That’s right ^^^^
And…. That Fram Endurance filter is really using wire backing and it is chicken wire from that movie Roadhouse…
Fram Endurance vs Titanium Media Size Comparison (Ti is 64.2% greater)
- Thread starter Robvette
- Start date
That’s right ^^^^
And…. That Fram Endurance filter is really using wire backing and it is chicken wire from that movie Roadhouse…
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 302
@dnewton3 BITOG members have concluded that the Titanium filters are equal to the OG Ultra (pink media / wire backed) and also that the Endurance filters are Royal Purple filters which Ascent testing showed to be inferior to the Ultra.
So a filter having 64.2% less of a filter media known to be inferior … if that’s moot / not worth discussion … and we should all just trust what’s:
- on the box
- on the website
- what customer service says
(Note: the BITOG members concluding Titanium = OG Ultra, and concluding Endurance = Amsoil EaO and Royal Purple were completely based on appearances - not verified testing of any type.)
Just run an FS8A on a remote mount.
dnewton3
Staff member
* your math is applied incorrectly ... You cannot accurately claim the same value of "% change" in both directions. If the Ti is 64% larger than the Endurance, then the Endurance is only 39% smaller, not a "filter having 64.2% less". Probably just an unknowing error on your part, but it's not accurate to state it the way you did.
As for the rest, well, it does not change my opinion that these types of discussions are just bench racing bovine manure.
This reminds me of the age old banter between hunters ... which is "better"?; the '30-.06 or the .308Win? The arguments run wide and deep, each professing the benefits and limitations of each caliber and round. Bullet drop at distance, bullet weight choices, wind drift, MOA accuracy, yada, yada, yada. But none of that matters when you're hunting squirrels ...
People get so wrapped up in the nuance of tiny things which, frankly, don't matter regarding the application.
So, again, show me how either of these filters would fail a person when the preponderance of users here are going to be changing their filter and synthetic oil every 5k or 10k miles; far, far short of either filter's claimed capability.
There's nothing wrong with doing a filter dissection and reporting facts, but there is something wrong when you present these videos as conclusive evidence of things that are only truly assumed. Here are the facts:
- one filter has 64% more media than the other
- one filter is constructed differently than the other
- one filter has different media than another
That's where the facts end. But you seem to want to take it further; you want to inject your opinion into summary and present assumptions as facts. That, I don't agree with.
If you want to impress me with your videos, show me some credible testing data that accurately shows the efficiency curve of each filter, and then how that curve relates to actual miles in real-world use. Only then could one filter be declared "better" in some meaningful manner, if and only if the application was such that it would reveal that performance difference in terms of wear control.
Robvette - please don't let my criticism dissuade you from doing videos. I tend to be very critical of "science" (opinion) based vids. It comes from my statistical engineering background. I'm not intending to single you out in a manner which would offend you.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 302
fwiw - I’ve not presented any assumptions or opinions as facts.
Given the manufacturer claimed data, the cut-open construction review, and considering the Ascent data … I’m personally choosing the Fram Titanium to use in my 92 Lingenfelter.
Which would you choose and why?
dnewton3
Staff member
Again - not trying to pick on you ... but this is a typical BITOG question.
Unbounded parameters, unclear assumptions and undefined conditions.
For how long would your filter be in use (how many miles; how many years)?
What downtime is typical between run cycles if used as a "daily driver"?
For what operational conditions (easy driving; racing; weekend warrior use)?
Is the vehicle is stored for long durations between use?
What would it be paired with in terms of oils?
What other "tools" would be in use (UOAs? PCs?)
Are there any other unique or odd considerations that need to be taken into account not covered by the questions above?
As was said in the movie Jerry Maguire ... "Help me help you!"
I can't give a reasonable recommendation without understanding all the inputs to the equation.
Like I said in post #10 in this thread (link below), even if the Endurance is the Royal Purple, there are many reasons why Fram can claim it has higher efficiency than what Ascent showed for the Royal Purple. So you think Fram is lying when they say the Endurance is 99+% @ 20u on their website - based on 3 sized filters in the Endurance line? I don't think so. They didn't lie about the OG Ultra efficiency, so why would they with the Endurance?
Without an actual same test of the Endurance on same lab equipment and setup, it's a "leap" to claim that the Endurance would test the same as the Royal Purple did in the Ascent test and "conclude" the Endurance is "inferior" to the OG Ultra. Big leap without real proof.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...rison-ti-is-64-2-greater.370964/#post-6548166
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 302
I put most details in the video description (below). It’s a hobby, show, race, track car that gets 1-2 oil changes a year with generally low mileage OCIs.
instagram.com/c4lingenfelter
I have another Corvette that gets more miles.
facebook.com/c4crosscountry
I may road trip with the Lingenfelter in the future too tho - I have a cross-Canada to Alaska trip that we’re cooking up.
dnewton3
Staff member
Given what you describe, any reasonable filter would suffice well for such low use. Whether you use the Ti or the Endurance, there's likely to be no discernable difference in wear data. That being the case, I'd choose whichever costs less; either will provide the necessary protection for your engine.
However, I do realize that this vehicle is a precious "toy"; it's your "baby" and you're going to do things that don't always meet an ROI concept.
Honestly, even a TG would work quite well for your application, but I suspect that's not enough to satisfy the desire for the "best" (an undefined characteristic in this case).
*********
I highly encourage you to take that road trip! The joy of the open road in a special car is hard to beat! Do the trip, take photos, and post them up in "photo" forum!
However, I do realize that this vehicle is a precious "toy"; it's your "baby" and you're going to do things that don't always meet an ROI concept.
Honestly, even a TG would work quite well for your application, but I suspect that's not enough to satisfy the desire for the "best" (an undefined characteristic in this case).
*********
I highly encourage you to take that road trip! The joy of the open road in a special car is hard to beat! Do the trip, take photos, and post them up in "photo" forum!
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 302
fwiw - i was joking re all the weight given to the Ascent testing. i personally think all the "conclusions" reached by the BITOG community re the Ascent testing were a huge leaps (ridiculous) based on testing of a single filter from each line.
i have no reason to believe Fram is lying about their Endurance claims.
however...
- visually, applying the "depth filtration" explanation to the Titanium media seems reasonable - since it is thicker than all the many surface filtration elements out there. using depth filtration to explain how the Endurance filter works is harder to logically sell because the media is so thin. i'm certain it is true to a degree, but ...
- there's also less of it (less surface area) because of the shallow pleat depth compared to the Titanium and most other filters ...
- yet they claim the Endurance has the greatest contaminant holding capacity of any filter.
- And it can be run for 25,000 miles.
- AND it's marketed as a high-flow filter.
- AND you can only buy it from Walmart, two aisles down from the socks ... across from the Nerf guns
i have no reason to believe Fram is lying about their Endurance claims.
however...
i'm sure there's someone else here on BITOG that's at least curious, wishing for a detailed explanation, for how all of these things can be true at the same time. and the new 2023 Endurance filter is 100% identical in appearance to this 2011 Amsoil EA filter - even down to the greenish mark on the filter element:
- visually, applying the "depth filtration" explanation to the Titanium media seems reasonable - since it is thicker than all the many surface filtration elements out there. using depth filtration to explain how the Endurance filter works is harder to logically sell because the media is so thin. i'm certain it is true to a degree, but ...
- there's also less of it (less surface area) because of the shallow pleat depth compared to the Titanium and most other filters ...
- yet they claim the Endurance has the greatest contaminant holding capacity of any filter.
- And it can be run for 25,000 miles.
- AND it's marketed as a high-flow filter.
- AND you can only buy it from Walmart, two aisles down from the socks ... across from the Nerf guns
Welcome to oil filters - the 8th wonder of the world, lol. Goes to show that no matter how many oil filters anyone cuts open and visually critiques, they can not tell anything real about the actual performance of said filters. That's why ISO 4548-12 was invented by an International committee, and has been used since 1999 to test the performance of automotive oil filters.
You've come up with a list above to try and "figure out" or "justify" why the Fram Endurance might not be what it claims to be, or that it's "exactly" like the Amsoil filter ... yet, if you believe what Fram claims about the efficiency and holding capacity - regardless of how it looks - then it's performing in ways that you can't align in your thoughts of how it should behave simply based on your visual inspection of the filter. Big leaps ... because only the ISO 4548-12 test (which is what Fram has done to back their performance claims) is the only way to know the real performance level of any oil filter.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 302
fwiw, Fram doesn't say that they've ISO 4548-12 tested Endurance filters - the numbers on their website could be from TG or EG filters.
Amsoil does not beat around the bush - they've tested Ea filters.
This has been discussed many times before what Fram's efficiency statement actually means - and how Motorking tries to make Fram clarify their statements. Yes, Fram has tested the Endurance line of filters per ISO 4548-12. As mentioned before, no filter company can test filter line A, then make ISO 4548-12 efficiency claims about filter line B based on filter line A ... that's illogical. That's what you seem to believe. Contact Fram and tell us what they say.
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 ... under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
The "FE" line is the Fram Endurance models.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 302
Do you definitively know why Fram includes this OR statement?
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
Someone at Fram is lazy and trying to be "clever" by making a statement like that to essentially say that the EG and TG lines are also using the same models (8A, 3387A and 4967 filters) in those filter lines. Whoever is running the Fram website and marketing department is inept or too lazy to make it more concise and clear.
They need to remove that "or equivalent" statement to stop all the confusion. So the statement for every line should ONLY be written to reference THAT line with the referenced filter models used to efficiency test THAT line of filter.
Look at the Fram Force link. They have a (*) in the Media section on the efficiency statement ... BUT there is no matching footnote anywhere on the webpage. Fram, if you are reading this, PM me and I'll make a list of all the holes in your website for a small fee.
https://www.fram.com/products/oil-filters/force
Here's the efficiency footnote about the Fram Racing filter. This is how it should be done ... ONLY REFERENCE the filter line that the footnote is for.
** FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of HP3, HP8, HP17, HP20 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
https://www.fram.com/products/oil-filters/racing
** FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of HP3, HP8, HP17, HP20 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
https://www.fram.com/products/oil-filters/racing
Not a real ISO efficiency test, but a garage test. It's been discussed many times. If you believe those test results, then the Endurace came out as the winner between those four filters.
on edit: message deleted; I didn't originally see Robvette's post #34 which made same point.
Last edited:
Similar threads
