The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

1941 - 1945, MB, GPW Technical questions and discussions, regarding anything related to the WWII jeep.
Post Reply
User avatar
John Neuenburg
Gee Old Hand
Posts: 3769
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:18 am
Location: U.S. Left Coast

The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by John Neuenburg » Mon Jul 04, 2022 12:42 pm

Every so often the subject of what oil filter assembly should be used on a GPW or MB comes up. There was a three pager in 2003-2007 where it looked like Purolator was factory-fit on MBs in mid-late 1944. What's the latest consensus - is a Purolator kosher for my late 44 MB? Could Willys have installed Fram as well then? If Purolator would it have a PD-5101 stamp on top?

Not talking about Frams or Fram lids they might have gotten during maintenance or rebuilds.

Next question is about my March 42 GPW. Should that be a Purolator or could Fram have been used then? If Purolator would it have a stamp PD-5106?
Military Vehicle Collectors of California
MVPA 7404
1942 Ford GPW British Special Air Service Regiment Replica
1944 Willys MB
1941 Indian 640
BSA Folding Bicycles
M1942 Command Post Tent


FUBAR
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Dutchess Cty, NY

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by FUBAR » Mon Jul 04, 2022 2:53 pm

Hi John,

Don't know about the MB, but a purolator would be appropriate for your early GPW. It should have the stamp. Michael O'Connell is the stamp expert and he could probably tell you which flavor is appropriate.

-=BK
Bill Kish
Millerton, NY

GPW 59058, USA 20137991, DOD 8-27-42
'52 M37 8008286
'45 M20 7009-C

pgcf
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:34 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by pgcf » Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:48 pm

I have Purolators on my '42 and '43 MB's. My August '44 MB has a Fram.

I've seen more Fram's late in the war and it appears that all late war crated engines(MB and GPW) had Fram's.

Cheers,
Peter

User avatar
John Neuenburg
Gee Old Hand
Posts: 3769
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:18 am
Location: U.S. Left Coast

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by John Neuenburg » Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:07 am

pgcf wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 3:48 pm
I have Purolators on my '42 and '43 MB's. My August '44 MB has a Fram.

I've seen more Fram's late in the war and it appears that all late war crated engines(MB and GPW) had Fram's.

Cheers,
Peter
Thanks. My question is about factory-fit. I don't have as many reference books and factory photos like the more serious restorers and historians do.

But on the subject of Frams being on replacement engines and in the parts system, it could explain why so many are on MBs but why did the MB end up with a reputation of coming with Frams but GPWs did not? GPWs got replacement engines and filters. Many people still think of the GPW being a Purolator platform only.

I am assuming replacement engines from either manufacturer were put in either jeep. Or is that not correct? And same thing for replacement filter units. Or was Fram the only supplier of spare parts?
Military Vehicle Collectors of California
MVPA 7404
1942 Ford GPW British Special Air Service Regiment Replica
1944 Willys MB
1941 Indian 640
BSA Folding Bicycles
M1942 Command Post Tent

User avatar
Mark Tombleson
MZ Radio Operator
Posts: 9836
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:58 pm
Location: Selah, Washington

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by Mark Tombleson » Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:17 am

Here are some links.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8094&sid=1f2cabdd26 ... 3e6284c053

viewtopic.php?t=289474

viewtopic.php?t=91008

Ah... Between these threads both your questions are answered!
MB-NAVY-MZ-1 352625 - 07/20/44 (DOD est.)
U.S.N. 133818
2nd place Restored Class 2008 Portland Convention
MVPA Hall of Fame - 2013

User avatar
John Neuenburg
Gee Old Hand
Posts: 3769
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:18 am
Location: U.S. Left Coast

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by John Neuenburg » Tue Jul 05, 2022 10:54 am

Thanks Mark. I already read all three threads and was hoping for a bit more proof of what came on a November-December MB. I see where you said on page one of the second link:

"Lloyd White's Evolution of the Willys-Overland MB Jeep - Volume 4 has a Willys-Overland set of documents with a letter from Delmar Roos dated November 3, 1944 on the Description of changes to the Jeep.

On page 99 is item 180 that dates the Fram Oil Filter started in production as 3-2-44. This was an optional source and interchangeable with Purolator."


I am assuming sentence 1 is referencing sentence 2. Does everyone believe if his letter is dated November 44 then either filter could have been used after 3-2-44 to November? The words optional and interchangeable are important but are there many, or any, oil filter photos on factory issued MBs in say, late Fall or first month or two of 45?
Military Vehicle Collectors of California
MVPA 7404
1942 Ford GPW British Special Air Service Regiment Replica
1944 Willys MB
1941 Indian 640
BSA Folding Bicycles
M1942 Command Post Tent

User avatar
Mark Tombleson
MZ Radio Operator
Posts: 9836
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 7:58 pm
Location: Selah, Washington

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by Mark Tombleson » Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:33 pm

I'm not sure a "bit more" proof is there, John.

My List of Parts calls out Purolator but in the comments area says "For Service Only" for the complete assembly, but lists all the parts below that and their separate numbers so the build includes them.

The problem is that certain times during the war they used RC (request for change) to switch from a part or manufacturer to an interchangeable part.

We don't have access to all the RC and there are so many that it is hard to understand what actual times and jeeps got which part.

Your choice is up to you!
MB-NAVY-MZ-1 352625 - 07/20/44 (DOD est.)
U.S.N. 133818
2nd place Restored Class 2008 Portland Convention
MVPA Hall of Fame - 2013

pgcf
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:34 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by pgcf » Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:00 pm

In my due diligence for the restoration of my '44 MB, I laid hands on over half a dozen mid-'44 to end of war '45 MB's that had the original engines, paint, etc. They all had Fram filters, that is why I chose it for my August '44 MB.

There are also pictures in Farley's book. Purolators were not just used on MB's and GPW's. The growing demand necessitated the expansion to Fram as an alternate as the documentation shows.

All the late war crated engines are in fact factory engines. They were not built to a different specification, just not put in a jeep. These are not to be confused with jeeps that went through rebuild programs after the war. All the pictures that are posted have Fram's as well.

The added benefit of the Fram assembly is the drain plug points away from the block.

That is my logic for my choice. To Mark's point, your jeep, your choice.

Cheers,
Peter

User avatar
John Neuenburg
Gee Old Hand
Posts: 3769
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:18 am
Location: U.S. Left Coast

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by John Neuenburg » Mon Jul 11, 2022 11:55 am

Thanks guys. Glad I could help muddy up the situation. I am going to swap and put the Fram on the late 44 MB and Purolator on the 3/42 GPW.

My Fram has the drain pointing to the block. Doesn't matter to me since I use a suction pump to remove the oil.

In case anyone wants to see the two brands side-by-side, here is my Purolator on the left, Fram on the right. Several differences. If you swap lids, a curious Jeep Policeman can run his finger around the bottom to find the Fram ribs, or not. Beware!

Image

Image

This Purolator has a lid that has been tightened down hard enough to deform the center. Surprising it would do that, seems like pretty stout steel. A prior owner probably had a leak due to not using a good washer under the bolt or unknowingly doubling up on the seals around the can. Make sure you get a new crush washer from RFJP for re-installing the lid. The Fram lid is more conical and is heavier. I doubt if these will deform.

I didn't show the bolts but you can see the Purolator bolt has a bigger shank, if that's the term, and head, but the threaded part is the same as the Fram. The Purolator spring has a bigger I.D. on its small end to fit the groove on that larger shank.

If you have your filter element out, make sure your standpipe has the standoff washer attached. This sits the filter above the bottom of the can. My Fram didn't have that and the element was sitting low, on the tapered part of the can. I noticed it when I took the lids off both of my filters in the jeeps. In the Fram can the element was about .5 inch below the rim of the can, measured to the element body, and the spring was putting little or no pressure on it. In the Purolator the element was about .19 down. I noticed two small tack weld beads on the Fram standpipe where the washer should have been, it simply broke and the piece disappeared before I owned this jeep. This filter seemed to be working fine because it can't sit so low for the seal to block the orifice in the pipe that takes the oil to the timing cover. I modded a big washer to fit the standpipe snugly and it is sitting on those weld beads.
Military Vehicle Collectors of California
MVPA 7404
1942 Ford GPW British Special Air Service Regiment Replica
1944 Willys MB
1941 Indian 640
BSA Folding Bicycles
M1942 Command Post Tent

pgcf
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:34 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The Purolator Versus Fram Thing

Post by pgcf » Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:02 pm

Glad you got it sorted. Enjoy your jeeps.

Peter


Post Reply

Return to “MB GPW Technical Knowledge Base”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: compostwerks, DogDoc, loose nut dan, va302stang and 63 guests