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! =-----

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! =-----

Rich Hampel

May I suggest a 'better way'

1. sludge/varnish removal: Drain dino oil, fill crankcase with "Marvel
Mystery OIl", run at no load for short period of time, shut down and
let 'soak' for 8 hours, drain and save MMO. Fill with dino oil and
add 5-10% MMO to crankcase oil.

2. Add MMO to fuel to eliminate carbon build up in ring grooves - 'top
oil' the engine.

3. Cold Start wear: Install a pressure oiler.

Rich Hampel

May I suggest a 'better way'

1. sludge/varnish removal: Drain dino oil, fill crankcase with "Marvel
Mystery OIl", run at no load for short period of time, shut down and
let 'soak' for 8 hours, drain and save MMO. Fill with dino oil and
add 5-10% MMO to crankcase oil.

2. Add MMO to fuel to eliminate carbon build up in ring grooves - 'top
oil' the engine.

3. Cold Start wear: Install a pressure oiler.

Rich Hampel

May I suggest a 'better way'

1. sludge/varnish removal: Drain dino oil, fill crankcase with "Marvel
Mystery OIl", run at no load for short period of time, shut down and
let 'soak' for 8 hours, drain and save MMO. Fill with dino oil and
add 5-10% MMO to crankcase oil.

2. Add MMO to fuel to eliminate carbon build up in ring grooves - 'top
oil' the engine.

3. Cold Start wear: Install a pressure oiler.

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

Quality control plays no part in your comparison? The filter
surfaces sure as heck doesn't look the same:
http://www.----------.com/mirror/filters1.gif You're the first
"engineer" I've read that didn't deal in facts, makes me wonder.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> 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.

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

Quality control plays no part in your comparison? The filter
surfaces sure as heck doesn't look the same:
http://www.----------.com/mirror/filters1.gif You're the first
"engineer" I've read that didn't deal in facts, makes me wonder.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> 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.

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

Quality control plays no part in your comparison? The filter
surfaces sure as heck doesn't look the same:
http://www.----------.com/mirror/filters1.gif You're the first
"engineer" I've read that didn't deal in facts, makes me wonder.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> 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.

Guest

Hmm--

Ok are we saying here that it's ok to use a filter other than the mfg
recommended number as long as it's larger and the threads and size match?

--
Skip


"Rich Hampel" <RhmpL33@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:020220041603468492%RhmpL33@nospam.net...
> 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.

Guest

Hmm--

Ok are we saying here that it's ok to use a filter other than the mfg
recommended number as long as it's larger and the threads and size match?

--
Skip


"Rich Hampel" <RhmpL33@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:020220041603468492%RhmpL33@nospam.net...
> 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.