Cut Open Fram Ultra XG7317

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter


JA and DN3, would there be any advantage to make an oil filter with both a leaf spring and a coil spring, or some kind of combination of both?

Would there be any advantage to having both leaf and coil springs on the back of your car/truck? Probably not.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter


JA and DN3, would there be any advantage to make an oil filter with both a leaf spring and a coil spring, or some kind of combination of both?

Would there be any advantage to having both leaf and coil springs on the back of your car/truck? Probably not.

In theory, yes. It might provide a softer/stiffer ride. But what I'm asking and you're comparing it to is like, is a .22 bullet in the same league as a nuclear weapon?

 

[oneraggedhole]

Quote:
I understand why this filter was taken off at 5k miles; it was for comparative purposes. That's OK for the stated purpose. But in general, to use an Ultra (or M1, or PureOne, etc) at 5k miles and then toss it out is a total and complete waste. And on top of that, you don't get "better" wear protection from it.


So the Fram Ultra doesn't filter any better than say a Wix or Napa Gold? The only thing that sets it apart is it's ability to hold more particulate?

I was under the impression the efficiency was much higher and the pore size was much smaller.

No?

 

[Coprolite]

He was pointing out that wear doesn't really change between filters of different efficiencies. The advantage of many of the higher quality filters is the ability to accommodate longer OCI by having a longer FCI. For short FCI, it would be more economical to use a Purolator Classic. Almost any name brand filter can take whatever a good engine can throw at it for normal OCI, with capacity to spare. The larger capacity filters can accomodate suboptimal conditions before issues manifest.

Better filtration can mean longer oil life. I interpret that in order for this to be observed in practice, one must use bypass filtration and not be suffering from fuel dilution.

For many of us, "using the best" or "using the best value" makes us happy and well rested. In reality, we would probably be just as well off for buying the filters because the colors match the block or have the cool grippy texture.

Originally Posted By: oneraggedhole

Quote:
I understand why this filter was taken off at 5k miles; it was for comparative purposes. That's OK for the stated purpose. But in general, to use an Ultra (or M1, or PureOne, etc) at 5k miles and then toss it out is a total and complete waste. And on top of that, you don't get "better" wear protection from it.


So the Fram Ultra doesn't filter any better than say a Wix or Napa Gold? The only thing that sets it apart is it's ability to hold more particulate?

I was under the impression the efficiency was much higher and the pore size was much smaller.

No?

 

[jfking106]

Originally Posted By: Umibozu
Originally Posted By: RF Overlord
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
can a MC be used for 15K miles?
I'll concede that point, although I used to run MC FL400S filters for 10k intervals on my old Taurus. I don't see why an FL820S won't do at least the same, provided the engine is healthy.

*Clarification* I don't mean to imply the Ultra is not a good filter. I think FRAM finally got it right this time, but it's still overpriced.


For synthetic media, wire mesh supported oil filters the FU are priced on the lower end of the spectrum. Cellulose based media oil filters will generally always be cheaper.


This. The Ultra is the cheapest of the premium wire-backed extended run filters. I've seen the Napa Platinums (Wix) on sale for $7.50, but they regularly run $12, or so.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
He was pointing out that wear doesn't really change between filters of different efficiencies.


That's not precisely true. It means, statistically speaking when viewed from a macro perspective, you don't see enough change in a UOA to return the investment of a high priced premium filter vs an "average" filter. Based on that data and looked at statistically from "production line" type UOAs, I agree. But better filtration DOES result in less wear but it appears that the difference beyond the average threshold (~92-96% @ 20 um) improvements are small, difficult to measure and expensive to attain.

A lot of the efficacy of high end filtration also depends on the contamination inputs. An modern (roller) engine with a tight, efficient air filtration system and operated lightly in a clean environment doesn't generate much contamination. Most of the engines for which the UOAs were studied probably fit into this category, hence slapping on a tighter filter may not show a big statistical change.

Now take a hard used engine in a dirty environment, perhaps with less-than-stellar intake filtration, and much higher contamination inputs. In this case the oil filter's abilities to rapidly and efficiently clean the oil before the contamination flows thru the engine too many times definitely increases engine life and reduces wear. It isn't so much that the filter is decreasing wear in and of itself, it's that it's preventing the high contamination inputs from increasing wear. This is one reason why HD and off-highly applications often use bypass filtration... as well as for extending the OCI

I just got word of a study that may shed more light on this. One of my contacts, who is an engineer with a major filtration manufacturer, remembers a recent study he is endeavoring to find for me. I won't characterize it yet because his memory is a bit fuzzy on the details but I will present the info if and when I get it.

 

[Coprolite]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
He was pointing out that wear doesn't really change between filters of different efficiencies.


That's not precisely true.


I didn't have your energy to type all that out. Just like lower viscosity oil doesn't really change mpg. It does, but it is tough to measure(and a bunch of explanation).

I like the high efficiency filters with big capacity for the added protection if something goes wrong and I don't catch it, amongst other reasons.

 

[147_Grain]

Originally Posted By: Coprolite

I like the high efficiency filters with big capacity for the added protection if something goes wrong and I don't catch it, amongst other reasons.




+1

 

[albertadave]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals

Looks pretty sweet! Funny how the thing is built like a tank but still has that plastic bypass valve. I know its a non-concern but, still.

Its made out of nylon.

I know they say it is good to 450° Fahrenheit..but how does it hold up in extreme cold temperatures, when it's needed most...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: albertadave
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals

Looks pretty sweet! Funny how the thing is built like a tank but still has that plastic bypass valve. I know its a non-concern but, still.

Its made out of nylon.

I know they say it is good to 450° Fahrenheit..but how does it hold up in extreme cold temperatures, when it's needed most...


Searching yields a typical operating range of nylon to be -70 to + 250F, with a melting temperature around 485 F.

http://www.nyltite.com/nylon_properties.asp

 

[Clevy]

I just read this whole thread. Absolute gold.
Thanks to Jim Allen and Dnewton. They always have something valuable to add when most of us are being retarded and throwing away money.
From what I've learned from Dnewton on this site has already saved me a pile of money in oil and filters.
Thanks again to Jim Allen and Dnewton. They can always be counted on to add sensible,fact based comments from which we can all glean something from.

 

[RF Overlord]

Teacher's pet!


Seriously, I agree w/Clevy.

 

[asharris7]

NAPA Platinum's are on sale through the end of April. . . stock up on the best Syn filter there is...it's a tank.