4WD
$50 site donor 2025
Exaggerating about exaggeration !
Fram Endurance / Walmart End of Life ?
- Thread starter ChrisD46
- Start date
You talking about no leaf spring metal stamping "ruffles" were seen? You have some photos?
If you look at the ISO particle count data in the table and graph below (from UOAs posted on this board), the Purolator Boss had an ISO code of 24/21/15 ... basically the same as your FE7317. But the OG Ultras (with a good leaf spring seal design) has an ISO code of 23/17/12 and 23/18/11. The FE is suppose to be as efficient as the OG Ultra (99+% @ 20u), but doesn't seem to be based on your ISO cleanliness code. Leaking ruffled leaf spring perhaps?
I'd like to see the clean oil ISO report. I doubt new oil in the bottle is really that dirty.
Member @twX was gracious enough to compile all the UOA particle count data posted and average by filter. Yours performed the same as a Boss indicating it does indeed have a leak.
No, I used an LED flashlight (with an extension used for inspecting a pistol barrel) but didn't take a picture. Not sure what you're talking about in terms of "ruffles."
In the end, it doesn't matter. It could be made of all the things people visually like or dislike when they cut open a filter, but I've come to the conclusion that a UOA is what matters. The filter performed well.
- "The particle count is 24/22/15 and low insolubles show the oil filter did a great job keeping oxidized solids in check."
- "Metals are in great shape after 3,330 miles on this oil."
Link to Jim Allen's Post
OF
Leakage point and ruffles below. Thank you for the particle count!! As suspected 15 brings a leaking Endurance to around OEM levels. A non leaker would most likely perform like the Amsoil(same filter) around 12.5.
Last edited:
That particular filter (yours), the bypass valve spring is badly bent. That's terrible.
Don't know what the function of the "ruffles" are. The sealing point on that particular design is the short cylindrical portion that pushes into the steel cap of the filter, not where those corrugations ("ruffles") are. The "ruffles" are a red herring in this examination.
That bypass housing / spring looks like somebody stepped on it, picked it up and assembled the filter with it. That is the focus item.
I had a used Endurance in the corner of my garage, so I opened it up. Same corrugations ("ruffles"), but this one wasn't bent like yours. It took effort to unseat the short cylindrical sealing surface of the valve from the filter steel end cap.
I put it back, and tried the same "test" you did. No "light leakage." Sorry, no pic, because all I got was the flashlight illumination at the bottom of the image, no light through the filter media (it was used, ergo dark), and no light through the valve or its spring steel assembly. So, instead of a cell phone, I tried using my Canon R7, and same result.
If that is truly the way that valve came out of your sample filter, that points to a significant QA issue during assembly. Mine was working, but yours was not. But, then again, this is a statistical sample of only two items.
Still, no filter should leave the factory looking like that.
I ran three vehicles on these filters for this test run (along with a NOS Mobil 1 M1-207) before switching back to my usual filter (AmSOil Ea15k13), but those used Fram filters are long gone since my last set of oil changes so I don't have the opportunity to open them up.
BTW, the M1-207 posted the same ISO numbers, but over a 6,500-mile interval with the recommendation to run the oil to almost 10,000 miles (in my case, that's a full year.) Here is an excerpt from the Mobil 1 data pull:
Both filters performed similarly, but knowing that you could purchase an Endurance with that bypass valve housing issue you described and illustrated, that's not good. Mine wasn't leaking, yours had an open floodgate.
Again, I'm not usually in the habit of pulling apart filters. I just get test results from an operating engine.
Also, that table you provided shows a Fram Ultra; it's not the same filter; however, it may be subject to the same QA issues in assembly.
And again, regarding the table: what engine type(s), and how long was the oil run, and under what conditions? The context is important. My samples were pulled from operating J35 V6 engines for the described miles intervals with mostly stop-and-go driving conditions, relatively few freeway miles.
OF
Don't know what the function of the "ruffles" are. The sealing point on that particular design is the short cylindrical portion that pushes into the steel cap of the filter, not where those corrugations ("ruffles") are. The "ruffles" are a red herring in this examination.
That bypass housing / spring looks like somebody stepped on it, picked it up and assembled the filter with it. That is the focus item.
I had a used Endurance in the corner of my garage, so I opened it up. Same corrugations ("ruffles"), but this one wasn't bent like yours. It took effort to unseat the short cylindrical sealing surface of the valve from the filter steel end cap.
I put it back, and tried the same "test" you did. No "light leakage." Sorry, no pic, because all I got was the flashlight illumination at the bottom of the image, no light through the filter media (it was used, ergo dark), and no light through the valve or its spring steel assembly. So, instead of a cell phone, I tried using my Canon R7, and same result.
If that is truly the way that valve came out of your sample filter, that points to a significant QA issue during assembly. Mine was working, but yours was not. But, then again, this is a statistical sample of only two items.
Still, no filter should leave the factory looking like that.
I ran three vehicles on these filters for this test run (along with a NOS Mobil 1 M1-207) before switching back to my usual filter (AmSOil Ea15k13), but those used Fram filters are long gone since my last set of oil changes so I don't have the opportunity to open them up.
BTW, the M1-207 posted the same ISO numbers, but over a 6,500-mile interval with the recommendation to run the oil to almost 10,000 miles (in my case, that's a full year.) Here is an excerpt from the Mobil 1 data pull:
Both filters performed similarly, but knowing that you could purchase an Endurance with that bypass valve housing issue you described and illustrated, that's not good. Mine wasn't leaking, yours had an open floodgate.
Again, I'm not usually in the habit of pulling apart filters. I just get test results from an operating engine.
Also, that table you provided shows a Fram Ultra; it's not the same filter; however, it may be subject to the same QA issues in assembly.
And again, regarding the table: what engine type(s), and how long was the oil run, and under what conditions? The context is important. My samples were pulled from operating J35 V6 engines for the described miles intervals with mostly stop-and-go driving conditions, relatively few freeway miles.
OF
Last edited:
The sealing surface is on the top ring where the ruffles sit. Fram use to have a seal there on the OG Ultra’s.
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2025
This one I tested doesn’t leak.
Here’s the master thread on the Endurance.
Nobody is saying it’s “catastrophic” it’s just not the efficiency you’re paying for IMO. It’s a manufacturing/QC defect.
Nobody is saying it’s “catastrophic” it’s just not the efficiency you’re paying for IMO. It’s a manufacturing/QC defect.
Tested on a new Fram Endurance FE7317 purchased at Walmart.
The question was “Does the Fram Endrance still have a gap in the bypass spring while under pressure?”
The answer is yes on this one. Also has a gap outside of the canister as Whip City and Sayjac have already found. I also carefully put some drops of oil on the gap areas to check every 10 minutes. It only took seconds for the oil to leak through with gravity.
The question was “Does the Fram Endrance still have a gap in the bypass spring while under pressure?”
The answer is yes on this one. Also has a gap outside of the canister as Whip City and Sayjac have already found. I also carefully put some drops of oil on the gap areas to check every 10 minutes. It only took seconds for the oil to leak through with gravity.
Last edited:
Yikes. The edges on that springy thing got chewed up before pulling it apart. I can't believe its edges looked like that before the holes were made in the top of the can.
Why didn't you (or person doing the disassembly) use a cutoff wheel, or a filter cutter at the bottom, and then gently lift the can up and away from the remaining filter?
Still, I think there's validity to the static leak test. Of course, I'm making some assumptions:
In short, it's the cylinder (circular orifice in the filter top plate and cylindrical "body" of the spring/bypass valve assembly) that serves to "seal" it ...
... and some oil still gets by that interface per this testing (I'm assuming due diligence was performed, namely an attempt to duplicate spring force by pressing on it, and maintaining that while evaluating it for leakage; I like to think positively here.)
OF
Why didn't you (or person doing the disassembly) use a cutoff wheel, or a filter cutter at the bottom, and then gently lift the can up and away from the remaining filter?
Still, I think there's validity to the static leak test. Of course, I'm making some assumptions:
- Testing person was pressing on the spring steel item with the same pressure it would experience as an assembled filter, and maintaining that applied force during the entirety of the test
- It wasn't bent during the process of removal or hacking into the top.
In short, it's the cylinder (circular orifice in the filter top plate and cylindrical "body" of the spring/bypass valve assembly) that serves to "seal" it ...
... and some oil still gets by that interface per this testing (I'm assuming due diligence was performed, namely an attempt to duplicate spring force by pressing on it, and maintaining that while evaluating it for leakage; I like to think positively here.)
OF
It was me. Holes were carefully drilled then opened with needle nose for a wider view. Leaf spring was 100% not disturbed. That’s exactly how it came from the factory. Many have been tested out of the can. My test was an in can test to prove assembled pressure made no difference. If you search the oil filter forum and YouTube there’s a ton of tests done after cutting open. Whip City Wrencher has done the most.
Last edited:
I completely believe some oil gets per your procedure; it sounds legit. I like how you did the "in can test."
Still, by the shiny edges on the spring steel item, those don't look like manufacturing marks ... but then again, I've seen stranger. The one I just looked at, hours ago, was absolutely smooth with none of those tooling artifacts, like the one in your image.
I still want to know what type of engine(s) and run time (miles) supported that table. Not questioning how measurements were conducted, I'm asking about the context that helps the numbers make sense.
If it's lab-derived (add precise amount of calibrated contaminants, set a baseline number of passes, evaluate remaining particulates) versus taking a sample from a running engine at operating temps (living, breathing, vibrating mechanical device that never stops generating the entire spectrum of contaminants from wear and combustion), then it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
Not disputing the table's usefulness, but it's hard to draw conclusions we want by comparing it to data gathered by a completely different avenue. Also, the Endurance isn't even on the table.
As well, saying that if the Endurance weren't leaking, that it might be as good as the AmSOil offerings, man, I don't think we have enough to draw that conclusion, either. I'm still not giving up on using AmSOil EaO or Ea15k filters as my regular "go to" items.
All we can say is this:
OF
Still, by the shiny edges on the spring steel item, those don't look like manufacturing marks ... but then again, I've seen stranger. The one I just looked at, hours ago, was absolutely smooth with none of those tooling artifacts, like the one in your image.
I still want to know what type of engine(s) and run time (miles) supported that table. Not questioning how measurements were conducted, I'm asking about the context that helps the numbers make sense.
If it's lab-derived (add precise amount of calibrated contaminants, set a baseline number of passes, evaluate remaining particulates) versus taking a sample from a running engine at operating temps (living, breathing, vibrating mechanical device that never stops generating the entire spectrum of contaminants from wear and combustion), then it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison.
Not disputing the table's usefulness, but it's hard to draw conclusions we want by comparing it to data gathered by a completely different avenue. Also, the Endurance isn't even on the table.
As well, saying that if the Endurance weren't leaking, that it might be as good as the AmSOil offerings, man, I don't think we have enough to draw that conclusion, either. I'm still not giving up on using AmSOil EaO or Ea15k filters as my regular "go to" items.
All we can say is this:
- The Endurance can leak past that spring steel interface for your single sample filter, per your testing.
- Blackstone Labs was very pleased with the Endurance's performance for my single sample filter, and encouraged doubling the OCI mileage for that J35 V6 engine (worked out to 10 months of operation for that vehicle)
OF
All but one of the FRAM Ultras represented in that table are the older OG Ultra with the full synthetic media. The one other particle count I've seen for a newer synthetic blend Ultra came in ISO at 13 (>14 um), 2 ISO codes lower than this leaky filter. That PC was from 2023, so maybe before the leaky end caps became common. Still, there's not enough data to say for certain if this was due to the leaky end cap or just random variance.
Here's an updated table. I included another table with particle counts for filter models that I only have one particle count for.
Their "function" is to cause a gap and a constant leak path between the leaf spring and end cap. When a flashlight test is done and light is seen at the leaf spring to end cap interface, the ruffles are part of the reason there is a leak path there. Could also be some leaf spring warpage involved too.
Last edited:
Per the Jim Allen thread you linked in post 85, the typical cleanliness code of virgin motor oil in the bottle/jug is 20/19/17. Google research backs up that number, saying it's typically around 20/19/16 ... so pretty much the same numbers.
The ISO 4406 codes of the Boss I showed in post 83 was 24/21/15, so it even had a better >14u particle count then new oil, but only for the >14u range. Your PC for the FE was 24/22/15 which was basically the same as the Boss. But both of those show much higher particle counts below the 14u level than new oil and compared to the other filters in that comparison. The FE is suppose to be as efficiency as the Ultra, but it's not in your PC case. As mentioned before, the Ultras in that comparison are the OG design with the fiber sealing ring on the end cap for the leaf spring seal.
The two OG Ultras and the two Microgreens were much better in the >4u and >6u particle count realms. The Microgreen especially because it has a two-stage filtering design to focus on the very small particles down to 5u. You can see that in the graph of the particle count data - the Microgeens were much better at the 4u point. So even a relatively inefficient filter can catch the bigger stuff. And we don't really know the size range of the >14um particles in the new oil ... it could be most of it is way larger than 14um, which would make even an inefficient filter catch most of that really big suff in new oil.
You have to be aware that the ISO 4406 codes cover a pretty larger range of counts between ISO codes. That's why I like to actually plot the particle counts like shown in the graph in post 83. It's much easier to see the difference in the cleaniness levels with a plot.
The bottom line is a more efficient oil filter is going to catch more of the particles below 14um, which does matter because engine wear studies say most wear is from particles below 20um. The OG Ultra was 80% @ 5u, so that's why it did better in the lower ranges. Also, as discussed in a few threads, the leaky leaf spring (due to bad metal stamping causing "ruffles" and possible warpage) could be leaking as much as 15% past the media, which for a filter ISO 4548-12 rated at 99% @ 20u is going to drop the efficiency to 84% @ 20u with a constant 15% leak.
But there have been many C&P showing Champ Labs made leaf springs with poor stamping and resulting ruffles. Any leaf spring that is a metal-to-metal interface "seal" with ruffles and possible warpage is going to be leaking oil past the filter media to some degree.
Last edited:
Similar threads
