Fram Extended Guard *cut open* (unused)

[trabuccomlfrd]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd
Originally Posted By: subiedriver
I run Purolator Pure One filters, $7 after tax at AAP. That's the best bang for the buck around, I think its a better filter than even the Fram Extended Guard, which is 9 bucks at walmart.

I buy my oil at walmart, the filter at AAP, its a PIA but I'm not running Fram filters, period.

its a shame to see a fellow subaru owner being so close minded, the extended guard is way better than pure one and nothing like the OCOD, its worth the extra 2 bucks. im unimpressed with the pureone , i have a pureone cut open and the filter media doesnt even fill the end caps never mind the can, the gule is spilled all over the end caps, there is alot of paint overspray, and it doesnt use an adbv. i know every one loves them but i feel that you can do better for $7


Please expand on "way better". Are you going purely by visual appearance? Because if so, that's narrow-minded way of evaluating things.

For example, if we go by the efficiency specs:

-The PureONE is 99.9% efficient in the multi-pass test at 20 microns.

-The Extended Guard is 97% efficient in the multi-pass test at 20 microns.

So does that suddenly make the PureONE "way better" than the Extended Guard?

What is more important in the role of an oil FILTER: Its ability to look pretty or the ability to FILTER the oil?


According to his other posts he goes purely by the media and the price. If it says "synthetic media" on the box, and is made by Fram, going by his many other posts about this, then its the best bang for buck. Period. No other qualities matter, and everything else is one kind of "ripoff" or another since they are all "inferior."

This is taken directly from his many posts on the subject, where he has said this directly, or words to the effect, repeatedly.

Anyone using Purone, Bosch Distanceplus, or M1 EP filters are "foolish" and throwing their money away on inferior products.

Or that's the list, to date, of filter's he's indicated are inferior ripoffs compared to the Fram XG.

Who knew that all this time that Fram is not just the maker of the OCOD, but also the maker of the best bang for the buck filter on the market (and quite possibly best filter out there bar none). It was news to me until he enlightened me on the subject in various threads here.

-Spyder

i dont think the extended guard is the best bang for your buck, i think it is on of them, i think the best bang for your buck is a hastings, not the federated version but the regular hastings. i feel that for the price difference between the m1 and the extended guard that the extended guard is a much better buy. like many others have said people like you have to get over the fact the fram is capable of making a great filter. as far as the pureone i dont feel that it is an absolute ripoff, i feel that for the price they can do better job producing it and not be so sloppy. and spyder or whatever your name is, remember how you made fun of the extended guard for saying dirt on the box instead of containments, when i was at AAP i couldnt help but notice how the bosch distance plus says in huge letters all over the box "HOLDS MORE DIRT" "99.9% efficiancy REMOVES more dirt*" "300% greater capacity HOLDS more dirt*". before you make fun of the extended guard for using the word dirt in small letters on the back of the box, look a bosch a filter that you support putting that work in bold right on the front, talk about bad marketing

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd

i dont think the extended guard is the best bang for your buck, i think it is on of them, i think the best bang for your buck is a hastings, not the federated version but the regular hastings. i feel that for the price difference between the m1 and the extended guard that the extended guard is a much better buy. like many others have said people like you have to get over the fact the fram is capable of making a great filter. as far as the pureone i dont feel that it is an absolute ripoff, i feel that for the price they can do better job producing it and not be so sloppy. and spyder or whatever your name is, remember how you made fun of the extended guard for saying dirt on the box instead of containments, when i was at AAP i couldnt help but notice how the bosch distance plus says in huge letters all over the box "HOLDS MORE DIRT" "99.9% efficiancy REMOVES more dirt*" "300% greater capacity HOLDS more dirt*". before you make fun of the extended guard for using the word dirt in small letters on the back of the box, look a bosch a filter that you support putting that work in bold right on the front, talk about bad marketing


That doesn't really answer my question though.

For the same price, if you could get two filters, one which "looks" better, the other, which filters better, which would you choose?

That's essentially what we have here. The Extended Guard (in your opinion) looks better. The PureONE filters better. As per the data posted by both companies.

My choice is the one that filters better.

Your own words:

Quote:
the extended guard is way better than pure one


And then you state that the FRAM is worth the extra two dollars more. So in fact that filter that FILTERS better, is actually TWO DOLLARS CHEAPER than the filter you are pitting it against. How is the Extended Guard way better again?

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[noblite]

Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd
Originally Posted By: gathermewool
Did you tear the media or is that a defect. My sarcasm meter might be turned down a little too much if your comparison to M1 or Bosch wasn't serious.

i tore it so you can see the whole two ply deal. the comparison was serious the bosch is made of paper cellulous and the m1 is a synthetic fiber/paper combo. the extended guard is full synthetic and i have cut open both and the m1's a nice filter but after seeing this filter the m1 is no way worth $13

This is straight from Frams web site
Advanced Oil Filter Media Gives The FRAM Advantage

With an ideal balance of dirt-trapping efficiency and dirt-holding capacity, every FRAM oil filter uses a special blend of fibers and resin providing a proprietary filter media that delivers excellent engine protection.

•The most commonly used filter media is cellulose, which is a natural material that presents a random and irregular field of fibers to the oil. By itself, it can only deliver about 80% dirt-trapping efficiency.
•By adding microscopic synthetic fibers, small windows are created that trap the smaller dirt particles without affecting the flow of oil. Blending synthetic fibers with cellulose increases a filter’s dirt-trapping efficiency and its dirt-holding capacity for higher levels of engine protection and longer filter life.

The blended media would make it only simi synthetic wouldnt it?

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd

i dont think the extended guard is the best bang for your buck, i think it is on of them, i think the best bang for your buck is a hastings, not the federated version but the regular hastings. i feel that for the price difference between the m1 and the extended guard that the extended guard is a much better buy. like many others have said people like you have to get over the fact the fram is capable of making a great filter. as far as the pureone i dont feel that it is an absolute ripoff, i feel that for the price they can do better job producing it and not be so sloppy. and spyder or whatever your name is, remember how you made fun of the extended guard for saying dirt on the box instead of containments, when i was at AAP i couldnt help but notice how the bosch distance plus says in huge letters all over the box "HOLDS MORE DIRT" "99.9% efficiancy REMOVES more dirt*" "300% greater capacity HOLDS more dirt*". before you make fun of the extended guard for using the word dirt in small letters on the back of the box, look a bosch a filter that you support putting that work in bold right on the front, talk about bad marketing


Actually what you have said, several times (and I will link back to the posts where you said it, if you insist on denying it) was that the Fram XG, with its synthetic media, is superior to both the inferior M1 and Bosch Distanceplus as they are "paper filters." Your words. You then went on to state that, therefore, anyone throwing their money away on one of those inferior products was "foolish" and being "ripped off."

So you can backpedal all you want, but those posts are still in this forum. You also have a knack for inferring things without any facts to support them. And as to what you are saying about my take on the XG is off the mark. I have said in different threads about it, that its the best filter from Fram and not like the other ones they make. I've also said it can contend with the heavy hitters in the higher end market.

Where I stop short is in making the absolute statements you insist on making, such as X filter is "clearly superior to Y filter because X has synthetic media versus whatever is in Y."

That doesn't stop me from poking fun at their advertising by quoting it word for word. They wrote it - I just copied and pasted what they wrote on their site. I can hardly be a "Fram hater" when I have also stated in different posts that I do buy and use their air filters and consider them adequate value and a decent enough product.

I also poke fun at Mobil sometimes, while using their filters and, since the price on Mobil 1 has dropped, recently considered adding it to my oil stash.

I generally avoid absolute comparisons, especially on filters, as they are very hard to make due to variations in price, criteria in evaluation and where the emphasis is placed (flow versus filtration efficacy, etc), etc. And I don't tell people how to spend their money. Its their money, not mine - what do I care when I have no vested interest in any products on this site?

The M1 is a good filter. Its price, against the local competition, is justified - to me. And that's the only person it needs to be justified to. You don't like it, spend your money on whatever you want to. But I'd find your posts a lot less grating if you left out the economic lectures and absolute comparisons that - to me - seem very poorly informed. Or if they are informed, you miss the mark by a mile in demonstrating it.

-Spyder

 

[brights_garage]

Ok you guys made me do it! I went and purchased one of these today (XG9837). I put it through a battery of tests (using a flashlight). Had to remove the plastic wrap from the box. Mine is silver instead of gold. First impression..heavy filter, strong outer can hard to dent, and silicone drainback valve. Sorry guys I will use mine before disassembly.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: brights_garage
Ok you guys made me do it! I went and purchased one of these today (XG9837). I put it through a battery of tests (using a flashlight). Had to remove the plastic wrap from the box. Mine is silver instead of gold. First impression..heavy filter, strong outer can hard to dent, and silicone drainback valve. Sorry guys I will use mine before disassembly.


Once you've seen pics of it disassembled un-used, there is nothing further to be gained by doing it yourself anyway. More to be gained by disassembling it after the OCI to see how it held up and what kind of stuff it trapped inside.

The XG is a good filter. Its a whole other breed apart from the OCOD, and proof that Fram can make a good product when they choose to. It competes with the established high end filters, and I think the differences among them are so small in that segment, that in real world use you'd be as well served by any of them. Its just a matter of personal taste and availability at that point.

-Spyder

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
97% @ 20 microns isn't too shabby IMO. It probably also flows very well with the full synthetic media.


It doesn't say 97% for particles at 20 microns size, it says 97% for particles larger than 20 microns.

"Honeywell testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns. "

Seems to pass oil relatively slowly on the ones I cut open and dipped.
Probably a good filter overall though.
IMO, It isn't as good as PureONE, K&N, Mobil 1, Bosch...but good.


Yeah, I know ... but to me that's basically the same as "@ 20 microns" because a particle that is 20.0001 microns is bigger than 20 microns.

 

[trabuccomlfrd]

Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd

i dont think the extended guard is the best bang for your buck, i think it is on of them, i think the best bang for your buck is a hastings, not the federated version but the regular hastings. i feel that for the price difference between the m1 and the extended guard that the extended guard is a much better buy. like many others have said people like you have to get over the fact the fram is capable of making a great filter. as far as the pureone i dont feel that it is an absolute ripoff, i feel that for the price they can do better job producing it and not be so sloppy. and spyder or whatever your name is, remember how you made fun of the extended guard for saying dirt on the box instead of containments, when i was at AAP i couldnt help but notice how the bosch distance plus says in huge letters all over the box "HOLDS MORE DIRT" "99.9% efficiancy REMOVES more dirt*" "300% greater capacity HOLDS more dirt*". before you make fun of the extended guard for using the word dirt in small letters on the back of the box, look a bosch a filter that you support putting that work in bold right on the front, talk about bad marketing


Actually what you have said, several times (and I will link back to the posts where you said it, if you insist on denying it) was that the Fram XG, with its synthetic media, is superior to both the inferior M1 and Bosch Distanceplus as they are "paper filters." Your words. You then went on to state that, therefore, anyone throwing their money away on one of those inferior products was "foolish" and being "ripped off."

So you can backpedal all you want, but those posts are still in this forum. You also have a knack for inferring things without any facts to support them. And as to what you are saying about my take on the XG is off the mark. I have said in different threads about it, that its the best filter from Fram and not like the other ones they make. I've also said it can contend with the heavy hitters in the higher end market.

Where I stop short is in making the absolute statements you insist on making, such as X filter is "clearly superior to Y filter because X has synthetic media versus whatever is in Y."

That doesn't stop me from poking fun at their advertising by quoting it word for word. They wrote it - I just copied and pasted what they wrote on their site. I can hardly be a "Fram hater" when I have also stated in different posts that I do buy and use their air filters and consider them adequate value and a decent enough product.

I also poke fun at Mobil sometimes, while using their filters and, since the price on Mobil 1 has dropped, recently considered adding it to my oil stash.

I generally avoid absolute comparisons, especially on filters, as they are very hard to make due to variations in price, criteria in evaluation and where the emphasis is placed (flow versus filtration efficacy, etc), etc. And I don't tell people how to spend their money. Its their money, not mine - what do I care when I have no vested interest in any products on this site?

The M1 is a good filter. Its price, against the local competition, is justified - to me. And that's the only person it needs to be justified to. You don't like it, spend your money on whatever you want to. But I'd find your posts a lot less grating if you left out the economic lectures and absolute comparisons that - to me - seem very poorly informed. Or if they are informed, you miss the mark by a mile in demonstrating it.

-Spyder

was i lying when i said they are paper filters? no, they do in fact have paper cellulose in the media... right. whether its a blend or not doesnt mean they dont have paper in them, so stop telling me im just making things up. i am not telling you how to spend your money, i am just criticizing how you spend it, big difference. i dont feel that i missed the mark by a mile, $6 is a big difference for something that costs so little, i saw your post above where you said "I think the differences among them are so small in that segment, that in real world use you'd be as well served by any of them", for such small differences between filters are the others really worth paying $4 - $6 more?! i sure wouldnt pay that, im currently using a distance+ but i bought it before i knew about the xg. i didnt exactly say x filter was was better than y filter because x uses synthetic, i said x was a better value. the xg uses a thick layer of synthetic on top then a layer of paper cellulous, then wire mesh under that, $9 seems to be a bargain i my opinion, you are paying $15 for just one layer of paper blend.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, I know ... but to me that's basically the same as "@ 20 microns" because a particle that is 20.0001 microns is bigger than 20 microns.

You are an optimist!

Seriously though, they probably test it at standard increments. 20, 25, 30, 40, and 60 microns. Of all particles larger than 20, it catches 97%

That's a far cry from 97% at 20 microns when you think about it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd
. i didnt exactly say x filter was was better than y filter because x uses synthetic, i said x was a better value.


ummmmmm:

Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd
the extended guard is way better than pure one


I see.......


Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd
the xg uses a thick layer of synthetic on top then a layer of paper cellulous, then wire mesh under that, $9 seems to be a bargain i my opinion, you are paying $15 for just one layer of paper blend.


The one layer of paper blend (in the PureONE) FILTERS BETTER.

Which is the PRIMARY FUNCTION of an OIL FILTER.

This is NOT a difficult concept here!

And, according to you, is actually $2.00 LESS!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the real bargain for an OIL FILTER to FILTER your OIL is the PureONE. It is more efficient, and less money.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Yeah, I know ... but to me that's basically the same as "@ 20 microns" because a particle that is 20.0001 microns is bigger than 20 microns.

You are an optimist!

Seriously though, they probably test it at standard increments. 20, 25, 30, 40, and 60 microns. Of all particles larger than 20, it catches 97%

That's a far cry from 97% at 20 microns when you think about it.


You or I couldn't really say without seeing the exact test they run. But yes, I will say their statement is a bit "nebulous".

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: trabuccomlfrd

was i lying when i said they are paper filters? no, they do in fact have paper cellulose in the media... right. whether its a blend or not doesnt mean they dont have paper in them, so stop telling me im just making things up.


You either have a great deal of trouble keeping your facts straight, or you pull them out of thin air. Which is it?

You originally trashed the M1 as a "paper" filter while praising the XG for being "pure synthetic," and that basis alone, concluded that the XG was the superior product.

When a subsequent post revealed the M1 was a synthetic blend, you stuck to your guns and said it amounted to the same thing, and the XG was still better being "purely synthetic media based."

Now a more recent post from Fram's site shows they are both synthetic fiber and cellulose blends.

There goes your entire platform, though the trail of disinformation (that you still defend) lingers on.

Quote:

i am not telling you how to spend your money, i am just criticizing how you spend it, big difference.


Right, big difference.

Quote:

i didnt exactly say x filter was was better than y filter because x uses synthetic, i said x was a better value. the xg uses a thick layer of synthetic on top then a layer of paper cellulous, then wire mesh under that, $9 seems to be a bargain i my opinion, you are paying $15 for just one layer of paper blend.


Let's do the math:

The XG, using your numbers is $9 and rated by Fram for a 10,000 mile OCI.

M1 EP from Mobil, is designed to be paired up with the M1 EP oil and do a 15k OCI.

10k is 2/3rds of 15k. 2/3rds of $15 is $5. Add that to your $9 and, assuming my cost on the XG is the same as your $9 cost (even though its higher), you are quibbling over a buck that will be spread over 6-8 months of driving.

And this from the same guy who dumps his Mobil 1 every 5k.

-Spyder

 

[Gary Allan]

The XG is a good filter. The PureOne is a good filter ..pick your filter.

I'll say that the XG is overbuilt for the task. You do get what you pay for over the cost of a PureOne in terms of construction. It's construction is up there with the EaO and what most filter manufacturers produce for Euro's that spec relatively high bypass valve settings.

Either will be fine for up to 15k if 15k is done in a timely manner (like one year). The XG may not have the same holding capacity as the PureOne, but probably doesn't need it as long as it doesn't filter to the same level. It's "curve" will track about the same (probably).

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
The XG is a good filter. The PureOne is a good filter ..pick your filter.

I'll say that the XG is overbuilt for the task. You do get what you pay for over the cost of a PureOne in terms of construction. It's construction is up there with the EaO and what most filter manufacturers produce for Euro's that spec relatively high bypass valve settings.

Either will be fine for up to 15k if 15k is done in a timely manner (like one year). The XG may not have the same holding capacity as the PureOne, but probably doesn't need it as long as it doesn't filter to the same level. It's "curve" will track about the same (probably).


They're all good filters. Like anything else, local pricing, availability, and personal preference all come into play.

This thread would have been a lot shorter and cleaner if the OP had stuck to his thread title, rather than adding the back-handed shot at M1 and Bosch filters - and doing it without getting his facts in order first.

His physical dissection of the XG was cleanly done, and his pics were good. The foundation was there.

Fram XG vs. everything else on the market would be another thread entirely, and its too bad he had to take it there.

-Spyder

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
You or I couldn't really say without seeing the exact test they run. But yes, I will say their statement is a bit "nebulous".

Yeah, we don't know.
I think though they wouldn't use the greater than sign if it was 97% at 20.001 microns.
I think they have to use it to make the efficiency look better.
(Lots of "I thinks")
That's marketing though. Most people think > is an arrow. LOL

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
The bias and misinformation on this site humours me some time. Now if this was a Wix or Purolator filter it would be praised as the best filter in the world. Because it is made by Fram people have to find a flaw. Yes, the Orange cans may not be as well constructed as some of the other filters but the XG is better than many of the filters out there. Fram is allowed to make a good filter you know.


Yes, this shows that Fram does know how to make a good filter. I'd run this on my car without hesitation. Too bad their "regular" filters are sub-par when compared to other maker's "regular" filters.

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
The XG is a good filter. The PureOne is a good filter ..pick your filter.

I'll say that the XG is overbuilt for the task. You do get what you pay for over the cost of a PureOne in terms of construction. It's construction is up there with the EaO and what most filter manufacturers produce for Euro's that spec relatively high bypass valve settings.

Either will be fine for up to 15k if 15k is done in a timely manner (like one year). The XG may not have the same holding capacity as the PureOne, but probably doesn't need it as long as it doesn't filter to the same level. It's "curve" will track about the same (probably).

Gary, are you talking about the Purolator PureONE or the Mobil M1? PureONEs are not marketed (or designed, from what I can tell) to be a long-OCI filter. Where are you seeing anything that suggests that a PureONE has a large holding capacity? It certainly isn't anything close to the Fram's advertised 10,000 mile change interval. The Purolator-made Bosch DistancePlus is up there, but not the PureONE.

 

[ZeeOSix]

From Purolator's website. Not real clear on what they are trying to say here for OCIs.

PureOne filters are advertised to hold 13 grams of debris ... so could probably get an idea from that spec.


"Which Purolator oil filter best fits your driving style - Purolator Classic or Purolator PureONE? Check out the chart below:"

 

[G-MAN]

Well, I had to go to Wal-Mart today to get some Rotella T5 for my next oil change in my Chrysler and I decided to try one of these XG filters. This will be the first time I've run a Fram filter since the early 80s when I cut an orange one open and saw what a piece of junk it was.

 

[Spyder7]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
From Purolator's website. Not real clear on what they are trying to say here for OCIs.

PureOne filters are advertised to hold 13 grams of debris ... so could probably get an idea from that spec.


"Which Purolator oil filter best fits your driving style - Purolator Classic or Purolator PureONE? Check out the chart below:"

That would only be useful if you're comparing across the same size filter, since different sizes will have different capacities. Plus sizing to the larger filter option (assuming the car has one) will increase that amount; though unless you're doing especially long OCIs, I don't see the advantage. I stick to 10-12k with this one and don't use the over-sized version, as I consider that a good enough interval for me.

YMMV

-Spyder