tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Faulty(?)Oil filters

To: mmcbeth@compusmart.ab.ca, "'TigerCoupe@aol.com'" <TigerCoupe@aol.com>
Subject: RE: Faulty(?)Oil filters
From: "Dobrowski, Robert S" <Robert.Dobrowski@JSF.Boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 08:54:45 -0700
I wish everyone would stop presenting these worthless web sites as
definitive information on oil filters. Anyone can publish on the internet
regardless of their qualifications. If you will notice in the second web
site the author deleted all of the manufacturers SAE test data because he
couldn't trust it. Now just think about that a minute. A manufacturer has a
significant liability issue here. Publishing falsified data could result in
some very seriously expensive litigation. More likely the test data (which
by the way is the only reliable method to use to compare filters) did not
agree with the authors preconceived views of the various filters. 


> ----------
> From:         TigerCoupe@aol.com[SMTP:TigerCoupe@aol.com]
> Reply To:     TigerCoupe@aol.com
> Sent:         Monday, August 30, 1999 8:36 AM
> To:   mmcbeth@compusmart.ab.ca
> Cc:   tigers@autox.team.net
> Subject:      Re:Faulty(?)Oil filters
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Some time back, Russ Knize posted an interesting study of oil filters to
> this 
> list.  Unfortunately, the original web site has been changed because an 
> "unnamed" filter company threatened legal action.  Check it out at <A 
> HREF="http://minimopar.simplenet.com/oilfilterstudy.html#fram-ph8a";>Engine
> 
> Oil Filter Study</A>, or try:
> 
>                   http://minimopar.simplenet.com/oilfilterstudy.html
> 
> Dick Barker
> 
>                   
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>