Archived defecive Fram oil filter

[jammin38]

how's it goin', fellers



not too good for me. i got a '98 ram 3500 with a cratered powerplant. i always used mopar oil filters until i had my oil changed at a tire store while they rotated my tires. 2 days later, while pulling a 24' enclosed through the rockies, i lost a ton of power. upon engine removal and dissassembly, found the #4 oil squirter tube clogged and laying in the bottom of the oil pan. Fram/Honeywell wants to see the filter, which is no problem, but said any decisions they make will be final. any suggestions?

 

[lgibson]

Sorry to hear about your truck. I always go to Wal-mart to get my oil change and always brought a Mopar filter with me. Last time I was there, they had posted the only filters they would use with the CTD is the Mopar, Fleetguard, or Shell. All others would void the warrenty. I don't know why these other filters are still on the market.



I can't really help you out with your question but I am sure someone on this site can. There are a lot of very imformative people here and the Fram oil filters debate has been going on for some time. I think someone should get Fram to amit fault, they should have know that this has been going on how could the not.

 

[moparguy]

Sorry to hear about your bad luck. No point in talking about proper filters at this point, here are my thoughts on what to do now.



First of all, I'm not a lawyer, so please don't consider this to be legal advise. Having offered the disclaimer, I'd have the damaged engine checked over by a certified Cummins shop. I'd ask for a failure analysis that they would stand behind.



All communication with Fram, Cummins and the shop that did the oil change would be via certified mail and I'd set up a file with copies of all correspondance along with pictures of the damage. I'd also start a diary with very detailed notes on what was said anytime I talked with some from Cummins, the tire store or Fram.



I'd ask that a independant lab assist Fram with the filter inspection. Once the filter is out of your sight, who knows what will happen with it. They may say it was fine, who knows.



This is a lot of trouble, but very necessary in my experiance.



Also, none of us like to deal with lawyers, but sometimes they can get things done just from the power of there letterhead.



If I needed to finish my trip, I'd go for a rental Dodge Cummins the equal of what you had, finish my buisness, and bill who ever accepts responsibliity for your troubles.



One bit of good news, I have heard of others that were treated fairly by Fram in circumstances similar to yours.



Good luck, Ronnie

 

[illflem]

Fram filters may not work good in our application but they stand behind their warranty. I have personally known two people and have heard of a few others who's engines were ruined by a failed Fram. Their engines were repaired at no cost to them, no lawyers involved. They won't pay any inconsequential damages such as a ruined vacation or rental car, still better than nothing. If it was a failed Mopar filter I'll bet you wouldn't get anything out of DC.

 

[HEMI®Dart]

Jammin,



You are not the first to have a Fram Oil Filter cause engine damage.



See here: https://www.turbodieselregister.com...id=54562&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

 

[Extreme1]

Welcome to the TDR. Sorry to hear about your truck and trip.



Let them have the filter, keep the plugged squirter. The material in there will be abe to be identified if necessary. I would keep accurate recordsf communications. If they don't hand carry the filter I'd insure it for the cost of the repair, but I'm not lucky...



Good luck.

 

[Joel Richards]

I'm pretty sure that I saw your engine a few weeks ago. Pretty nasty indeed. Sorry to hear about the problem.



There is an oil company in Denver called Siegel Oil. They are an independent lab, and convenient to the shop the engine is at (if I'm right in my assumption). I'm pretty sure that they can do the ananysis that would be needed for your situation.



When I managed a quick-change oil shop, we had to do it a few times (replace engines). At that shop, we were ultimately responsible for any problems, because we chose to use a certain brand (at the time, Purolator) and our agreement with the vendor was to not hold them responsible for any failures. You may have recourse against the shop if Fram doesn't stand behind their product, but I'm not sure - just something to think about



PM me if you want more info.



HTH

Joel

 

[HerbW]

What about K & N filters?

Has there been any K & N oil filter failures? I had switched to them recently and they seem to do good. Let me know. I'll switch back to another if that's the case! My local dealer only stocks Mopar filters and they didn't look that impressive. Kinda lightweight built. Could they be selling me a gasoline engine filter? Good info in this discussion here. Thanks, Herb

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by lgibson

Sorry to hear about your truck. I always go to Wal-mart to get my oil change and always brought a Mopar filter with me. Last time I was there, they had posted the only filters they would use with the CTD is the Mopar, Fleetguard, or Shell. All others would void the warrenty. I don't know why these other filters are still on the market.

I dont know how legal this is. If they limit you to certain brands, I'm told that they have to provide you with free filters.

The law states that (loosely quoted) "if a specific brand is written, they have to provide it free, otherwise it's illegal to mention specific brands. "

Please dont take this as a flame, it's just the way I was told the law is.

I know all of us want to take the best care of our vehicles.

Eric

 

[Shovelhead]

Patriot, I think they were refering to the owner's manual, or the vehicle manufacturer trying to state that ONLY their brand of filters, widgets whatever could be used with out voiding your warranty.

 

[The patriot]

I believe that's the way the law is written.

If they state any brand to use, and if you dont it will "void the warranty", they have to provide that part for free.

Not trying to start a flame war or anything, and we all want to take the best care of our trucks, but that's the way the law is written from what I'm told. ???

I dunno... . maybe I'm wrong.

Eric

 

[illflem]

That's the way I also understand it. Sure wish Cummins was handing out free filters. They must not feel it matters that much which type of filter you use because the cost of performing filter related warranty claims is less than the cost of free filters.

 

[Shovelhead]

Eric,

I think we're saying the same thing..... But his post said that Walmart put up the sign stating what they would or wouldn't use.

I'm wondering how Wally-World decides D/C's warranty is voided?

Maybe they're just abiding by the TSB that D/C put out a couple of months ago.



.

 

[Steve St.Laurent]

I can't seem to find the document but I had a copy of it at some point. I believe the law states that if a manufacturer states only one manufacturer of a maintenance item that they have to provide it for free. However, even given that it doesn't seem to be enforced because I was forced in the past to buy GM Syncromesh fluid for the 5 speed in S-10 at $30+ a quart and GM sure didn't buy it. The paper from Dodge as I remember it gave at least 3 different recommended manufacturers that you can buy from. The problem with the Fram filters is that they can come apart and plug cooling nozzles. If that's the problem then Dodge/Cummins will send you to Fram to get your engine fixed. Which IMO is exactly what they should do, they should be responsible for another manufacturers bad filter. They still can't automatically void your warranty because of using that filter - but if they've experience failures in the past and can show that it's the filter you ran that caused your failure they shouldn't have to pay for it.

 

[merryman]

The Federal Statute referred to is the Magnuson-Moss (think I got that in correct), Act is actually fairly narrow in application; it probably has no application in any situation such as the Wal Mart policy referred to but applies only where a manufacturer such as DC says to an owner of a DC product, "you must use ONLY DC's filter, or your warranty will be voided".

It does not apply where DC says "Use only filters meeting xyz specifications", nor would it apply if DC says "we recommend that you use only filters x. y or z. " assuming x y and z are not all DC products.



Vaughn

 

[Bob Cochran]

Would this then apply to 6-speed transmission oil??

 

[Joel Richards]

Originally posted by merryman

The Federal Statute referred to is the Magnuson-Moss (think I got that in correct), Act is actually fairly narrow in application; it probably has no application in any situation such as the Wal Mart policy referred to but applies only where a manufacturer such as DC says to an owner of a DC product, "you must use ONLY DC's filter, or your warranty will be voided".

It does not apply where DC says "Use only filters meeting xyz specifications", nor would it apply if DC says "we recommend that you use only filters x. y or z. " assuming x y and z are not all DC products.

Vaughn, you are absolutely correct. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty – Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1975 states that (this is the actual language of the act):



"No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this sub-section may be waived by the Commission if



1. the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and



2. the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.



The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of any action brought by the Attorney General (in his capacity as such), or by the Commission by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, to restrain (A) any warrantor from making a deceptive warranty with respect to a consumer product, or (B) any person from failing to comply with any requirement imposed on such person or pursuant to this chapter or from violating any prohibition contained in this chapter. "



It's a large document, but basically what this means is that under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act, a vehicle manufacturer may not make its vehicle warranty conditional on the use of any brand unless the manufacturer provides the product free of charge or the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has specifically published that only the vehicle manufacturer’s product may be used.



I have also heard that the product(s) in question have to be priced above $25 for the act to be taken into consideration, but I have not been able to verify this.



HTH

Joel

 

[JR2]

HERE is the TSB on oil filters.....

 

[merryman]

The the Law in question is of very difficult application even where it squarely covers a loss.

Lets say your engine blows up and DC says no warranty coverage because you were using brand "F" oil filter and its failure caused the engine damage. You go to brand "F" company and tell them DC says their filter caused the destruction of your engine and you want them to buy you a replacement engine. The nice folks at brand "F" tell you that those people at DC don't know what they are talking about; the brand "F" filter did not cause the damage.

Where does that leave you?

If you are going to try to collect from one of them, you call all sorts of governmental agencys and they will all tell you the same thing; this is a civil matter for you to resolve in the courts.

You ask DC and the folks at brand F to meet you in court to resolve it and what will they do? ignor you completely.



Now what can you do?

You go see your lawyer and explain the situation to him.

He/she being no dummy, thinks,"HHMMM, this guy wants me to take on two huge corporations. That should tie me up for the next two or three years and take about 500 hours of my time, and cost about $5000. in expenses". (It would be dumb to sue only one of them as at trial they would convincingly point the finger at the other guy and try to convince the jury that you have a great case, its just that its against the other company; that is a very easy thing to sell a jury on)

So friendly lawyer, liking to pay his office rent, the mortgage on his house, the payment on his and his wifes car, not to mention office staff etc, etc, says to you.

"why, I would be delighted to take your case and I will get started on it just as soon as you post a small retainer with me of , oh, lets say $7500. to start and then you can make payments as we go along".

The reality is that the federal law as nice as it sounds, means little to most of us.

It is very much simpler and safer to use the approved filters, fluids etc rather than to rely on what is largly "pie in the sky". The liklyhood of one of us enforcing that law is slim to none-----unless you really are ready and able to put up more than you are likely to ever recover just on the principal of the thing, that is it would be cheaper to just take your ten grand and go buy a new engine.





P. S.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I have been there and done that as a lawyer. In the mid 60's I recoverd $25,000 (that was a significant recovery in the 60's)from a major drug manufacturer for a nice elderly lady, and found that, when I had paid all the expenses involved in that kind of law suit, and deducted my agreed fee ( my fee was to be nothing unless I recovered something in which case I would be out all my time and office expenses and she would pay all other expenses of the law suit, but if we recovered something, I would take 1/3 after deducting all non office expenses)

After deducting the non-office expenses, I made about minimum wages and she got very little.

Vaughn