Here I am

Paper Towel Oil filter

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

New D-Box from Superchips?

Which Fender Flares?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello, this is Deborah. I wanted to clarify something to Mr. Park, and to all the other fine readers of this web page. The purpose of the Frantz Oil Cleaner/Filter is to Clean your Oil!:D Once the oil in your engine system is cleaned, the Frantz will continue to keep it clean. :cool: Technically, the Frantz Units were originally invented as an Oil Cleaner. By keeping the oil in your engine system clean all of the time, the wear and tear on your engine is reduced, because the dirt, soot, particulates and water are removed from your oil. It has been a known fact that there are four functions your oil is supposed to provide for your engine.



The 1st function is to Seal. Oil Seals, by creating a seal between the moving piston rings and the cylinder walls and also between the valve stems and the valve guides. This sealing action keeps the oil out of the combustion chamber and the products of combustion out of the oil. The better the seal, the more power is transmitted to your crankshaft, and the greater the engine's efficiency becomes.



The 2nd function is to Cool. Temperatures in the combustion chamber range between 2,000 degrees F. and 3,000 degrees F. The water in the engine block carries away much of this heat, but if it were not for the oil which cools the cylinder walls and the pistons, yourengine would run red hot and ultimately not function at all. In addition to cooling the cylinders and pistons, it carries heat away from the bearings, valves and other moving parts of the engine.



The 3rd function is to Clean. One of oil's basic functions is to keep your engine clean. Carbon deposits are constantly being formed on cylinder walls (this build-up can be much more rapid in improperly tuned or poorly functioning engines). The piston rings which move on a thin film of oil, tend to remove these deposits in a squeege-like action just as a wiper blade removes the accumulated road grime from your windshield when it rains. These carbon deposits that are removed fall right back into the oil pan. That is why and how your oil gets dirty and where the theory of needing to change your oil often came from. When you want to wash the dirt out of your clothes, how well do you think they will get cleaned if you use dirty water? NOT! The same theory applies to your engine; if you want to clean the carbon from the cylinder walls of your engine you will get better results from using clean oil for 2,000-3,000 miles than by using dirty oil. Clean oil will remove the carbon and dirt better than dirty oil will, it's just plain common sense! :rolleyes:



The 4th and final function of the oil is to Lubricate. Maintaining proper lubrication is important for the efficient operation of an internal combustion engine. Oil as a lubricant decreases the power required to overcome friction and reduces wear between rubbing and bearing surfaces. Proper lubrication results in increased power and longer engine life. In theory, if oil were kept 100% clean, and if adequate oil pressure were maintained at all times, there would always be a thin film of oil between the bearings and journals; and with no contaminants present, there would be nothing to cause wear.



Of all the physical and chemical properties that an oil may have, it is generally agreed that the characteristic called viscosity is the most important. All other things being equal, it is the viscosity that determines the friction loss, heat generation, mechanicalefficiency, load carrying capacity, film thickness, lubricant flow and in many cases wear. The viscosity of an oil is a measure of its fluid resistence to flow and is regarded as its internal or fluid friction. The degree of contamination can be an important determinant of viscosity and can adversely affect the lubricating properties of oil.



ONLY CLEAN OIL CAN PROPERLY PERFORM THESE FOUR VITAL FUNCTIONS!



All automotive and lubrication authorities agree that clean oil performs these functions better than dirty oil. That's the primary reason for filtering engine oil... to keep it clean. You can do so continuously by installing a Frantz Oil Cleaner/Filter on every vehicle you own or plan to own! :cool: :D :cool: :D



(Quoted from "Facts You Should Know About Oil Filtration" by the Frantz Filter Company, 1975).
 
Originally posted by Frantz Filters

Hello, this is Deborah. I wanted to clarify something to Mr. Park, and to all the other fine readers of this web page. The purpose of the Frantz Oil Cleaner/Filter is to Clean your Oil




That was a good post Deborah, but I'm not sure what you were attempting to "clarify" for me. What was it exactly about which you thought I was in error?



Do you think a better test exists for determining the effectiveness of a bypass filter than an ISO particle count? If so, what is it?



The link below is to an SAE J1858 filtration test run on an Oilguard bypass filter. Check out the graph and you'll see that the Oilguard has a single-pass efficiency of 92% on particles as small as 2 microns. The double-pass efficiency of the Oilguard is over 99%. This test was run by Fluid Technologies, a firm with national (if not international) recognition. The test method is described and the results clearly explained.



http://www.oilguard.com/side_menu/bypass_filtration/independent_laboratory_test_page.htm



You once issued an emotion-laden challenge to "put my money where my mouth is. " I explained that I had done exactly that by buying the Oilguard filter. Oilguard has also done the same by having the above test performed. I bet that testing wasn't cheap. Has We-Filter-It done the same with the Frantz filter? Tell me exactly, using your favorite brand of TP, what is the single-pass efficiency of your filter at 2 microns? What is your dual-pass efficiency at the same particle size? If you can't tell me this then all you're doing is blowing smoke.



Another gentleman here gave an anecdotal example of your father's demonstration apparatus which utilized carbon black. I'd hardly call that conclusive evidence since we have no idea of the particle size of the particular carbon black that he used.



My engineering professors used to call a sloppy mathematical construct "hand-waving. " Without knowing your single and dual-pass efficiencies and relying on anecdotal evidence, I'd say you are engaging in some serious hand waving.



Let me "clarify" and summarize my last three postings, the ones you though needed "clarification:"



Point 1

An oil analysis will not DIRECTLY tell you how well a bypass filter is performing. An ISO particle count is the best method for determining this but the SAE method described above has a lot of value as well. A demonstration using carbon black of unknown particle size is of even less value.



Point 2

The only thing an oil analysis will tell you is if your engine oil has a smaller or larger concentration of wear metals than your last oil analysis. The desired result, of course, is less wear metals which presumably is the result of bypass filtration, all other factors being equal.



Point 3

As you said above (obviously), the purpose of a bypass filter is to clean the oil. But an oil analysis isn't going to tell you how clean your oil is. So Mark would be wasting his money doing an oil analysis now and then again in 1000 miles. He needs to change his oil now and then after his oil has accumulated some mileage he needs to take a new sample and compare the results with previous oil samples that he has taken. Hopefully he will see a decrease in the concentration of wear metals. But that oil analysis won't tell him how clean his oil is.
 
Geez !!!

Seems that anytime a member mentions oil/air filter the sparks start to fly. Jpark, I appreciate you thoughts and criticism, in fact, I welcome them . Here's my thoughts, tell me if I'm off base ... 1st off, all my trying to test is if the filter in question will lower my wear metal count. Typically, I dump the oil every 3,000 miles. My original intent was to do exactly as you stated, change the oil, take a sample of same and then sample again after another 3,000 miles with the bypass filter installed, with the hopes that the oil analysis would come back good enough to run for another 2,000 miles. I spoke with Deborah and she thought it would be a better test of her filter if I installed the Frantz now, took a sample to see where my oil stands pre bypass filter and then sample again after another 1,000 miles to see if the oil is still suitable for use. I'm hardly an expert on this, but my thinking is that will be a decent test for the filter, certainly at least as tough as test as starting with all new oil and just running 3,000 miles, no ????



I'm not looking to start a pi$$ing match over who's filter is best. I'm trying the Frantz because they took the time to respond to my request, Oilguard and GCF did not.



forgot to add... Mark is only my stage name when I portray a Doctor on TV, my real name is Scott :D ;)



Scott W.
 
Last edited:
Re: Geez !!!

[forgot to add... Mark is only my stage name when I portray a Doctor on TV, my real name is Scott :D ;)



Sorry, my fault. For some reason I was thinking Mark_Kendrick.



Anyway, I'm done with the paper towel thread. The information has been posted and anyone who is really interested in the pros and cons of each filter type can pursue it further. I have tried to offer quantitative facts not qualitative speculation; some folks are more interested in anecdotes.



If nothing else, this has been a very popular thread with about 1800 viewings at this time. Hopefully everyone is a little more knowledgable than they were before.



Kind regards.

jrp
 
You can take a look at the change in the soot levels in the oil.



The tp filter will not filter out the wear metals but may slow their accumulation. If the filter is causing the oil(by being cleaner) to be a more effective lubricant then there should be a lower rate of wear metal accumulation. there should also be less soot accumulated in the oil.



Wear metal accumulation does not determint the viability of the oil. The soot level, dilution, and viscosity are the bigggest factors in determining if the oil is suitable for continued use.



All of the TP style filters are basically the same and they are dependent on the quality of the media. the expense of an ISO particle test is probably not a sound business decision for a company as small as Deborah's.



She makes a high quality product that has been in production for over 30 years. Cut her a little slack. You be a little defensive of your father's life's work too.



Thanks,

Mark
 
Originally posted by Mark_Kendrick

You can take a look at the change in the soot levels in the oil.

OK, gonna jump back in in spite of myself...



Soot particles are SUB-micron and are not effectively filtered out by anyone's bypass filter, including Oilguards. If the soot happens to agglomerate to a size of 1 micron or greater then a good bypass filter can take it out. However, the dispersants in our oil do a pretty good job of preventing the soot from agglomerating into larger particles. There isn't much chance of

any bypass filter taking soot-contaminated oil and returning it to a nice golden color.



The tp filter will not filter out the wear metals but may slow their accumulation. If the filter is causing the oil (by being cleaner) to be a more effective lubricant then there should be a lower rate of wear metal accumulation.



Yes, that was my point exactly. But Scott's oil already has 2000 miles of accumulated wear metals in it. When he samples again at 3K miles those wear metals will still be there and he won't have any idea how much good, if any, the bypass filter actually did. Therefore it's a waste of $15, twice.



there should also be less soot accumulated in the oil.



Not necessarily. Visually clean and analytically clean are two very different things.



Wear metal accumulation does not determint the viability of the oil. The soot level, dilution, and viscosity are the bigggest factors in determining if the oil is suitable for continued use.



I never said it [wear metal accumulation] was. But you are exactly right. Regarding soot level however, remember that oil can be very black [soot formation] and still be "analytically clean" and acceptable for continued use.



All of the TP style filters are basically the same and they are dependent on the quality of the media. the expense of an ISO particle test is probably not a sound business decision for a company as small as Deborah's.



I'm certain you are correct. However, it was Deborah who first challenged me to put my money where my mouth was. Not the other way around. Anyone who has really researched bypass filters will know that single and dual-pass efficiencies are the current standard for measuring their effectiveness. I'm pointing out that you are at a serious selling disadvantage if you don't know what the efficiencies of your product are at different particle sizes.



She makes a high quality product that has been in production for over 30 years. Cut her a little slack. You be a little defensive of your father's life's work too.



Yes, I would. But if the situations were reversed, I'd definitely become more conversant with the technical side of what it is I'm selling.
 
Originally posted by Mark_Kendrick

You can take a look at the change in the soot levels in the oil.



there should also be less soot accumulated in the oil.






Yes, I dont know if I mentioned this,(I aint reading this whole thing again:D ) but my soot in the oil looks a bit better. This is my very un-scientific visual test. :D

I do use fuel that has sulphur, so it does get dirtier faster than it used to, this is why I went to the Frantz.

Eric
 
Flying Blind (I hate that)

Let me sum up everything by saying this:



If you don't learn what the single and dual-pass efficiencies of your bypass filter are then you are flying blind (both as a buyer and as a seller) and you might as well make your decision using the toss of a coin.



I hate to make purchasing decisions that way, don't you?
 
Last edited:
Hello, I really do appreciate the support and encouragement many of you have offered me. I am the first to admit, that this is all very new territory for me and there is still alot I need to learn and understand. All I am tying to do is to get the word out that the Frantz Filters are again available for those who had used them in the past, for those who are still using them and need replacement parts, and for those who would like to try them. Our product is newly manufactured, from the highest quality materials available and we offer it at a reasonable cost. We stand behind it and we believe it is an outstanding system. My Father wanted to bring it back because he believed in it's performance; he wanted to get it back on the market after so many attempts were made to get it off.



For those who want to try it, great and for those who don't, then that is also fine. The old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink, if they don't want to. " applies here. The Frantz Filters are here and available for those who wish to use them! I will do my best to carry on where my Father left off. I too, feel this thread has done all that it can, and I bid a fond farewell to it. I do however apologize for the emotionally charged challenge that I first issued, but I was new to the TDR and very defensive, and that was not very professional of me. It has been a great learning experience though, and for that I am glad. Thank You!:cool:
 
Originally posted by Frantz Filters

Hello, I really do appreciate the support and encouragement many of you have offered me.

[snip]

I will do my best to carry on where my Father left off.



I sincerely wish you success and want you to understand there are NO HARD FEELINGS. I have no doubt at all that you sell an effective product. If you are ever able to able to get those efficiency numbers I'll hope you'll be kind enough to share them here on the TDR.



Kindest regards.

jrp
 
Some food for thought about filtration elements in bypass systems.



Every rolled paper product I have come across, Toilet Paper or Paper Towel Rolls used some form of adhesive to bond the rolled paper to the cardboard roll. Now, said adhesive was not developed to be subjected to the temperatures, pressures or chemical reactions that take place in the lubication system and sumps of our rigs. Though I am sure TP gets subjected to pretty bad stuff do to its proximity to the 'ol dumper, methane, jabenero vapors, a wide range of sound emissions of varing pitch, volume and duration, etc.



Anyone ever do any testing to see what happens to the adhesive?



Does is disolve? Completely and get suspended by our additive packages? Or become sludge? Maybe it produces a reaction of its own? Maybe it is unaffected by the additives in our oil, ALL OF THEM???



Color me curious, but it is just one more thing I want to get comfortable with before turning my $10K+ mill into gineua pig.



MaX
 
Last edited:
Sleepless in Vernon

Oh sure, just as I am getting excited about finding a new use for TP, paintball guy jumps in and ruins it :p ;) . Actually, it's a good question MM. How about the string filters, for that matter. What bonds the roll of string together ? Must be some sort of adhesive, no ? Yes, I have donned my Nomex underwear for round 3 :) .



Scott W.
 
Adhesive in TP

MAD MAX:



Since you brought it up, that is a valid question, whether for tp or paper towels, does not matter.



So we need anotheer study, right. I am willing to send you my gumbo pot for the test. YOU have to purchase 11 qts of syn 15W40 though. You can use your wifes' candy thermometer. What you do is put 1 roll in the pot with the oil, and just heat to 200 degrees and keep her there for 50 hours (at 60mph, that would be 3000 miles right).



Then when the 50 hours is up you unroll the roll :)D ) and see what has happened to the glue; if it is gone you got to send a sample off; but don't ask ME where. and post the results. Good idea, no?:rolleyes:
 
Ah, yes oh Northern Canine Handler, but said ball of twine was engineered as a filtration element and not a HYGIENE PRODUCT. If it uses adhesive at all, I suspect it would be of a grade commensurate with oil filter construction and not of botty wippage or quicker picker upping. (who knows, though, could be one in the same???)



I'm not speaking for oilguard here though.



MaX
 
Let's let Saint try it... He'll try anything???



:) But your pot may wind up as a watering dish for one of his "LIL" pups once testing is complete? Assuming it isn't varnished with some TP roll adhesive byproduct?:--)



MaX
 
Originally posted by Mad Max

Ah, yes oh Northern Canine Handler, but said ball of twine was engineered as a filtration element and not a HYGIENE PRODUCT. If it uses adhesive at all, I suspect it would be of a grade commensurate with oil filter construction and not of botty wippage or quicker picker upping. (who knows, though, could be one in the same???)



I'm not speaking for oilguard here though.



MaX



Yeah, but can you get string filters in different colors and aromas ??? I think NOT. I'm gonna try some scented paper, to upgrade the scent of my blow by. Lets see ya do that with a string filter :p :D :D :D



Scott W.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top