Fram Endurance vs Titanium Media Size Comparison (Ti is 64.2% greater)

[Robvette]

All the numbers are in the video. The canister of the Endurance 3980 is 1cm shorter than the canister of the Titanium 3980.

The center tube of the Endurance is 44mm vs 39mm for the Titanium - so the pleat depth of the Ti filters is greater.

 

[bullwinkle]

Looks like your Titanium is the wire-backed pink media OG Ultra media, the pink 2-ply synthetic is thicker than the white Endurance media. I’m not convinced that the pink media has changed from the old OG 50% @ 5 micron days.

 

[Robvette]

Looks like your Titanium is the wire-backed pink media OG Ultra media, the pink 2-ply synthetic is thicker than the white Endurance media. I’m not convinced that the pink media has changed from the old OG 50% @ 5 micron days.

Above is the Titanium, below is the Endurance. And yes, the pink Ti media is thicker than the white Endurance media.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The Endurance 3980 is smaller because ... It's a Royal Purple with a Fram label.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I’m not convinced that the pink media has changed from the old OG 50% @ 5 micron days.

Thought Motorking said it was 80% @ 5u.

 

[Soft Cars]

I say take the wire mesh backing from the Titanium and put is on the white filter media of the Endurance.

And then get rid of the Titanium because we don't need both of them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I say take the wire mesh backing from the Titanium and put is on the white filter media of the Endurance.

The Endurance already has wire backing, not as heavy, but good enough.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Above is the Titanium, below is the Endurance. And yes, the pink Ti media is thicker than the white Endurance media.

Goes to show you can't judge media by looks alone. Need ISO 4548-12 efficiency, holding capacity and dP vs loading. The Endurance media, even though seemingly inferior by "looks", would probably out perform the Titanium and OG Ultra because Fram says they are the same efficiency, but the Endurance is rated for longer use, so it's holding capacity and/or dP vs loading is better performance.

 

[blufeb95]

Goes to show you can't judge media by looks alone. Need ISO 4548-12 efficiency, holding capacity and dP vs loading. The Endurance media, even though seemingly inferior by "looks", would probably out perform the Titanium and OG Ultra because Fram says they are the same efficiency, but the Endurance is rated for longer use, so it's holding capacity and/or dP vs loading is better performance.

While the first statement is true, the latter part is not and you should never assume any marketing claims are based on absolutes, the OG Ultra is better than the Fram Endurance based on the Ascent filtration testing that shows RP filters had significantly less holding capacity and lower efficiency below 20 microns, the OG Ultra was just extremely overkill and likely severely underrated at 20,000miles. That being said the Endurance is a pretty good filter that I can go to Walmart right now and buy whereas the OG Ultra and TItanium are a crapshoot as to if you can find old stock that doesn't have the new media and eventually you won't be able to find one.

 

[ZeeOSix]

While the first statement is true, the latter part is not and you should never assume any marketing claims are based on absolutes, the OG Ultra is better than the Fram Endurance based on the Ascent filtration testing that shows RP filters had significantly less holding capacity and lower efficiency below 20 microns ...

That may be true, but it's just a theory without Ascent running the same tests on an Endurance in the same size/application, under the same test setup and test parameters.

How do we absolutely know that the Endurance and Royal Purple is the same exact media - without some solid inside engineering & manufacturing information? It might be that Fram tweaked it some to make it perform better than the RP (?). Also, how do you know if the RP testing was setup (or not) exactly like Ascent's test setup and ran under the same test parameters? Lots of factors, but based on what we saw between Fram's efficiency claim, and what Ascent got for the OG Ultra, I'd say Fram's efficiency claim for the Endurance is plausible too, regardless of what RP shows for the "supposed" same filter media.

 

[Soft Cars]

The Endurance already has wire backing, not as heavy, but good enough.

Isn't it the nylon fishing line type stuff that Purolator uses?

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I'd say Fram's efficiency claim for the Endurance is plausible too, regardless of what RP shows for the "supposed" same filter media.

That’s the same thing as saying a Chevette and Corvette are the same, since they’re both made by Chevy

 

[ZeeOSix]

Isn't it the nylon fishing line type stuff that Purolator uses?

No, it's metal. Watch the Whip City Wrencher video where he shows and talks about the wire backing. It's black metal wire.

 

[Robvette]

Even within a Fram line, the filters can be different.

The Titanium in this test is shorter than the Endurance, but the media width is the same. And the Ti doesn’t have the bottom seal that the Ti 3980 does.

The XG5 Ultra I just used on my 89 Corvette had wire mesh backing, the Ultra XG3980 had no backing. Maybe that’s because the Ultra I just purchased new is old stock? Or maybe the filter design is different for different models?

It’d be amazing if the a Fram employee know-it-all could give us the whole truth. Short of that, if you really want to know the construction and design of a filter you have to cut it open.

Or you can cut 10 filters open and then choose

 

[ZeeOSix]

Pretty easy to verify if it's got media backing without cutting them open. Just need a good LED flashlight and good eyes or glasses.

 

[michael007]

It’d be amazing if the a Fram employee know-it-all could give us the whole truth. Short of that, if you really want to know the construction and design of a filter you have to cut it open.

Motorking used to be that guy but those days are long gone.

Now their customer service is giving out false information and I can't even get an answer after buying filters that weren't as advertised.

 

[dnewton3]

Pretty much all of this discussion is moot, because the average BITOGer will change that filter with the synthetic lube OCI at 5k miles, and so the differences of the filters is completely and utterly meaningless. I SERIOUSLY doubt any of us run a filter out to the edge of its practical use limits, so why you all argue about these nuances is beyond me.

IF AND ONLY IF the media in the two filters were identical, then we could make some reasonable assumption about holding capacity based on the surface area. But that's not true here, so any "assumption" has a false basis. We have no firm info to help us determine the actual important info. We need to know the performance data for holding capacity and efficiency; those are MUCH more important than surface area contrast.

Supposition and guessing are not the same as test results. Until we have real hard data from credible sources, this is just classic bench-racing garbage.

Just saying ...

 

[Blueshound]

Pretty much all of this discussion is moot, because the average BITOGer will change that filter with the synthetic lube OCI at 5k miles, and so the differences of the filters is completely and utterly meaningless.

I SERIOUSLY doubt any of us run a filter out to the edge of its practical use limits, so why you all argue about these nuances is beyond me.

Just saying ...

I'm with you, but isn't arguing about nuances of oil and oil filters the core purpose of BITOG?

 

[JavierH19]

Unless someone is taking it north of 15k it doesn't matter.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I'm with you, but isn't arguing about nuances of oil and oil filters the core purpose of BITOG?

Constructive discussions based on data, not appearances and guesses