Fram ToughGuard Filter Opinions

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: tomcat27
if Honda uses cardboard inside it cant be all that bad...


I don't think the cardboard itself is the issue, although it's the idea of the cheapness of it all. Heck the filter is made of thinner paper, and paper and carboard, provided it doesn't plug an oil passage, can't cause any damage to an engine. What I dislike about Fram is they seem to have the least media area and a low efficency. There's better filters for less money and much better ones for not much more. But if Honda uses them as OEM and if the Fram branded one is exactly the same, then I guess that's a bonus if you have a Honda, or maybe a mark against Honda depending on how you look at it.

 

[mva]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What I dislike about Fram is they seem to have the least media area and a low efficency.


Not true!

This thread is about the Fram "Tough Guard" which happens to be a filter with large surface area and very good efficiency. The "Extra Guard" is a more ordinary filter with average efficiency and surface area.

Have a look at the media comparisons below:

Fram Extra Guard PH5

ADBV material: Nitrile
Filter area: 183 sq/in
Average pore size: 32.5 µm
Smallest pore size: 14 µm


WIX 51086

Filter area: 185 sq/in
ADBV material: Silicon
Average pore size: 35 µm
Smallest pore size: 16 µm


Fram Tough Guard TG5

ADBV material: Silicon
Filter area: 274 sq/in
Average pore size: 26 µm
Smallest pore size: 12 µm

Purolator PureOne PL34631

ADBV material: Silicon
Filter area: 330 sq/in
Average pore size: 24 µm
Smallest pore size: 11 µm

Fram Toughguard TG3593A 99% Multipass Efficiency at 20 microns

Amsoil 98.7% Multipass Efficiency at 15 microns

WIX 51334 50% multipass efficiency at 22 microns and 95% multipass efficiency at 40 microns

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: mva
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
What I dislike about Fram is they seem to have the least media area and a low efficency.


Not true!

This thread is about the Fram "Tough Guard" which happens to be a filter with large surface area and very good efficiency. The "Extra Guard" is a more ordinary filter with average efficiency and surface area.

Have a look at the media comparisons below:

Fram Extra Guard PH5

ADBV material: Nitrile
Filter area: 183 sq/in
Average pore size: 32.5 µm
Smallest pore size: 14 µm


WIX 51086

Filter area: 185 sq/in
ADBV material: Silicon
Average pore size: 35 µm
Smallest pore size: 16 µm


Fram Tough Guard TG5

ADBV material: Silicon
Filter area: 274 sq/in
Average pore size: 26 µm
Smallest pore size: 12 µm

Purolator PureOne PL34631

ADBV material: Silicon
Filter area: 330 sq/in
Average pore size: 24 µm
Smallest pore size: 11 µm

Fram Toughguard TG3593A 99% Multipass Efficiency at 20 microns

Amsoil 98.7% Multipass Efficiency at 15 microns

WIX 51334 50% multipass efficiency at 22 microns and 95% multipass efficiency at 40 microns


Yeah but the Fram TG is in the PureOne price range. TG says 99% efficency at >20 microns. Not so impressive when you see the > sign.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Yeah but the Fram TG is in the PureOne price range. TG says 99% efficency at >20 microns. Not so impressive when you see the > sign.


Actually, 99% at 20 microns or greater is pretty good. Not sure about the construction of the TG, but the efficiency is good.

 

[Silver02ex]

Nothing wrong with Fram.... I'm using the Xtended Guard now and have been using the cheap Fram from quick lube places many years in the past.

 

[mva]

I am getting a little tired of the blind Fram bashing on this site.

TG is a very good filter in terms of silicone ADBV, lots of surface area and very good efficiency.

I agree that the Pureone is slightly better in terms of the TG features plus steel end caps.

WIX (Napa Gold) that is highly regarded by many is actually a low surface area filter with poor efficiency that happens to have robust construction.

Where I live in Canada, Pureone is not available, Napa Gold and Amsoil are expensive and Fram TG is about the best filter readily available at a reasonable price. I do not have issue with the cardboard end caps which have been very well bonded to the pleats on every Fram I have used.

If I lived in the US I would consider running a Pureone or Mobil 1 filter which I believe are slightly better than the Fram TG.

 

[Steve S]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: sangyup81
Originally Posted By: Dantheman
I've used FRAM filters for over 35 years . Never knew they were inferior until I came here and read all of the hysteria surrounding them .


FRAM wasn't always like this. In fact, during your 35 years of using them, they were great filters more years than they were so maligned. Blame recent cost-cutting aka corporate greed


That's actually incorrect. Though I used to believe the same. I believe it was Bill in Utah who cut open a FRAM from the 70's and found the same cardboard construction we enjoy today.

yes Fram has used the same construction since I started cutting open filters in the early 1970s . They filter good.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: mva

WIX (Napa Gold) that is highly regarded by many is actually a low surface area filter with poor efficiency that happens to have robust construction.


I agree ... the WIX / NAPA Gold has just an average efficiency performance.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Yeah but the Fram TG is in the PureOne price range. TG says 99% efficency at >20 microns. Not so impressive when you see the > sign.


Actually, 99% at 20 microns or greater is pretty good. Not sure about the construction of the TG, but the efficiency is good.


Yeah it would be but the Fram doesn't say "at" 20 microns or "at or greater". It say at greater than20 microns. That could make a significant difference. How much greater? If it means even at 25 microns, I'd think most filter are close to 99% efficient.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Have a look at the media comparisons below:

Fram Extra Guard PH5

ADBV material: Nitrile
Filter area: 183 sq/in
Average pore size: 32.5 µm
Smallest pore size: 14 µm


WIX 51086

Filter area: 185 sq/in
ADBV material: Silicon
Average pore size: 35 µm
Smallest pore size: 16 µm


Fram Tough Guard TG5

ADBV material: Silicon
Filter area: 274 sq/in
Average pore size: 26 µm
Smallest pore size: 12 µm

Purolator PureOne PL34631

ADBV material: Silicon
Filter area: 330 sq/in
Average pore size: 24 µm
Smallest pore size: 11 µm

Fram Toughguard TG3593A 99% Multipass Efficiency at 20 microns

Amsoil 98.7% Multipass Efficiency at 15 microns

WIX 51334 50% multipass efficiency at 22 microns and 95% multipass efficiency at 40 microns


Interesting stuff. Where did you find this info? Did they have other brands?

 

[mva]

Originally Posted By: river_rat

Interesting stuff. Where did you find this info? Did they have other brands?


Here is where I got the pore size and area data. Some good info but again it contains heavy bias against Fram. I try to ignore the comments and just look at the factual data:

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/general-q/86056-oil-filter-study-2.html

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: mva
Originally Posted By: river_rat

Interesting stuff. Where did you find this info? Did they have other brands?


Here is where I got the pore size and area data. Some good info but again it contains heavy bias against Fram. I try to ignore the comments and just look at the factual data:

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/general-q/86056-oil-filter-study-2.html

Cool Thanks!

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: mechanicx

Yeah but the Fram TG is in the PureOne price range. TG says 99% efficency at >20 microns. Not so impressive when you see the > sign.


Actually, 99% at 20 microns or greater is pretty good. Not sure about the construction of the TG, but the efficiency is good.


Yeah it would be but the Fram doesn't say "at" 20 microns or "at or greater". It say at greater than20 microns. That could make a significant difference. How much greater? If it means even at 25 microns, I'd think most filter are close to 99% efficient.


Well, 20.00001 microns is bigger (greater) than 20 microns. I'd consider the FRAM rating as "99% at 20 microns or greater."

Someone above also quoted specs as:
"Fram Toughguard TG3593A 99% Multipass Efficiency at 20 microns"

Anything beyond this is merely hair splitting.

 

[sangyup81]

Originally Posted By: mva
I am getting a little tired of the blind Fram bashing on this site.

TG is a very good filter in terms of silicone ADBV, lots of surface area and very good efficiency.

I agree that the Pureone is slightly better in terms of the TG features plus steel end caps.

WIX (Napa Gold) that is highly regarded by many is actually a low surface area filter with poor efficiency that happens to have robust construction.

Where I live in Canada, Pureone is not available, Napa Gold and Amsoil are expensive and Fram TG is about the best filter readily available at a reasonable price. I do not have issue with the cardboard end caps which have been very well bonded to the pleats on every Fram I have used.

If I lived in the US I would consider running a Pureone or Mobil 1 filter which I believe are slightly better than the Fram TG.


I can see how the Tough Guard makes sense in your case. I have nothing against the TG except that the Pure Ones are the same price pretty much but with the lack of choices, I would probably go TG too. At least you aren't stuck with the Fram Orange Cans

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Well, 20.00001 microns is bigger (greater) than 20 microns. I'd consider the FRAM rating as "99% at 20 microns or greater."

You are probably right in that is what they (Fram) mean.....but I'm so suspicious of markeying hype, it could mean anything. It could mean 40 microns. But probably not.
Even the orange can version filters reasonably well in my bench tests.

 

[mechanicx]

I would think if a product says "greater than" 20 microns, you can rest assured they mean at least 21 or more. Other wise they would say "at" 20 microns like just about every other filter does.

My guess is the "greater" is at the next common step up in particle size testing which I think is either 25 or 30. This is significant when the claim is 99% efficient, because that would (falsely) lead you to believe the filter is more fine than it might be and will filter out a higher percentage of particles less than 20 microns as a PureOne does.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
My guess is the "greater" is at the next common step up in particle size testing which I think is either 25 or 30. This is significant when the claim is 99% efficient, because that would (falsely) lead you to believe the filter is more fine than it might be and will filter out a higher percentage of particles less than 20 microns as a PureOne does.

Ya. It pays to read between the lines.