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

[Ronn]

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.

Well, I "believe" those results are what they are. The question >>>are they valid? Just because they aren't "blessed" with ISO, doesn't invalidate them. Now, as to the wording Fram provides....for me it's a RED HERRING, since the filter media of the other "OR" filters alluded to are of the same or inferior (blended) media. Is Fram cutting corners here? Probably, but it's a non issue for those like myself who try to think PRAGMATICALLY.

 

[ChrisD46]

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 ...

In a well maintained engine using synthetic oil - I will run an Ultra for two 4K to 5K mile OCI’s then change the filter out with the next (every 3rd) oil change . That makes the Ultra about $5.50 per OCI (and about $6.00 for the Endurance filter) . It’s not a bad way to use these filters although there are those that would never run an oil filter for two OCI’s (even if still only 50% of the oil filter’s rating of 20K miles).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Well, I "believe" those results are what they are. The question >>>are they valid? Just because they aren't "blessed" with ISO, doesn't invalidate them. Now, as to the wording Fram provides....for me it's a RED HERRING, since the filter media of the other "OR" filters alluded to are of the same or inferior (blended) media. Is Fram cutting corners here? Probably, but it's a non issue for those like myself who try to think PRAGMATICALLY.

See post 33 and 35. This has been discussed many times. Fram, nor any other filter maker, can ISO efficiency test one filter model line and claim it's valid for another filter model line. Motorking, who worked for Fram at the time, tried to get Fram to update the statements, and as I pointed out in post 35, that's the way it should be expressed. Fram is just lazy an inept at making it correct on some where it's not totally written correctly.

 

[Hootbro]

Well, I "believe" those results are what they are. The question >>>are they valid? Just because they aren't "blessed" with ISO, doesn't invalidate them.

The problem is that ISO 4548-12 requires three test rig validations before any testing is performed.

1. Filter Test Circuit
2. Contaminant injection Circuit
3. Online Dilution and Particle Counting System.

Each of the above has their own ISO requirements. Extracting any data from a test that does not adhere to a baseline standard of reference is just errant data and a false dichotomy of results that is more entertainment than factual data.