L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

You may kiss your Ruby warranty good-bye then:
http://www.----------.com/lubeschedule.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Lloyd Hanning wrote:
>
> Yeah, Skip, my perception is that the name brand filters are the way to go.
> The key word here is PERCEPTION. I don't have any data to support that.
> Speaking of oil:
> When I bought my '78 Cherokee w/258 new, I drove it home, drained the oil
> and put Mobile one in it. Every 1000 miles I would take off the filter, pour
> what I could from the filter back into the crankcase, then put on a new
> filter and top off the oil. It now has ~ 130K miles on it. Hard, stop and go
> miles. I replaced the lifters a few years ago and that was the only time
> I've ever changed the oil. The valve train was SPOTLESS, no sludge, no
> nothing, just a light coating of Mobile one. I just ordered an '04 Rubicon,
> and am thinking of using the same procedure with that.
>
> Lloyd
>
> <Skip> wrote in message news:bvelcn02e8o@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Last oil change, I put on a Fram Toughguard filter. As I understand, it
> > holds oil back in the filter?
> >
> > What I've noticed, is that it seems to hold oil back in the block as well,
> > which should be a good thing.
> >
> > I just did another oil change and it seems like the oil does not drain
> back
> > down into the pan immediately agfter shutting the engine down?
> >
> > Makes it tough to check the oil level with the dipstick...
> >
> > What experience have you guys had with this filter?
> >
> > --
> > Skip
> >
> >
> >

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

You may kiss your Ruby warranty good-bye then:
http://www.----------.com/lubeschedule.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Lloyd Hanning wrote:
>
> Yeah, Skip, my perception is that the name brand filters are the way to go.
> The key word here is PERCEPTION. I don't have any data to support that.
> Speaking of oil:
> When I bought my '78 Cherokee w/258 new, I drove it home, drained the oil
> and put Mobile one in it. Every 1000 miles I would take off the filter, pour
> what I could from the filter back into the crankcase, then put on a new
> filter and top off the oil. It now has ~ 130K miles on it. Hard, stop and go
> miles. I replaced the lifters a few years ago and that was the only time
> I've ever changed the oil. The valve train was SPOTLESS, no sludge, no
> nothing, just a light coating of Mobile one. I just ordered an '04 Rubicon,
> and am thinking of using the same procedure with that.
>
> Lloyd
>
> <Skip> wrote in message news:bvelcn02e8o@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Last oil change, I put on a Fram Toughguard filter. As I understand, it
> > holds oil back in the filter?
> >
> > What I've noticed, is that it seems to hold oil back in the block as well,
> > which should be a good thing.
> >
> > I just did another oil change and it seems like the oil does not drain
> back
> > down into the pan immediately agfter shutting the engine down?
> >
> > Makes it tough to check the oil level with the dipstick...
> >
> > What experience have you guys had with this filter?
> >
> > --
> > Skip
> >
> >
> >

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

You may kiss your Ruby warranty good-bye then:
http://www.----------.com/lubeschedule.pdf
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Lloyd Hanning wrote:
>
> Yeah, Skip, my perception is that the name brand filters are the way to go.
> The key word here is PERCEPTION. I don't have any data to support that.
> Speaking of oil:
> When I bought my '78 Cherokee w/258 new, I drove it home, drained the oil
> and put Mobile one in it. Every 1000 miles I would take off the filter, pour
> what I could from the filter back into the crankcase, then put on a new
> filter and top off the oil. It now has ~ 130K miles on it. Hard, stop and go
> miles. I replaced the lifters a few years ago and that was the only time
> I've ever changed the oil. The valve train was SPOTLESS, no sludge, no
> nothing, just a light coating of Mobile one. I just ordered an '04 Rubicon,
> and am thinking of using the same procedure with that.
>
> Lloyd
>
> <Skip> wrote in message news:bvelcn02e8o@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > Last oil change, I put on a Fram Toughguard filter. As I understand, it
> > holds oil back in the filter?
> >
> > What I've noticed, is that it seems to hold oil back in the block as well,
> > which should be a good thing.
> >
> > I just did another oil change and it seems like the oil does not drain
> back
> > down into the pan immediately agfter shutting the engine down?
> >
> > Makes it tough to check the oil level with the dipstick...
> >
> > What experience have you guys had with this filter?
> >
> > --
> > Skip
> >
> >
> >

Simon Juncal

Mike Romain wrote:
> Well, you said it...
>
> You had a dead engine before 100 K miles.
>
> Most folks get 200 to 300K before they have to do engine work on the
> 258's or 4.0's.
>
> Your method obviously doesn't work at all....

I would definitely not go with his method either. Mobil 1 is cheap
enough these days ($18 for a 5 quart jug at wal-mart, or approximately
twice as much at bargain price dino oil). And no matter how good the oil
is the filter is bound to miss or reintroduce some stuff. That said:

> Oil builds up contaminants from combustion and needs to be changed on a
> regular schedule no matter how fancy the oil....

I'm not an oil expert but I did do a lot of reading on synthetics in
preparation to recommending them (or not) to be used in the fleet
vehicles of the company I work for.

As I understand it pure synthetics like Mobil 1 do not have the same
sort of interaction that dino oil does in the combustion chamber, it
never gets the "varnish" that eventually turns into sludge. In addition
it is extremely good as devolving away any sludge that already exists
(if you're putting it in an engine that is already sludged up).
Basically dino oil no matter how well it's refined has organic matter
that burns at combustion temps, the oil traps it and most of it is too
small to get filtered eventually like sediment it ends up in nooks and
crannies, and you eventually get clogged oil galleys sludged up valves
etc. Synthetics don't produce the combustion by products in the first place.

However it does have additives that become less effective over time just
like dino oil, and that is why it's generally recommended to change it
and the filter at normal 3000 miles intervals, even though it may look
just as clear as the day you put it in there.

It is also considered much better for hard driving (towing and off-road)
tends to leave a good layer of oil on parts that dino oil drains off of
faster (in terms of start up friction). This is supposedly where pure
synthetics add most of their wear reduction benefit. It has a much lower
friction coefficient at startup and remains much slicker while warming
up until more is pulled up and is flowing into all the vital spots.

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Simon Juncal

Mike Romain wrote:
> Well, you said it...
>
> You had a dead engine before 100 K miles.
>
> Most folks get 200 to 300K before they have to do engine work on the
> 258's or 4.0's.
>
> Your method obviously doesn't work at all....

I would definitely not go with his method either. Mobil 1 is cheap
enough these days ($18 for a 5 quart jug at wal-mart, or approximately
twice as much at bargain price dino oil). And no matter how good the oil
is the filter is bound to miss or reintroduce some stuff. That said:

> Oil builds up contaminants from combustion and needs to be changed on a
> regular schedule no matter how fancy the oil....

I'm not an oil expert but I did do a lot of reading on synthetics in
preparation to recommending them (or not) to be used in the fleet
vehicles of the company I work for.

As I understand it pure synthetics like Mobil 1 do not have the same
sort of interaction that dino oil does in the combustion chamber, it
never gets the "varnish" that eventually turns into sludge. In addition
it is extremely good as devolving away any sludge that already exists
(if you're putting it in an engine that is already sludged up).
Basically dino oil no matter how well it's refined has organic matter
that burns at combustion temps, the oil traps it and most of it is too
small to get filtered eventually like sediment it ends up in nooks and
crannies, and you eventually get clogged oil galleys sludged up valves
etc. Synthetics don't produce the combustion by products in the first place.

However it does have additives that become less effective over time just
like dino oil, and that is why it's generally recommended to change it
and the filter at normal 3000 miles intervals, even though it may look
just as clear as the day you put it in there.

It is also considered much better for hard driving (towing and off-road)
tends to leave a good layer of oil on parts that dino oil drains off of
faster (in terms of start up friction). This is supposedly where pure
synthetics add most of their wear reduction benefit. It has a much lower
friction coefficient at startup and remains much slicker while warming
up until more is pulled up and is flowing into all the vital spots.

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Simon Juncal

Mike Romain wrote:
> Well, you said it...
>
> You had a dead engine before 100 K miles.
>
> Most folks get 200 to 300K before they have to do engine work on the
> 258's or 4.0's.
>
> Your method obviously doesn't work at all....

I would definitely not go with his method either. Mobil 1 is cheap
enough these days ($18 for a 5 quart jug at wal-mart, or approximately
twice as much at bargain price dino oil). And no matter how good the oil
is the filter is bound to miss or reintroduce some stuff. That said:

> Oil builds up contaminants from combustion and needs to be changed on a
> regular schedule no matter how fancy the oil....

I'm not an oil expert but I did do a lot of reading on synthetics in
preparation to recommending them (or not) to be used in the fleet
vehicles of the company I work for.

As I understand it pure synthetics like Mobil 1 do not have the same
sort of interaction that dino oil does in the combustion chamber, it
never gets the "varnish" that eventually turns into sludge. In addition
it is extremely good as devolving away any sludge that already exists
(if you're putting it in an engine that is already sludged up).
Basically dino oil no matter how well it's refined has organic matter
that burns at combustion temps, the oil traps it and most of it is too
small to get filtered eventually like sediment it ends up in nooks and
crannies, and you eventually get clogged oil galleys sludged up valves
etc. Synthetics don't produce the combustion by products in the first place.

However it does have additives that become less effective over time just
like dino oil, and that is why it's generally recommended to change it
and the filter at normal 3000 miles intervals, even though it may look
just as clear as the day you put it in there.

It is also considered much better for hard driving (towing and off-road)
tends to leave a good layer of oil on parts that dino oil drains off of
faster (in terms of start up friction). This is supposedly where pure
synthetics add most of their wear reduction benefit. It has a much lower
friction coefficient at startup and remains much slicker while warming
up until more is pulled up and is flowing into all the vital spots.

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Rich Hampel

Virtually ALL the automotive market filters are IDENTICAL in retention
performance. Its not the fancy paint job on the canister nor the
marketing hype that retains particulate but the resinated filtration
media inside the filter. Since ALL filter manufacturers PURCHASE the
filter media from essentially the SAME paper mills (depending on the
best price at the time) how can there be any difference?

If the filtration media is essentially the same, the ONLY functional
difference of importance is the **internal surface area of the filter
media**. So.... if you want the BEST filter, buy the LARGEST
(cheapest) filter that will fit. .... and change it often.

All the automotive filter comparisons on the 'web' are quite
'laughable' on a technical basis and do not compare actual particullate
performance nor retention ability. If you want the BEST, buy the
LARGEST that will fit, but cheap and often.

This is recirculation filtration (if the particle doesnt get trapped
the first time, it will get captured the next pass or the next, etc.
etc. etc.. If you had enough volume or surface area, you could use
compressed pubic hair as the filtration media to do the exact same
retention job.!!!!!!!!!!

respectfully submitted by a 'filtration' engineer.

Rich Hampel

Virtually ALL the automotive market filters are IDENTICAL in retention
performance. Its not the fancy paint job on the canister nor the
marketing hype that retains particulate but the resinated filtration
media inside the filter. Since ALL filter manufacturers PURCHASE the
filter media from essentially the SAME paper mills (depending on the
best price at the time) how can there be any difference?

If the filtration media is essentially the same, the ONLY functional
difference of importance is the **internal surface area of the filter
media**. So.... if you want the BEST filter, buy the LARGEST
(cheapest) filter that will fit. .... and change it often.

All the automotive filter comparisons on the 'web' are quite
'laughable' on a technical basis and do not compare actual particullate
performance nor retention ability. If you want the BEST, buy the
LARGEST that will fit, but cheap and often.

This is recirculation filtration (if the particle doesnt get trapped
the first time, it will get captured the next pass or the next, etc.
etc. etc.. If you had enough volume or surface area, you could use
compressed pubic hair as the filtration media to do the exact same
retention job.!!!!!!!!!!

respectfully submitted by a 'filtration' engineer.

Rich Hampel

Virtually ALL the automotive market filters are IDENTICAL in retention
performance. Its not the fancy paint job on the canister nor the
marketing hype that retains particulate but the resinated filtration
media inside the filter. Since ALL filter manufacturers PURCHASE the
filter media from essentially the SAME paper mills (depending on the
best price at the time) how can there be any difference?

If the filtration media is essentially the same, the ONLY functional
difference of importance is the **internal surface area of the filter
media**. So.... if you want the BEST filter, buy the LARGEST
(cheapest) filter that will fit. .... and change it often.

All the automotive filter comparisons on the 'web' are quite
'laughable' on a technical basis and do not compare actual particullate
performance nor retention ability. If you want the BEST, buy the
LARGEST that will fit, but cheap and often.

This is recirculation filtration (if the particle doesnt get trapped
the first time, it will get captured the next pass or the next, etc.
etc. etc.. If you had enough volume or surface area, you could use
compressed pubic hair as the filtration media to do the exact same
retention job.!!!!!!!!!!

respectfully submitted by a 'filtration' engineer.

Rich Hampel

Not to pick on anyone in particular on this value NG but..........

Cummins and other engine manufacturers dont make filters, they buy
private branded filters made by one of the several filter mills. The
filter manufacturers dont make the filter media, they buy the filter
media from one of few paper mills that make resinated paper filter
media.
All the **hype*** about which is best filter is unfortunate nonsense
when comparing true particle retention and efficiency. I offer that the
'websites' offering filter compariosn are probably established by slick
marketing types who want to steer you towards their particular client
by reinforcing you gullibility to 'brand loyalty'.

Especially in a recirculation filtration mode such an oil recirc. in an
engine, the faster, larger, cheaper (which you change more often)
filter will do the BEST job.

just an observation of a filtration engineer.


In article <401e7f16_3@corp.newsgroups.com>, ROK KRLR
<neb9073@inetnebr.com> wrote:

> Only Fleetguard on my '00 TJ. Although most people have never heard of
> it, it is in my opinon the only filter worthy of putting on my Jeep.
> It's only available at OEM truck and heavy duty equipment dealers. The
> thing that impressess me is that the filter is manufactured by Cummins
> and speaking with a sales rep (for what that's worth) I was told that
> when the filter specs, for instance indicate 1 micron filtration,
> Fleetguard means for the life of the filter, not just first or second
> pass. As far as price they are more expensive then most but like an old
> Fram ad said "pay me now, or pay me later."
>
> Skip wrote:
>
> >Last oil change, I put on a Fram Toughguard filter. As I understand, it
> >holds oil back in the filter?
> >
> >What I've noticed, is that it seems to hold oil back in the block as well,
> >which should be a good thing.
> >
> >I just did another oil change and it seems like the oil does not drain back
> >down into the pan immediately agfter shutting the engine down?
> >
> >Makes it tough to check the oil level with the dipstick...
> >
> >What experience have you guys had with this filter?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----