Fram Ultra--Any Real Competition?

[oil_film_movies]

IndyFan, it's just called "Ultra", not "Ultra Guard", not UG.

Originally Posted by IndyFan
So, the question: Is there any other filter that can compete with the Fram's performance? I've not seen any that publish better than 99% at 30 microns or bigger, in the single pass standardized test. Of course, the Fram TG and UG get 99% at down to 20 microns.
The standardized test is NOT a single-pass test. It's ISO 4548-12, a multipass test. (The old SAE HS806 & J1858 multipass tests aren't used much these days.) ................. It's true Fram Ultra does publish better 4548-12 numbers than it's nearest competitors like Amsoil EaO, Royal Purple, Wix XP, Napa Platinum, & Purolator Boss full-syn oil filters. (Wix XP and Napa Platinum's performance are both pretty awful.)

One oil filter might come close or match the Fram Ultra for filtering efficiency, and that is MicroGreen spin-on canister filters. They aren't bypass oil filters; they just screw on there in place of a normal lone oil filter. ... "We installed each competitor's conventional oil filter in a passenger vehicle, and after traveling 40 miles with used, dirty engine oil, oil samples were taken. Then, those same conventional filters were fitted with an adapter to use the microfilter technology in the microGreen® oil filter, and the vehicles were operated another 40 miles. With the addition of the patented microfilter technology, the average five-micron particle count dropped an additional 85%." -- http://www.microgreenfilter.com/Site/Products/microgreen-spin-on-oil-filter.aspx which is controversial since the internal structure of the parallel path oil filter may mean it has to travel many miles (time) to get those really small sub-5-micron particles out that may be missed by the 4548-12 bench test. And, Fram Ultra almost certainly beats the MicroGreen for grams of gunk held before clogging. The internal parallel fluid path in the MicroGreen should scrub out the small stuff, slowly over hundreds of miles anyway.

Originally Posted by IndyFan
According to Fram, the UG media flows better, too,
I don't see Fram claiming anything about flow. Do you have a website link or document to show that?
That said, there is some evidence the full-synthetic media oil filters do flow better. There was a differential pressure vs. flow rate graph that showed the old AC-Delco UltraGuard (no relation to Fram Ultra), which AC-Delco doesn't offer any more in the old form with full-syn media, did flow better than mixed paper-syn media oil filters. This should help with reducing the frequency of bypass events at least, a good thing.

Originally Posted by Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted by Phishin
..... and another half dozen Fram RACING filters.
Why Fram Racing filters? 94% efficiency @20 microns is nothing to write home about.
Fram Racing oil filters are very good. Efficiency not bad, silicone ADBV, screen over bypass valve, high bypass valve pressure threshold, and built ruggedly. Its a great oil filter to use in Subarus and GM engines built in the last 6 years where high bypass pressures are favored, and in off-road or racing applications where you need extra ruggedness.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
So, the question: Is there any other filter that can compete with the Fram's performance? I've not seen any that publish better than 99% at 30 microns or bigger, in the single pass standardized test. Of course, the Fram TG and UG get 99% at down to 20 microns.

According to Fram, the UG media flows better, too, so it appears to be a rare case of getting the best of all worlds...highest filtration, high flow, and high total dirt capacity.

I'd love to know if any competing filters are as effective as an Ultra Guard. Please don't say bypass filters, or something like that. I am just curious if any traditional can or cartridge filters can do as well, at least with their own published or claimed results.


I looked at all the particle counts that I could find and came to the conclusion that if efficiency is that important to you, then you're better off running a Toughguard than an Ultra.

Because of it's high capacity and maybe the fully synthetic media, it is only when an Ultra is run past 15k miles that you begin seeing significant drops in particle counts that in a Toughguard you see well below 10k miles. In fact, Mobil 1 filters also seem to deliver similarly significant drops in particle counts at a lower mileage than an Ultra.

It makes more sense to have lower particle counts for 50%+ of the time a Toughguard is in use than for anywhere between 0% and 25% that an Ultra is in use (when it is used for 20k miles or less).

The other thing that can significantly reduce particle counts, and do so for the entire life of the filter, is to use a filter magnet.

 

[StevieC]

I spoke with Jay from Fram on here about the flow before I decided I was going to move over from the Amsoil EA to the Fram Ultra and he told me that for my application (Toyota Highlander) the Ultra Guard flows 12 gallons per minute which is double the required flow of what my engine flows at its maximum.

You might try e-mailing him about your specific filter and how it compares to the OE spec because they have this data.

Originally Posted by Motorking
Max flow of the XG9972 is 12 gpm, almost double what that engine can flow at max rpm.

Jay M Buckley
FRAM
(248) 808-4551
[email protected]


Keep in mind that while double is great it won't be this through it's whole life as it loads up so it's good that there is this much flow in the beginning.

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
IndyFan, it's just called "Ultra", not "Ultra Guard", not UG.

Originally Posted by IndyFan
So, the question: Is there any other filter that can compete with the Fram's performance? I've not seen any that publish better than 99% at 30 microns or bigger, in the single pass standardized test. Of course, the Fram TG and UG get 99% at down to 20 microns.
The standardized test is NOT a single-pass test. It's ISO 4548-12, a multipass test. (The old SAE HS806 & J1858 multipass tests aren't used much these days.) ................. It's true Fram Ultra does publish better 4548-12 numbers than it's nearest competitors like Amsoil EaO, Royal Purple, Wix XP, Napa Platinum, & Purolator Boss full-syn oil filters. (Wix XP and Napa Platinum's performance are both pretty awful.)

One oil filter might come close or match the Fram Ultra for filtering efficiency, and that is MicroGreen spin-on canister filters. They aren't bypass oil filters; they just screw on there in place of a normal lone oil filter. ... "We installed each competitor's conventional oil filter in a passenger vehicle, and after traveling 40 miles with used, dirty engine oil, oil samples were taken. Then, those same conventional filters were fitted with an adapter to use the microfilter technology in the microGreen® oil filter, and the vehicles were operated another 40 miles. With the addition of the patented microfilter technology, the average five-micron particle count dropped an additional 85%." -- http://www.microgreenfilter.com/Site/Products/microgreen-spin-on-oil-filter.aspx which is controversial since the internal structure of the parallel path oil filter may mean it has to travel many miles (time) to get those really small sub-5-micron particles out that may be missed by the 4548-12 bench test. And, Fram Ultra almost certainly beats the MicroGreen for grams of gunk held before clogging. The internal parallel fluid path in the MicroGreen should scrub out the small stuff, slowly over hundreds of miles anyway.

Originally Posted by IndyFan
According to Fram, the UG media flows better, too,
I don't see Fram claiming anything about flow. Do you have a website link or document to show that?
That said, there is some evidence the full-synthetic media oil filters do flow better. There was a differential pressure vs. flow rate graph that showed the old AC-Delco UltraGuard (no relation to Fram Ultra), which AC-Delco doesn't offer any more in the old form with full-syn media, did flow better than mixed paper-syn media oil filters. This should help with reducing the frequency of bypass events at least, a good thing.

Originally Posted by Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted by Phishin
..... and another half dozen Fram RACING filters.
Why Fram Racing filters? 94% efficiency @20 microns is nothing to write home about.
Fram Racing oil filters are very good. Efficiency not bad, silicone ADBV, screen over bypass valve, high bypass valve pressure threshold, and built ruggedly. Its a great oil filter to use in Subarus and GM engines built in the last 6 years where high bypass pressures are favored, and in off-road or racing applications where you need extra ruggedness.


Wow, thanks! Lots to look at there. The flow rate was from a post from the Fram guy here on the board. I'll have to dig and see if I can find it, but IIRC, he spoke as if the Fram Ultra media permitted a higher flow rate.

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
Originally Posted by IndyFan
So, the question: Is there any other filter that can compete with the Fram's performance? I've not seen any that publish better than 99% at 30 microns or bigger, in the single pass standardized test. Of course, the Fram TG and UG get 99% at down to 20 microns.

According to Fram, the UG media flows better, too, so it appears to be a rare case of getting the best of all worlds...highest filtration, high flow, and high total dirt capacity.

I'd love to know if any competing filters are as effective as an Ultra Guard. Please don't say bypass filters, or something like that. I am just curious if any traditional can or cartridge filters can do as well, at least with their own published or claimed results.


I looked at all the particle counts that I could find and came to the conclusion that if efficiency is that important to you, then you're better off running a Toughguard than an Ultra.

Because of it's high capacity and maybe the fully synthetic media, it is only when an Ultra is run past 15k miles that you begin seeing significant drops in particle counts that in a Toughguard you see well below 10k miles. In fact, Mobil 1 filters also seem to deliver similarly significant drops in particle counts at a lower mileage than an Ultra.

It makes more sense to have lower particle counts for 50%+ of the time a Toughguard is in use than for anywhere between 0% and 25% that an Ultra is in use (when it is used for 20k miles or less).

The other thing that can significantly reduce particle counts, and do so for the entire life of the filter, is to use a filter magnet.


That's some good food for thought. I can use a magnet on my canister filters, but the Merc and JL have cartridges. I like the polymer mesh on the UG for the Jeep, too, but then again, the TG might hold up as well, even without it. I may give the TG a go on the JL.

Thanks again. This info is exactly why I asked.

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I spoke with Jay from Fram on here about the flow before I decided I was going to move over from the Amsoil EA to the Fram Ultra and he told me that for my application (Toyota Highlander) the Ultra Guard flows 12 gallons per minute which is double the required flow of what my engine flows at its maximum.

You might try e-mailing him about your specific filter and how it compares to the OE spec because they have this data.

Originally Posted by Motorking
Max flow of the XG9972 is 12 gpm, almost double what that engine can flow at max rpm.

Jay M Buckley
FRAM
(248) 808-4551
[email protected]


Keep in mind that while double is great it won't be this through it's whole life as it loads up so it's good that there is this much flow in the beginning.


Thank you! I'll call or email him. I want to ask him about the pleat contortion on the Pentastar filters. I'm betting it has no ill effect, but I'm curious. If no effect, I may look at the TG, as CharlieBauer suggested.

This is great stuff, friends! I appreciate it and am learning a great deal. This is fascinating stuff!

 

[StevieC]

I know the PentaStar pleats can distort if you tighten the housing cap too much. Make sure you hand tighten as far as possible and then use a Torque Wrench to snug it using the 24mm hex on the top of the housing.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by StevieC
It makes more sense to have lower particle counts for 50%+ of the time a Toughguard is in use than for anywhere between 0% and 25% that an Ultra is in use (when it is used for 20k miles or less).
That's some good food for thought. I can use a magnet on my canister filters, but the Merc and JL have cartridges. I like the polymer mesh on the UG for the Jeep, too, but then again, the TG might hold up as well, even without it. I may give the TG a go on the JL.


I'd just get the Ultra over the TG. It's only typically -$3 different, and with the Ultra you get a tear-resistant, wire-backed, depth-filtering, lower pressure drop (reduces bypass events).

Which shows an older version of the TG performed the worst of the group. (Note the "UltraGaurd" in the graph is NOT the Fram Ultra, it's the extinct AC-Delco full-syn-media one of a few years ago, not an Ultra, but should behave in flow similarly we assume rightly.)

Depth filtering scrubs out smaller particles. Ultra is much better at depth filtering than a TG:

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by StevieC
I know the PentaStar pleats can distort if you tighten the housing cap too much. Make sure you hand tighten as far as possible and then use a Torque Wrench to snug it using the 24mm hex on the top of the housing.


18ft lbs is the specified torque. I am sure I overtorqued it on the last run with an UG. I'll be torquing it properly on the next change. The current one is probably close. I made sure not to go as tightly with it, but didn't measure it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Originally Posted by IndyFan
According to Fram, the UG media flows better, too,
I don't see Fram claiming anything about flow. Do you have a website link or document to show that?
That said, there is some evidence the full-synthetic media oil filters do flow better. There was a differential pressure vs. flow rate graph that showed the old AC-Delco UltraGuard (no relation to Fram Ultra), which AC-Delco doesn't offer any more in the old form with full-syn media, did flow better than mixed paper-syn media oil filters. This should help with reducing the frequency of bypass events at least, a good thing.


Ultra flow performance was talked about in this thread - data from Motorking: LINK

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
I looked at all the particle counts that I could find and came to the conclusion that if efficiency is that important to you, then you're better off running a Toughguard than an Ultra.

Because of it's high capacity and maybe the fully synthetic media, it is only when an Ultra is run past 15k miles that you begin seeing significant drops in particle counts that in a Toughguard you see well below 10k miles. In fact, Mobil 1 filters also seem to deliver similarly significant drops in particle counts at a lower mileage than an Ultra.

It makes more sense to have lower particle counts for 50%+ of the time a Toughguard is in use than for anywhere between 0% and 25% that an Ultra is in use (when it is used for 20k miles or less).

The other thing that can significantly reduce particle counts, and do so for the entire life of the filter, is to use a filter magnet.


Do you have any links to ISO particle count data for a TG?

In the thread linked below, I found some UOA particle count data and graphed the data. You can see the oil particle count difference between the different efficiency oil filters. For instance, Filter B is a Purolator Boss rated at 99% @ 40u, and Filter D is a Fram Ultra rated at 99% @ 20u.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...lubles-vs-iso-particle-count#Post4860942

Filter B data source: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4817800/Re:_2011_Durango_5.7L_125K_PPH
Filter D data source: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4753215/Toyota_2GR-FE_TGMO_with_Partic

And, it's been discussed a few times that not all filters will get more efficient with use depending on their media's ability to retain captured particles as the delta-p starts to increase from debris loading.

 

[Sam_Julier]

How about Donaldson and Denso? Easy to source and build like a brick privy. If you don't believe me cut one open.

Sam

 

[IndyFan]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
I looked at all the particle counts that I could find and came to the conclusion that if efficiency is that important to you, then you're better off running a Toughguard than an Ultra.

Because of it's high capacity and maybe the fully synthetic media, it is only when an Ultra is run past 15k miles that you begin seeing significant drops in particle counts that in a Toughguard you see well below 10k miles. In fact, Mobil 1 filters also seem to deliver similarly significant drops in particle counts at a lower mileage than an Ultra.

It makes more sense to have lower particle counts for 50%+ of the time a Toughguard is in use than for anywhere between 0% and 25% that an Ultra is in use (when it is used for 20k miles or less).

The other thing that can significantly reduce particle counts, and do so for the entire life of the filter, is to use a filter magnet.


Do you have any links to ISO particle count data for a TG?

In the thread linked below, I found some UOA particle count data and graphed the data. You can see the oil particle count difference between the different efficiency oil filters. For instance, Filter B is a Purolator Boss rated at 99% @ 40u, and Filter D is a Fram Ultra rated at 99% @ 20u.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...lubles-vs-iso-particle-count#Post4860942

Filter B data source: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4817800/Re:_2011_Durango_5.7L_125K_PPH
Filter D data source: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4753215/Toyota_2GR-FE_TGMO_with_Partic

And, it's been discussed a few times that not all filters will get more efficient with use depending on their media's ability to retain captured particles as the delta-p starts to increase from debris loading.



Wow, the Fram Ultra is really impressive there.

 

[StevieC]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by StevieC
I know the PentaStar pleats can distort if you tighten the housing cap too much. Make sure you hand tighten as far as possible and then use a Torque Wrench to snug it using the 24mm hex on the top of the housing.


18ft lbs is the specified torque. I am sure I overtorqued it on the last run with an UG. I'll be torquing it properly on the next change. The current one is probably close. I made sure not to go as tightly with it, but didn't measure it.


I was at work when I posted that and couldn't remember but I do recall it was around 20 so 18 makes sense. I didn't want to post something I wasn't sure about, especially when dealing with torquing plastic things. Most people crank the heck out of these housings because they think they have to make sure they can't see the threads and smash it right down and that isn't the case with these.

There are also 2 revisions of the filters for these engines. One that is flat top/bottom (early PentaStars) and one that has a cage at the bottom with a nipple & o-ring. (Later PentaStars) Just in case you get a filter that can be used either way and you need to put the cage/nipple piece on. I think it's the Fram Basic cartridge that does this but it could be another brand, I don't remember but did see it. Also clip it into the filter housing cap before reinstalling, don't drop it into the house on the engine or else you could end up with the oil draining down back to the oil pan when you shut off the engine and that would cause dry-starting all the time.

 

[IndyIan]

I like the ultra also because I can run it for 2 OCI's, around 20k miles total. I think mobil1 also advertises similar range but they aren't on sale as often in my neck of the woods.

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Hard to match for the performance vs cost … but I currently have two vehicles where the PRV setting issue stranded some XG's on my shelf …


Ohhhh PLEEEEASE.... we are in Texas!

Do You really think that whole GM pressure bypass service memo issue is a reason to not use them?

I've got some ocean-front property for sale in Arizona really cheap..... Wanna make an offer?

 

[IndyFan]

My plan on the JK is to do two or three OCI's. It's lifetime warranty limits me to 6k OCI's. I run the Ultra with Mobil 1 HM 5w30.

 

[bbhero]

Originally Posted by Linctex
Originally Posted by 4WD
Hard to match for the performance vs cost … but I currently have two vehicles where the PRV setting issue stranded some XG's on my shelf …


Ohhhh PLEEEEASE.... we are in Texas!

Do You really think that whole GM pressure bypass service memo issue is a reason to not use them?

I've got some ocean-front property for sale in Arizona really cheap..... Wanna make an offer?



Depends... Where at in Texas

It gets mighty cold up in the Amarillo area and Lubbock area at times. I've seen low temps in that area get all the way into the 0°F and even below at times... Maybe not too often granted... But it does happen from time to time... I've seen low temps forecasted near 0°F in the Amarillo area and yet low temps forecasted in the low 60s at the exact same time in Brownsville Texas. The rainbow colors used to depict the temperature ranges get quite a bit of color changes in the winter time in Texas at times.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted by IndyFan
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
In the thread linked below, I found some UOA particle count data and graphed the data. You can see the oil particle count difference between the different efficiency oil filters. For instance, Filter B is a Purolator Boss rated at 99% @ 40u, and Filter D is a Fram Ultra rated at 99% @ 20u.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...lubles-vs-iso-particle-count#Post4860942

Filter B data source: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4817800/Re:_2011_Durango_5.7L_125K_PPH
Filter D data source: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4753215/Toyota_2GR-FE_TGMO_with_Partic


Wow, the Fram Ultra is really impressive there.


Although an Ultra should be much better than a 99% at 40 micron filter, that was an unusually good particle count result for the Ultra especially at 5k miles.

Would you believe that filter A is also an Ultra? Here is a particle count of an Ultra after 10k miles with exactly the same ISO code of 24/22/17 making it worse than the 99% at 40 micron Purolator Boss.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4395731/1

The one filter that has consistently showed good particle counts as early as 5k miles was the synthetic blend Mobil 1 filter which is rated slightly worse than an Ultra and Toughguard. It leads me to believe that a synthetic blend media is going to perform better in particle counts throughout it's usage compared to a high capacity full synthetic such as an Ultra or an Amsoil. There is data that shows both Amsoil and Ultras take about 15k miles before reducing particle counts in a significant way and there is data showing Mobil filters achieving similar particle counts at 5k (and maybe earlier).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
Although an Ultra should be much better than a 99% at 40 micron filter, that was an unusually good particle count result for the Ultra especially at 5k miles.

Would you believe that filter A is also an Ultra? Here is a particle count of an Ultra after 10k miles with exactly the same ISO code of 24/22/17 making it worse than the 99% at 40 micron Purolator Boss.

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4395731/1

The one filter that has consistently showed good particle counts as early as 5k miles was the synthetic blend Mobil 1 filter which is rated slightly worse than an Ultra and Toughguard. It leads me to believe that a synthetic blend media is going to perform better in particle counts throughout it's usage compared to a high capacity full synthetic such as an Ultra or an Amsoil. There is data that shows both Amsoil and Ultras take about 15k miles before reducing particle counts in a significant way and there is data showing Mobil filters achieving similar particle counts at 5k (and maybe earlier).


Yeah, that's the one Ultra PC that a certain member would always latch onto for some reason. Go find more Ultra PCs and build up a database and you'll probably conclude like I did that bad PC is an out-flyer instance. Something went wrong there.

And the reason that PCs might show good early on is because if they run longer it's possible they start shedding captured particles and the efficiency actually decreases. It all depends on how well the media retains captured particles as the delta-p (including pressure spikes/fluctuations) increases across the media. See attached figure below.

Originally Posted by CharlieBauer
There is data that shows both Amsoil and Ultras take about 15k miles before reducing particle counts in a significant way and there is data showing Mobil filters achieving similar particle counts at 5k (and maybe earlier).


Have a link to the collected data showing how the ISO PC got better as the OCI was progressing along with said filters?