Cartridge Oil Filter--Fram 20K vs. K&N

[ClutchFork]

So I hate this cartridge set up on the 2008 Mazda 5 2.3L. I would have the shop install a Fram Ultra 20,000 mile cartridge and then do the next two changes myself with out a filter change, so would run the filter 20,000 miles. Have done this for the past 60,000 miles. Then the mechanic said Fram is crap, which I kind of also felt to be the case for spin on filters, but these 20K cartridge filters looked pretty good. So I pulled my Fram after 13,000 miles (2 changes) and threw in the K&N, but almost put the Fram back in as it did not look bad at all.

Notice where each is made, which has a mesh inside the tube. While the K&N has more pleats and presumably a better filter media, I am not impressed with the country of manufacture. Odd that the felt gasket on the top of the K&N reflected part of the K&N box image.

[potownrob]

IDK man, hear eye fought running an oil filtre 10k miles was risky, even one rated for higher miles. i'm no oil expert, but that filter does look dirty too me. knot necessarily unable to keep filter ring the oil, but there's stuff on it and sature rated inn dirty oil. i've also heard of changing out a filtre every two oil changes, but knot 3 ore fore. that said, that filtre does look to be of at least decent quality. eye used to sometimes run junky fram filters when i did my own changes, but always switched them out every oil change (and they were easy to access on at least the maxima - just cock the wheel and reach in for the filter - didn't even knead to jack up the car for the filter); your filter looks better made. eye would've putt the new won in though.

[ClutchFork]

Yes, the Fram did look a bit dirty so I did put the new K&N filter in.

[Rope-Pusher]

It would be interesting to understand the basis for the mechanic saying that "Fram is Crap".

You would need to do a controlled, long-term study on a fleet of vehicles before you could say that a given brand of filter was allowing more damage to engines than another brand of filter did. Even then, it might be that a difference only showed for folks driving daily on dirt roads, or for certain, maybe highly-stressed engine designs, or for folks whose driving style tended to never get into filter by-pass mode.

[ClutchFork]

It would be interesting to understand the basis for the mechanic saying that "Fram is Crap".

I do know on bobistheoilguy.com they all concluded that basic Frams are crap. Not sure how, some took them apart, etc. I generally use Wix or Motorcraft, occasionally Hastings, Baldwin, Feetguard.

You would need to do a controlled, long-term study on a fleet of vehicles before you could say that a given brand of filter was allowing more damage to engines than another brand of filter did. Even then, it might be that a difference only showed for folks driving daily on dirt roads, or for certain, maybe highly-stressed engine designs, or for folks whose driving style tended to never get into filter by-pass mode.

This mechanic is full of baloney. I was naming off smaller cars we might consider for my daughter and every time I named one, he replied, "Throwaway Car." One day, we got to discussing manual transmission ratios and he insisted that all manual transmissions have the 1:1 ratio in 3rd gear and that it so they can put them on the dyno. They guy seems like a moron. All 3-speed manuals have 1:1 in third, but any 4 speed or 5 speed or even 6 speed it is 4th that is 1:1. There may be exceptions but it would be rare IMO.

[IMBoring25]

It depends on how the vehicle is set up. The six-speed in my Ram has the direct-drive cog on 5th.

[ClutchFork]

It depends on how the vehicle is set up. The six-speed in my Ram has the direct-drive cog on 5th.

Oh, I forgot, my 1984 F150 had a 4 speed OD tranny with 1:1 in 3rd gear.

[IMBoring25]

Chronology probably has a lot to do with it. Before overdrive, direct drive was top gear. Early overdrive, direct drive was one gear down from top gear. Two overdrives have become pretty common in cars, but most trucks still have only one.

[ClutchFork]

I think basically the 1:1 ratios is top gear unless overdrive is present, in which case the 1:1 ratio is just below the overdrive(s).

But apart from the rear end ratio (and to a small degree tire size) there is no comparison since one combo may turn the same rpms in 4th gear as another does on 5th if the rear ends are accordingly geared.

My Fusion is practically close in overdrive to what my S10 pickup (or Ranger pickup) was in 4th gear. Adjusting the Fusion ratios to what the S10 has, overdrive in the Fusion would be a 0.96 ratio in the S10. That is why the Fusion turns around 3000 rpm at 70 in OD and the S10 (well no tach, but Ranger same ratios) turns 2700.

[potownrob]

It would be interesting to understand the basis for the mechanic saying that "Fram is Crap".

I do know on bobistheoilguy.com they all concluded that basic Frams are crap. Not sure how, some took them apart, etc. I generally use Wix or Motorcraft, occasionally Hastings, Baldwin, Feetguard.

You would need to do a controlled, long-term study on a fleet of vehicles before you could say that a given brand of filter was allowing more damage to engines than another brand of filter did. Even then, it might be that a difference only showed for folks driving daily on dirt roads, or for certain, maybe highly-stressed engine designs, or for folks whose driving style tended to never get into filter by-pass mode.

This mechanic is full of baloney. I was naming off smaller cars we might consider for my daughter and every time I named one, he replied, "Throwaway Car." One day, we got to discussing manual transmission ratios and he insisted that all manual transmissions have the 1:1 ratio in 3rd gear and that it so they can put them on the dyno. They guy seems like a moron. All 3-speed manuals have 1:1 in third, but any 4 speed or 5 speed or even 6 speed it is 4th that is 1:1. There may be exceptions but it would be rare IMO.

halve ewe con sidered getting a knew macan nick, ore at least try ying another won? hey, he might be a good mechanic, just dumb in certain regards, ore he could be bad and you have just gotten luck key sew far.

[potownrob]

It would be interesting to understand the basis for the mechanic saying that "Fram is Crap".

You would need to do a controlled, long-term study on a fleet of vehicles before you could say that a given brand of filter was allowing more damage to engines than another brand of filter did. Even then, it might be that a difference only showed for folks driving daily on dirt roads, or for certain, maybe highly-stressed engine designs, or for folks whose driving style tended to never get into filter by-pass mode.

it might halve a Lot to dew whiff the filters' apparent construction back in the day. the orange once eye used to use definitely looked cheaply made; the rubber grip (which usually made it easier to remove them without a filtre wrench) and low price kept me buying them. eye sometimes ran the premium fram filtres and remember them looking better made. eye know there was some (understatement) debate about the fram filters over on that BITOG site, but eye forget if there was any real concrete evidence of the filtres being bad, other than how they looked compared to other more reputable filtres. eye also remember at one pointe (ore too?) starting to buy the advance auto parts store brand filtres (pure one?) whenever there was a sale or they were otherwise reasonably priced.

[ClutchFork]

For earl filters I look for these features:

metal core inside the pleats. They came out with e-core maybe a decade ago, which was a plastic cage with big openings, presumably to save metal, which may be the same reason they went to the canister filters.

Ford spec style bypass valve. Motorcraft and some ofhers have the bypass in the threaded end, which IMO is superior to the bypass in the dome end of the can where the bypassing oil gets to flow over the dirty filter element and pick up debris before routing back, unfiltered, to the engine.

I like to see 4 turns of threads in the mount. Some only have three turns. I figure if you can get 4 they why settle for less.

There also is a style of threads, rolled vs cut or something, and one may be better than the other. It is discussed here:
http://www.hastingsfilter.com/Literature/TSB/94-3R2.pdf
I have seen filters with this: "the crest of rolled threads have a concave shape due to the flow of the metal." Rolled is stronger the article says, so that is something else to look for.

There is a whole boatload of these tech service bulletins that you may find helpful:
http://www.hastingsfilter.com/Resources ... reTSB.html

[watkins]

This mechanic is full of baloney. I was naming off smaller cars we might consider for my daughter and every time I named one, he replied, "Throwaway Car." One day, we got to discussing manual transmission ratios and he insisted that all manual transmissions have the 1:1 ratio in 3rd gear and that it so they can put them on the dyno. They guy seems like a moron. All 3-speed manuals have 1:1 in third, but any 4 speed or 5 speed or even 6 speed it is 4th that is 1:1. There may be exceptions but it would be rare IMO.

Some cars are throwaway cars by default. Doesn't make them bad cars. Our '11 Mazda 2 is a throwaway car. Yet it has 146k miles and has been nearly trouble free. Jeep Compass/Patriot and Dodge Caliber are absolute garbage throwaway cars. And yet the Jeep MK with AWD, a manual, and no sunroof is also one of the best products to come out of a Mopar plant.

My 5 speed doesn't have a direct drive. Three under, two over.

[ClutchFork]

My 5 speed doesn't have a direct drive. Three under, two over.

That is interesting because I always thought the direct drive is the most robust ratio in mechanical durability. Also it is like a freeby gear ratio as it does not require as much parts, no? Or is it actually simpler to not have direct drive?

I see the 6-speed does not have direct drive:

First Gear Ratio (:1)
4.15
Second Gear Ratio (:1)
2.37
Third Gear Ratio (:1)
1.56
Fourth Gear Ratio (:1)
1.16
Fifth Gear Ratio (:1)
0.86
Sixth Gear Ratio (:1)
0.69

https://www.caranddriver.com/saab/9-5/specs


But maybe it would be even better to have ALL gears under and then change the axle ratio accordingly.

[Rope-Pusher]

My 5 speed doesn't have a direct drive. Three under, two over.

That is interesting because I always thought the direct drive is the most robust ratio in mechanical durability. Also it is like a freeby gear ratio as it does not require as much parts, no? Or is it actually simpler to not have direct drive?

I see the 6-speed does not have direct drive:

First Gear Ratio (:1)
4.15
Second Gear Ratio (:1)
2.37
Third Gear Ratio (:1)
1.56
Fourth Gear Ratio (:1)
1.16
Fifth Gear Ratio (:1)
0.86
Sixth Gear Ratio (:1)
0.69

https://www.caranddriver.com/saab/9-5/specs


But maybe it would be even better to have ALL gears under and then change the axle ratio accordingly.

I think when you get into designing the transmission, you probably want to optimize for strength, noise, size, and efficiency. I'm thinking that having two overdrive ratios, a higher final drive ratio, and lower ratios for 1st-thru-1:1 gear maybe works to be a better compromise than 1:1 top gear, a lower final drive ratio, and higher ratios for the lower gears. (Higher and lower here are with respect to the mechanical ratios - 2:1 is a lower ratio than 4:1)