Fram Endurance FE7317 C&P 28,000 mi oci
- Thread starter mt23
- Start date
Yeah, without any other PCs on the same vehicle using a different filter to compare to, it would be impossible to conclude anything. All you'd have is a PC ISO code on that sample.
It's a little odd that you're claiming that such a conclusion would be a negative on the judgement of others.
Because if you're saying they all leak and if you're relying on the BR particle counts, then you'd have to recognize that the Royal Purple had EIGHT times the particle counts of the Amsoil.
What would explain that?
Your own reliance on the BR particle counts implicitly means that you acknowledge that differences in efficiency can occur because of the size of the gap. Not your earlier supposition that the filters are so efficient, they will refilter anything that goes through a gap regardless of the size of the gap.
You can also now see that a filter from 2023 appear to have a smaller gap. (In fact, the gap should be checked with 70lbs of force applied to the leaf spring so the gap in this thread may have been even smaller than we see). And Glenda posted up a filter from 2023 with no gap so your supposition that all the filters have gaps is actually wrong. It may be that you'd be lucky to get one without a gap but the important thing to understand is that the gaps are variable.
And the even more important thing to understand is that recently made filters appear to have quite substantial gaps. Quality has gotten worse.
So based on your own reliance on the BR particle counts and what those actual results show, and the trend that everyone else is seeing of worsening quality, you should actually be able to conclude that the more recently made Fram / Champ filters may not achieve "SUPERIOR" results.
In other words, you would have to be the one acknowledging that some filters, including the ones that BR tested, are the "minimal leakers", not laughing at others who you think are thinking that.
And to be clear, I have always said that those numbers may be wrong by several percentage points. And the reason for that is that BR did not use every part of the ISO procedure. And the margin of error is downwards. I do agree that the results are suggestive that those filters are superior to the others (which have much lower performance claims) but I am not concluding, like you are, that they are ALL performing per the claims on the box.
It is totally believable that filters made in 2023 were either not leaking or "minimal leakers" and that the gap since then has gotten worse and you will no longer see "SUPERIOR" results.
The leaf spring machine is wearing out and going into "ruffles" output status.
Yes to the above.
I didn’t make any claims as to how they will all perform, its their relative superiority even with the flaw. Btw, the Ultra(newer versions post 2023) would also fall in that category, given its similarity in design.
Last edited:
About 9 months
Thanks for the reply. 28k in 9months, that Odyssey puts on the miles.
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
I cut twin Ultra’s - one had the soft seal …
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Bought them at Walmart in April - did not look up date codes …
The XG10575 is a big seller here based on what people drive …
(Lots of domestic LT/SUV) …
The boxes were identical …
The flaw as it was at that time. It's not like Champ / Fram said lets make this with a flaw but we'll make sure it's the same size flaw every time and it won't get worse over time.
So it's the relative superiority in a test on older filters which we already know were being made to a better quality in terms of gap size at that time.
The recent filters with bigger gaps are going to test worse whereas the competitive filters without gaps are going to test the same.
We all saw the particle counts months ago. They were lower than the other brands and that was expected. You are not saying anything new after hundreds of posts of back and forth by saying those filters were "relatively superior".
And it's totally incorrect to extrapolate those results to filters made more recently that have ever increasing gaps and lower quality. To suggest that if you buy a filter now you'll still get "superior" performance is not supported by the gaps we're seeing. What performance do you expect to get from the one with a missing bypass valve and a hole of that size instead?
Last edited:
Last edited:
@Ronn - talking about rabbit holes, did you know that there is a way of analyzing the particle counts that would suggest the Ultra & Endurance were bypassing while the Amsoil and Royal Purple were not? And that's kind of interesting because the Amsoil had the least particle counts while the Royal Purple had the most. It's clear as mud! And if the particle counts were done by Blackstone, then that makes things even more uncertain.
Really?
Yes, you can conjure up a lot of scenarios,
The BR results are what they are.
When Ascent added test dust, the particle count in the 20-40 micron range was about 90% and the 40+ range was 10%.
When they completed 2 runs ie 4.2g of test dust, that ratio was 97% / 3%. I refer to the 4.2g point of the test because BR used 4.4g in their test.
So a filter like the ACDelco Ultraguard which tested at 99% at 25 microns should end with only 3% of it's particles above 40 microns. If it is nearer to 10%, then you could conclude that particles of all sizes are bypassing.
A more efficient filter should end up even better.
So the particle count percentages in BR testing were:
Ultra 9% above 38 microns
Endurance 11% above 38 microns
Royal Purple 1% above 38 microns
Amsoil 1% above 38 microns
So you have 2 filters - RP & Amsoil, that performed, as they should, better than the ACDelco in their ratio of larger particles captured. And you have 2 filters - Ultra & Endurance, that performed as if they always let particles of all sizes unfiltered.
The other nice bit of data in the BR testing is the WIX vs Napa Gold which was the same filter and which they discovered the Napa Gold had a sticky bypass;
Wix 0% above 38 microns
Napa Gold 8% above 38 microns
In other words very close to what you would expect to see without and with bypass and kind of cool that they saw on cutting open after testing and before they got the particle count numbers back from the lab, that the Napa Gold was leaky.
Last edited:
