On 26 Jan 2004 09:11:06 +0700, Lee Knoper
wrote:

We often take for granted that various consumer commodities are indeed
worthy of their intended application (and our purchase). One such
item of possible interest to conferees here is the lowly engine oil
filter.

Last week on the Military Vehicles mailing list, in a discussion of
petroleum and synthetic lubricants for vehicular appplications, one of
the participants offered the following URL:

http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html

Russ Knize, the author of that site, has begun an informal comparison
of 20 different oil filters used on Ford 5.0 liter and Chrysler 2.2
and 2.5 liter engines. He meticulously disassembles the filters and
examines the contents. This examination includes measuring the
baseplate and case thicknesses; noting the type of filter element
media, counting the pleats and measuring the surface area; and
categorizing the type of bypass and anti-drainback valves, and the
materials used in them.

Although the focus of the review is limited to one type of filter
(Fram PH8A and equivalents), some of the discoveries no doubt also
apply to other types of filters from those same manufacturers. The
observations are interesting, evidencing differences in construction,
quality and probably performance as well. For example, valve train
noise at engine startup might be attributed to poor seating of the
anti-drainback valve in certain products.

The study also hints at the significance of oil filter location and
orientation in engine design. Probably the best situation is with the
filter mounted inverted (i.e., with the threaded baseplate up and the
domed end down) at a low point on the engine. This orientation would
seem to minimize problems with drainback and sediment layout on pleats
when the engine is shut down. These considerations might factor into
vehicle acquisition, engine swaps or oil system modification (e.g.,
installing a remote dual filter assembly).

Automotive and lubrication experts, feel free to jump in.

The Military Vehicles mailing list information page is at URL
http://www.mil-veh.org. Traffic currently runs about 20 messages
per day.

Lee_K

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability that any object will,
through quantum effects, tunnel from the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,
Indiana (unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which case the object will
tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).
The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html


Here is another one.

mj

With a slightly different arrangement at the top of page, it appears the
two studies are the same. They both have the email from the Fram
engineer.

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html

http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html


michael

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:09:00 -0800, michael
wrote:

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html


Here is another one.

mj

Thanks! Seems like time to change filter brands. My Frams dont rate
very well.

Gunner

"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability that any object will,
through quantum effects, tunnel from the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,
Indiana (unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which case the object will
tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).
The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking

Gunner wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:09:00 -0800, michael
wrote:

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html


Here is another one.

mj

Thanks! Seems like time to change filter brands. My Frams dont rate
very well.

Gunner


I quit using Fram long before reading that. Just reinforced my opinion of junk.
Wonder what other tales lurk in the murk, similar to the email from the Fram dude?

At risk of starting a really big argument, I will not use, other than the most dire
of circumstances, Pennzoil. I hear feathers ruffling somewhere.....

mj




"As physicists now know, there is some nonzero probability that any object will,
through quantum effects, tunnel from the workbench in your shop to Floyds Knobs,
Indiana (unless your shop is already in Indiana, in which case the object will
tunnel to Trotters, North Dakota).
The smaller mass of the object, the higher the probability.
Therefore, disassembled parts, particularly small ones,
of machines disappear much faster than assembled machines."
Greg Dermer: rec.crafts.metalworking

Unless I miss read it, it seems Fram makes the Pennzoil filters.

I quit using Fram long before reading that. Just reinforced my opinion of junk.
Wonder what other tales lurk in the murk, similar to the email from the Fram dude?

At risk of starting a really big argument, I will not use, other than the most dire
of circumstances, Pennzoil. I hear feathers ruffling somewhere.....

Gunner wrote:

Russ Knize, the author of that site, has begun an informal comparison
of 20 different oil filters used on Ford 5.0 liter and Chrysler 2.2
and 2.5 liter engines. He meticulously disassembles the filters and

Thanks for this great link! Very interesting reading.

Consumers Union (pub. of Consumer's Reports) did a test of a bunch of
popular oil brands a LONG time ago, like 30 years. It was VERY
interesting, also. They showed 3 brands that had very good anti-friction
properties, and then all the rest were very poor. I just sort of ignored
it until I warped the head on my 76 Vega, and had my VERY OWN oil testing
machine. Whenever it was heat-soaked, the cam bearings (I'm guessing)
would break down and get metal to metal contact until cool oil was brought
in to cool it down. This made a distinctive rubbing sound. I quickly
ran out and got one of the oils that came out on top of the CU tests,
and it completely solved the problem. Whenever I heard that sound, I
knew it was time for an oil change, too.

Does anyone know if there are more current oil tests anywhere?
My very crude methods absolutely confirmed what CU showed in their
reports, so I became a believer that there really is a difference
in major brand oils. The brand I used most was Shell Fire and Ice,
which was the cheapest of the 3 that showed best in the tests.

Thanks,

Jon

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:09:00 -0800, michael
wrote:

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html


Here is another one.

And another

http://www.ntpog.org/reviews/filters/filters.shtml

Consumers Union (pub. of Consumer's Reports) did a test of a bunch of
popular oil brands a LONG time ago, like 30 years. It was VERY

The brand I used most was Shell Fire and Ice,
which was the cheapest of the 3 that showed best in the tests.

I remember a test in the mid 80s. My friend was using shell
fire and ice and had 130k on his mustang. The values needed
work but the low end was fine. I am pretty sure that CR
rated shell fire and ice poorly at that time. Our conclusion
was that regular oil changes were vital, but the oil brand
didn't matter too much because he was using the worst oil
according to CR.

chuck

"Charles A. Sherwood" wrote in message
...
Consumers Union (pub. of Consumer's Reports) did a test of a bunch of
popular oil brands a LONG time ago, like 30 years. It was VERY

The brand I used most was Shell Fire and Ice,
which was the cheapest of the 3 that showed best in the tests.

I remember a test in the mid 80s. My friend was using shell
fire and ice and had 130k on his mustang. The values needed
work but the low end was fine. I am pretty sure that CR
rated shell fire and ice poorly at that time. Our conclusion
was that regular oil changes were vital, but the oil brand
didn't matter too much because he was using the worst oil
according to CR.

chuck

If memory serves, it was 1986. On the oils, they said they
had never tested any product where EVERY manufacturer's
product failed to meet the specs. But they said that Castrol
came the closest. (IIRC, none of the 10-40s were actually
10-40, but one or two of the staight 30 weight did meet spec).

On oil filters, they said Fram was the best. But then Fram
changed their design.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:21:19 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:

If memory serves, it was 1986. On the oils, they said they
had never tested any product where EVERY manufacturer's
product failed to meet the specs. But they said that Castrol
came the closest. (IIRC, none of the 10-40s were actually
10-40, but one or two of the staight 30 weight did meet spec).

On oil filters, they said Fram was the best. But then Fram
changed their design.

Let's see if I understand this: You're saying Castrol came the
closest to failing to meet the specs?

If so, maybe that's why my Olds engine recently ate a rod bearing.

Orrin

"Orrin Iseminger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:21:19 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:

Let's see if I understand this: You're saying Castrol came the
closest to failing to meet the specs?

If so, maybe that's why my Olds engine recently ate a rod bearing.

Orrin

I'm not sure, depending on what he intended, he may be saying Castrol
may have been closest to spec. He needs to clarify his point.

HWB

Let's see if I understand this: You're saying Castrol came the
closest to failing to meet the specs?

If so, maybe that's why my Olds engine recently ate a rod bearing.

Orrin


Hmm, back in the 60's my roomates & I all drove BMC cars, MG's & sprites; and
they used Castrol & I used Kendall. They had several main & rod brg failures &
I never did. Could have been driving or some other factors but that was the
main difference I could see.
Greg Sefton

"Harold Burton" wrote in message
...

"Orrin Iseminger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:21:19 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:

Let's see if I understand this: You're saying Castrol came the
closest to failing to meet the specs?

If so, maybe that's why my Olds engine recently ate a rod bearing.

Orrin

I'm not sure, depending on what he intended, he may be saying Castrol
may have been closest to spec. He needs to clarify his point.

HWB



IIRC, all of the 10-40 oils they tested failed to be 10 and/or 40, being
things like 5-50, 15-30, etc. The Castrol came in CLOSEST to
actually being 10-40.

"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
Let's see if I understand this: You're saying Castrol came the
closest to failing to meet the specs?

If so, maybe that's why my Olds engine recently ate a rod bearing.

Orrin


Hmm, back in the 60's my roomates & I all drove BMC cars, MG's &
sprites; and
they used Castrol & I used Kendall. They had several main & rod brg
failures &
I never did. Could have been driving or some other factors but that was
the
main difference I could see.
Greg Sefton

I raced a 1275 MG Midget, originally on multi-vis Castrol, and the oil
pressure would drop precipitously as soon as the engine got hot. Most of my
racing buddies experienced the same thing with Castrol's street oil.

They had a single-vis racing oil but it wasn't a lot better. We figured they
must have had a special formulation they supplied to pro teams because we
got nothing but lousy performance from Castrol.

In any case, today's Castrol smells nothing like Castrol from the '60s and
'70s. It must be an entirely different formulation.

We wound up using a heavy-duty Wolf's Head that's no longer available, BTW.
It really held pressure well when it got hot, without being excessively
thick when it was cold.

Ed Huntress

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:21:32 -0800, Orrin Iseminger
brought forth from the murky depths:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 22:21:19 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote:

If memory serves, it was 1986. On the oils, they said they
had never tested any product where EVERY manufacturer's
product failed to meet the specs. But they said that Castrol
came the closest. (IIRC, none of the 10-40s were actually
10-40, but one or two of the staight 30 weight did meet spec).

On oil filters, they said Fram was the best. But then Fram
changed their design.

Let's see if I understand this: You're saying Castrol came the
closest to failing to meet the specs?

I think he meant "came closest to passing", Or.


If so, maybe that's why my Olds engine recently ate a rod bearing.

"Nah, it ate a rod 'cuz it's a GM product. You know how easliy
THEY break." said the Ford man.

My sister attended college at ASU, Tempe back in the early 70's.
She said that the college was using a gearbox to gear down a jet
turbine to slower speeds, and that Castrol GTX was the only oil
they found which would handle it for any length of time. I tried
it, liked it, and have been using it ever since.


----------------------------------------------
CAUTION: Driver Legally B l o n d (e)
http://www.diversify.com Web Database Development
================================================== =====

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:51:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

|"Bray Haven" wrote in message
...
| Let's see if I understand this: You're saying Castrol came the
| closest to failing to meet the specs?
|
| If so, maybe that's why my Olds engine recently ate a rod bearing.
|
| Orrin
|
|
| Hmm, back in the 60's my roomates & I all drove BMC cars, MG's &
|sprites; and
| they used Castrol & I used Kendall. They had several main & rod brg
|failures &
| I never did. Could have been driving or some other factors but that was
|the
| main difference I could see.
| Greg Sefton
|
|I raced a 1275 MG Midget, originally on multi-vis Castrol, and the oil
|pressure would drop precipitously as soon as the engine got hot. Most of my
|racing buddies experienced the same thing with Castrol's street oil.
|
|They had a single-vis racing oil but it wasn't a lot better. We figured they
|must have had a special formulation they supplied to pro teams because we
|got nothing but lousy performance from Castrol.
|
|In any case, today's Castrol smells nothing like Castrol from the '60s and
|'70s. It must be an entirely different formulation.
|
|We wound up using a heavy-duty Wolf's Head that's no longer available, BTW.
|It really held pressure well when it got hot, without being excessively
|thick when it was cold.

Castrol did have a separate line of oils that was intended for racing. Had a
unique smell that is highly sought-after by the current vintage crowd. The name
escapes me.

Rex in Fort Worth

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:22:49 GMT, (Rex B)
wrote:



Castrol did have a separate line of oils that was intended for racing. Had a
unique smell that is highly sought-after by the current vintage crowd. The name
escapes me.


Castrol R. Used real castor oil which was good for one race- it turned
into a tofu-like goo when cooled.
Appearently not a bad oil back in the day, but not anymore.

-Carl

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:51:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


In any case, today's Castrol smells nothing like Castrol from the '60s and
'70s. It must be an entirely different formulation.


It is. Castrol GTX is great oil.

-Carl

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:07:07 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 26 Jan 2004 09:11:06 +0700, Lee Knoper
wrote:

We often take for granted that various consumer commodities are indeed
worthy of their intended application (and our purchase). One such
item of possible interest to conferees here is the lowly engine oil
filter.


I've always operated under the theory that you can't go wrong with
OEM- the manufacturer isn't going to risk a $4,000 warranty engine
replacement by using a cheap oil filter.
I used to do a lot of rebuild and short block replacements on vehicles
where the engine died young. Never not once did a damaged engine have
an OEM filter- always a cheapass aftermarket one.


-Carl

michael wrote in message ...
With a slightly different arrangement at the top of page, it appears the
two studies are the same. They both have the email from the Fram
engineer.

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html

http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html


michael


I used to use Fram filters because the anti-drainback valve was
well-designed. Then I started getting bearing and valve noise on
startup, so I cut apart the filter and found that Fram had gone cheap
on the valve, with no metal backing plate or spring behind the rubber
disc. Bought two Pennzoil filters, used one and cut the other apart.
Much better valve assembly. Bought some Kralinators (used to sell them
in the '70s) and found that they had gone cheap, too. I've cut a
variety of filters open and found that most are poorly made and look
like they're made in China now. The drainback valve rubber wrinkles in
hot oil and would be no good in any case.
The filter media in some is thin and has holes big enough to
drive a Kenworth through.
When Pennzoil goes cheap I don't know what I'll do. Maybe make an
adapter plate with a built-in anti-drainback in it?
Maybe a couple of big lawsuits might force the filter makers to
smarten up and put in the quality we're paying for...

Dan

Carl Byrns wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:22:49 GMT, (Rex B)
wrote:

Castrol did have a separate line of oils that was intended for racing. Had a
unique smell that is highly sought-after by the current vintage crowd. The name
escapes me.


Castrol R. Used real castor oil which was good for one race- it turned
into a tofu-like goo when cooled.
Appearently not a bad oil back in the day, but not anymore.

-Carl

Anyone else remember Blendzall ,(?sp). Now there was a unique smell. That was better
than going with the old man to get gas early on a Sunday morning.
Kickass oil, it was.

mj

In any case, today's Castrol smells nothing like Castrol from the '60s and
'70s. It must be an entirely different formulation.

I figured it must be different now too, but that old memory has kept me away
from Castrol ever since. Those guys too, had the drop in pressure with the
castrol. Mine was much less with the Kendall (later GT-1).

We wound up using a heavy-duty Wolf's Head that's no longer available, BTW.
It really held pressure well when it got hot, without being excessively
thick when it was cold.

Ed Huntress
I always heard good things about WH oils but they were hard to find down here
in FL back then.
Greg Sefton

Castrol R. Used real castor oil which was good for one race- it turned
into a tofu-like goo when cooled.
Appearently not a bad oil back in the day, but not anymore.

They used castor oil in 2 stroke racing outboards mixed @ 8:1 with alcohol and
that produced a very unforgettable smell. Also turned to goo when they sat up
for awhile.
Greg Sefton

On 28 Jan 2004 17:47:14 -0800, (Dan Thomas) wrote:

|michael wrote in message
...
| With a slightly different arrangement at the top of page, it appears the
| two studies are the same. They both have the email from the Fram
| engineer.
|
| http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html
|
| http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html
|
|
| michael
|
|
| I used to use Fram filters because the anti-drainback valve was
|well-designed. Then I started getting bearing and valve noise on
|startup, so I cut apart the filter and found that Fram had gone cheap
|on the valve, with no metal backing plate or spring behind the rubber
|disc. Bought two Pennzoil filters, used one and cut the other apart.
|Much better valve assembly. Bought some Kralinators (used to sell them
|in the '70s) and found that they had gone cheap, too. I've cut a
|variety of filters open and found that most are poorly made and look
|like they're made in China now. The drainback valve rubber wrinkles in
|hot oil and would be no good in any case.
| The filter media in some is thin and has holes big enough to
|drive a Kenworth through.
| When Pennzoil goes cheap I don't know what I'll do. Maybe make an
|adapter plate with a built-in anti-drainback in it?
| Maybe a couple of big lawsuits might force the filter makers to
|smarten up and put in the quality we're paying for...
|
| Dan
Dan
Better re-check that Pennzoil filter regularly. Like most, they farm
production to the lowest bid. Quality will depend on the specs they give to the
producer. Last Iooked Pennzoil filters were at the low end of the scale.
I stick with Wix whenever possible. they don't compromise quality.
Rex in Fort Worth

On 28 Jan 2004 17:47:14 -0800, (Dan
Thomas) wrote:

michael wrote in message ...
With a slightly different arrangement at the top of page, it appears the
two studies are the same. They both have the email from the Fram
engineer.

http://people.msoe.edu/~yoderw/oilfi...lterstudy.html

http://minimopar.knizefamily.net/oilfilterstudy.html


michael


I used to use Fram filters because the anti-drainback valve was
well-designed. Then I started getting bearing and valve noise on
startup, so I cut apart the filter and found that Fram had gone cheap
on the valve, with no metal backing plate or spring behind the rubber
disc. Bought two Pennzoil filters, used one and cut the other apart.
Much better valve assembly. Bought some Kralinators (used to sell them
in the '70s) and found that they had gone cheap, too. I've cut a
variety of filters open and found that most are poorly made and look
like they're made in China now. The drainback valve rubber wrinkles in
hot oil and would be no good in any case.
The filter media in some is thin and has holes big enough to
drive a Kenworth through.
When Pennzoil goes cheap I don't know what I'll do. Maybe make an
adapter plate with a built-in anti-drainback in it?

Too late - the Penzoil filter is now made by Allied Signal - AKA FRAM.
Same cheap crap. I use Mopar, AC and Motorcraft filters - made by
Dana, same as Wix and Napa Gold.
Maybe a couple of big lawsuits might force the filter makers to
smarten up and put in the quality we're paying for...

Dan

Ken Finney wrote:
"Charles A. Sherwood" wrote in message
...

Consumers Union (pub. of Consumer's Reports) did a test of a bunch of
popular oil brands a LONG time ago, like 30 years. It was VERY

The brand I used most was Shell Fire and Ice,
which was the cheapest of the 3 that showed best in the tests.

I remember a test in the mid 80s. My friend was using shell
fire and ice and had 130k on his mustang. The values needed
work but the low end was fine. I am pretty sure that CR
rated shell fire and ice poorly at that time. Our conclusion
was that regular oil changes were vital, but the oil brand
didn't matter too much because he was using the worst oil
according to CR.

chuck


If memory serves, it was 1986. On the oils, they said they
had never tested any product where EVERY manufacturer's
product failed to meet the specs. But they said that Castrol
came the closest. (IIRC, none of the 10-40s were actually
10-40, but one or two of the staight 30 weight did meet spec).


The test I read was almost certainly earlier. They did not test
oils to any specs, they tested it to destruction. First they
pumped the oil through a Diesel fuel injector nozzle for some
number of hours, to simulate the mechanical shearing effect of
long operation in close-tolerance bearings. Then, they put
it in another homemade device. As I recall, it had a 1" steel
shaft and a babbit or bronze bearing journal that could be loaded
with calibrated pressure. The ran the shaft by a 1725 RPM motor,
I think. They took each oil and found what pressure it took to
collapse the oil film. 3 brands of oil did VERY well on the tests,
and ALL the other brands were failing to provide lubrication at
a pressure of about 1/3rd of the good ones. I vaguely recall
that Shell Fire and Ice and Havoline Supreme were two of the
3 best ones. These results were totally supported by my results
with my 1976 Vega with a warped cylinder head. Those oil
brands prevented the sound I attributed to bearing failure
after a heat soak.

I can understand why CR doesn't want to do testing like this
routinely - it was one of the most extensive test protocols
I'd seen, these guys were amazingly rigorous in doing these
things.

Jon