Best Fram filter for longer service w/track use/HPL oil
- Thread starter TiGeo
- Start date
You're basing all of this on BR's garage testing - which I've pointed out many times that their results don't "rank" the same as official ISO 4548-12 results for the same filters. The discussion is specifically for the subject cartridge filter, so all options will be basically the same size to take out size effects, unlike BR's tests of spin-ons. Media area between options could still vary in material and total area of course, but at least they are all physically the same size to fit in the same cartridge housing.
When BR can have all the same filters ISO 4548-12 tested to show their ranking vs the garage test rankings, and they correlate in the same order, then I'll have some confidence in their results. It's still just a ranking, and not an absolute because it's not conducted with calibrated instrumentation in an official ISO 4545-12 test. As mentioned before, their dP vs flow rankings are believable, but the efficiency and holding capacity rankings are questionable. And when one filter has a few more or less PSI of dP vs flow than another, it really won't matter to any engine's lubrication system. There will still be way more than adequate flow to lubricate the system.
Last edited:
The particle count testing I was referring to are particle counts that have been done on UOAs and posted to this forum over the years. I didn't mention the youtuber efficiency test because it isn't a good test method.
The filter restriction tests performed by Brand Ranks are well done, and they closely match ISO test results for the same filter models. ISO test data provided directly from FRAM also shows that the newer FRAM Ultra has fairly high restriction.
Of 10 particle counts from 6 engines with FRAM Ultra filters that have been posted to this forum (mostly the OG Ultra), the average is ISO 23.4 / 20.2 / 13.7. The first two ISO codes, for 4+ and 6+ micron particles, are pretty terrible. The third, for 14+ micron particles, is fairly average. For reference, Amsoil/FRAM Endurance filters averaged 15.6 / 14.7 / 12.0 over 9 tests.
I'm aware of the Ascent test. The filter tested was the old FRAM Ultra with the full synthetic media, which isn't the same filter as the current Ultra.
See my post above. I was judging the Ultra's efficiency based on UOA particle count tests.
You talking only about the new Ultra, or a mix of old and new, or ?. The OG Ultra showed some pretty low PC counts in the low ISO Code range. If a filter isn't very efficient at 20u, it's certainly not going to be very efficient below 20u.
PC testing (by the same lab) would have to be done on the same engine driven in the same manner for the same OCIs to get a good read on how effective the filter was on the PC. Fram still says the Ultra is 99% @20u based on 3 different sized filters. I have no reason to believe they are not all close to that efficiency since it's based on official ISO 4548-12 testing. And I have no reason to believe the efficiency falls off a cliff below 20 microns if it's 99% @ 20u.
Fwiw, I did this with these two filters on my A4 and noticed the Endurance ( made in China) looked a little bit shorter than the Mann.
Probably doesn’t matter. I was also sucked in by the hype.
Ran it for the oci and switched back to the Mann..
Probably doesn’t matter. I was also sucked in by the hype.
Ran it for the oci and switched back to the Mann..
All PCs but one are from the OG Ultra. Four PCs had a first ISO code of 23, and for the other five it was 24. The new Ultra came in at 23. I haven't seen any PCs lower than 23. If you can find any others let me know.
Ideally yes, but with enough data from different engines these factors should average out. If only one or two PCs came in high, they could be outliers, but ten PCs from 5 different engines were all in a tight range of 23-24 for the first ISO code. The six PCs from the PurolatorOne/PureOne filters that I've seen from 3 different engines are all in the range of 15-17. This difference can't be explained by driving habits or engine type.
I might compile all the PCs I've saved into a master particle count spreadsheet at some point and post it here.
The evidence from PCs seems to indicate that the efficiency does fall off a cliff, at least somewhere below 14 micron. It does seem unusual, but I've never seen any tests that would indicate otherwise.
I have seen quite a few Ultras with a 23 ISO (4u) code - a few links below. What other filters have the ISO (4u) code lower than 23? I tend to look at the actual particle counts, because there is quite a range of counts within one ISO code.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/toyota-2gr-fe-tgmo-with-particle-count.289112
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/idemitsu-0w-20-5k-2014-venza-v6.308261
Here's an old Microgreen that had the disc wafer in it to act like a mini-bypass filter. It had a 21 ISO (4u) code.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/microgreen-13k.308794/#post-5097527
Here's an Amsoil that had an unbelievable 16 ISO (4u) code. Think that's the lowest I've seen from a normal oil filter ... if it's accurate, who knows without further verification data.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/amsoil-sso-0w30-10-300-miles-07-honda-civic-ex.150608/
Here's a Fram TG with an ISO (4u) of 21. Relatively short OCI, but on a motorcycle with a shared sump.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...d-line-10w30-5-000-miles.253972/#post-4107645
The longer the OCI, the higher the 4u and 6u codes will be because obviously normal spin-on oil filters efficiency drop off pretty good down at that micron level. The longer OCI effect on particle counts above that level isn't as impactful. If a filter basically didn't catch any 4u particles, the 4u PC would just keep increasing with the length of the OCI. So OCI length will have an effect in the smaller particle counts. Plus, oil filters are most efficient when they are not loaded up much (as seen in Ascent's testing), so a shorter OCI would be using the filter in its most efficient part of the filter's use period. Using a filter not meant for a long OCI (or using a filter for multiple OCIs) will most likely result in a worse PC than using a filter meant for long OCIs that is pretty high efficiency.
As you probably know, the 4u code range also includes all the other range counts. So in the example below, the 4u counts is actually that value minus the 6u through 70u counts, for whatever it's worth - not much in most cases.
Yes, it's going to fall off quicker as the particle size decreases, but what I was getting at is that the drop-off below 20u isn't as drastic with a high efficiency filter vs an inefficient filter. We saw this in the Ascent ISO 4548-12 test data.
Last edited:
What do you mean here...Purolator is the same mfr as Mann?
So are "OG" Ultras better than the new Endurance?
I do...K&N!
BrendanC
$100 site donor 2024
I've never seen a failed oil filter in 36 years of driving...that I know of. Not sure how a cartridge filter could fail?
So you're saying this is the PF of oil filter testing?
I have seen the end caps separate from the media and media tears.
The cartridge filters with separating end caps were Fram Ultra.
Similar threads
