Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
I agree with you Bob, if they are used as an auxiliary partial-flow filter. What I see as the problem is that they seem to be presented as an alternative to standard full-flow filtration, aimed only at saving short-term money at the expense of an engine. Personally, I think $18-25 is pretty cheap insurance against a trashed engine and I'm sincerely glad that I don't have to pay what Cat or Cummins would charge for a filter. And when you get to the filters for those gigantic monsters that drive ships and huge mining equipment and such, I'll bet the equipment owners are still happy enough to pay hundreds of bucks for filters to save hundreds of thousands in repair costs.
I remember as a kid seeing advertisements for “secret” methods whereby you could re-use old oil to save even more money. Another false economy. I guess a lot of it comes down to how much you care about equipment and want it to have a long service life. I'm cheap and don't want to have to replace the big ticket items so I spend the money on the little stuff to preserve my investments. That may be why I can get 300,000 miles service from my car engines and thousands of hours from even a little over-worked lawn tractor B&S engine. I can afford a number of filters and gallons of oil much more easily than I can afford to replace an engine costing thousands, to say nothing of how much easier it is to change a filter than to change an engine. (smile)
I wonder if the same parsimony would come into play if we were talking about say, a kidney dialysis filter? When it comes to our own precious bodily fluids I doubt we'd be cheap enough to want to use a discount house filter, but a lot of people seem to feel it reasonable when they're talking about their equipment's precious bodily fluids. But then, a lot of people gobble down Hostess Twinkies and McDonald's burgers without a thought, so maybe they would opt to get their dialysis filters from WalMart.
Why would you want to filter your toilet paper, Bob? I just toss mine when it's dirty. Maybe it's a regional thing.
I had one of those on an old 54 DeSoto when I was in high school or college, but I wouldn't ever put one on my tractor. I prefer a filter assembly with a proper internal bypass valve and filter media that's approved by the engine manufacturer. The Chinese, thrifty as they are, don't supply toilet paper with their tractors so I don't use it – well, at least not for my tractor.
Well, that didn't change anything, Hal. I'll just have to wait for the new version of the forum software, I guess.
Yep, I see the picture just fine, Hal. I'm running Firefox version 10.0.2 on Windows 7 Professional on both my computers. I clicked on the camera icon in the reply panel and that brought up the insert image pane but, even after a seven minute wait, there is no camera icon in that pane.
That depends on exactly which engine you have and what year it is. Though you're likely to find that the better quality American made filters cost more than you expect, too. Diesel filters are built differently than automotive filters.
I just buy OEM filters from the dealers who advertise here. Since they provide so much free advice here, I think they're entitled to my business even if they are a couple bucks more than AutoZone or whoever.
Okay, trying with Internet Exploder – with it I DO get the little camera icon in the insert picture pane. Obvioiusly it would seem that the problem is with the way the site handles Firefox. I haven't changed any cookies or cache with either browser.
I won't use IE, however – just too hard to deal with compared to Firefox. I guess I just can't post pictures.
test – trying from my laptop, also running latest version of Firefox. Still no camera icon on the picture insertion pane. I give up.
Nope, I don't have a camera icon there no matter how big I make that panel. I use Firefox, latest version.
I can't recall ever having uploaded a picture to this forum.
It is brighter, almost too bright – but I can turn down the brightness on my monitor, so no problem. Better that than too dim, for my old eyes!
I just had to try inserting an image.
When I click on the tree icon I get a pane that asks for the URL for the photo, but I don't see anything like a camera icon or anything about a place to store photos. If I put in the URL for a photo in my Photobucket account, it loads it as a full-screen size, not a thumbnail. If I try the Photobucket thumbnail code I get nothing showing. Am I missing something?
-
AuthorPosts