetic should have been great..
> Either the B&S was BS, or the lubricant was unacceptable.
>
> Next mower, I used what B&S recommended, and it worked fine (until it
> was stolen a couple of months ago).
>
> I can talk engineering with you all day long, but this is not a case
> where I
> am very open to "shoulda, coulda, and woulda".


Most of the SGEs I know of people NEVER change the oil and just top
it off and they run for eons. Please....

--
"Boy, I've spent my adult life dealing with people like you.
There are few things that intimidate me; and a
post-adolescent, semi-literate cretin ain't one of them." - LSP972

Mark A wrote:
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:49342cd8$1@kcnews01...
>> What $3 Fram filer? I checked on-line prices at local auto parts stores
>> (Advance and AutoZone). The $3.99 Fram (PH2) and the $6.99 Fram (TG2)
>> equivalents to the Motorcraft FL820S ($3.68) both include the same glued
>> cardboard end caps and the same mediocre relief valve. The $6.99 Fram
>> filter does buy you a silicone anti-drain back valve. However, the CHEAPER
>> Motorcraft FL820S includes the silicone anti-drain back valve, a very
>> robust pressure relief valve, and potted metal end caps. There is no
>> comparison, the Fram filters are a rip off, at least for this application.
>>
>> Maybe for other applications, the Fram filters are better. I can't say for
>> sure. I've only cut open Fram filters for a few applications (FL820S, FL1,
>> a Honda Filter) and they all had the same basic construction that I don't
>> like.
>>
>> Ed
>
> I think the price of the ExtraGuard is closer to $3 at Walmart, although I
> admit I haven't checked the price recently.
>
> Even though I explicitly mentioned to you the ExtendedGuard filter (which
> costs about $11) you are still ignoring it as though it does not exist. By
> your won admission you have never examined one.
>
> Fram also makes a Racing Oil filter, which although I have not used, I
> assume it is of suitable quality (not sure if there is a problem with using
> it in a normal street application).
>
> The point is not whether Fram filters are too expensive compared to others,
> the problem is that you claimed all Fram filters are junk, when the fact is
> they make some excellent quality filters in addition to the less expensive
> ones.
>
> So please, if you don't like the Fram ExtraGuard or you think the
> ExtendedGuard is overpriced, that is fine, but don't lump all Fram filter
> together.
>
>

Until they put a window in it ALL Fram filters are junk. And, isn't
"extra guard" the one that contains Teflon?? Yeah, great idea there.

--
"Boy, I've spent my adult life dealing with people like you.
There are few things that intimidate me; and a
post-adolescent, semi-literate cretin ain't one of them." - LSP972

"WindsorFox<[SS]>" > wrote in message
...
> Until they put a window in it ALL Fram filters are junk. And, isn't
> "extra guard" the one that contains Teflon?? Yeah, great idea there.

No, the ExtraGuard is the cheapo $3-4 filter. The one with Teflon/PTFE
inside is not on their website (that I can see), but I think it was called
the DoubleGuard. Some of the current filters have PTFE on the exterior
gaskets. On the website they list the ExtraGuard, ToughGuard, ExtendedGuard,
and Racing filter (apparently some Ford and Chevys only), and an additional
one sold in Canada. They also have a high-mileage filter, presumably with
the same chemicals found in high mileage oil being marketed these days
(works OK if you have some sort of problem, like minor leaking and/or minor
oil burning).

I will admit that the ExtraGuard and ToughGuard are crappy and mediocre
respectively, but the ExtendedGuard is quite well made (should be for about
$10-$11), and I don't see how anyone can question the build quality. The
ExtendedGuard and Racing oil filters may be expensive, but they are very
good/excellent filters. I generally use the Mobil 1 filter, but when not
available I use the Fram ExtendedGuard filter.

If you want to see the inside of the Fram filters, check out this website
(click on "Technology" for the filter you want info on).
http://www.fram.com/products/oilFilters.php

One more thing. Based on your posts, it is safe to assume that there is
nothing but sawdust inside your skull, unless you put a window on head and
we can see otherwise.

">
> I was really only suggesting that analysis might be a good idea for those
> people that don't understand how needless it is to do a 3000 mile oil
> change on a modern engine. They've been brainwashed by companies like
> Jiffy Lube and/or they remember what their father or grandfather told them
> back in the 1960's, and haven't updated this knowledge to account for
> higher quality multi-weight detergent motor oils, versus cans of SAE 30,
> even though every independent test has shown how needless 3000 mile
> changes actually are.
>
I dont get this either, both my Dodge truck and car recommend 7500 mile
changes for light use. Yet every place that changes it insists on sticking
that 3k mile interval on my windshield. I know why they do it, more changes
= more money for them but why do owners put up with it? I bet we could save
a significant amount of oil if we stopped all the useless changes.