Fram Ultra not ok for my 2018 Impala??

[LeakySeals]

The Escalade in my sig doesn't like the Ultra. Slaps and ticks at startup too much for my liking. No noises at all with the tough guard. Both are close (Ultra at 99%+, TG at 99% @20um). But the Ultra has multiple synthetic layers and a screen so there must be a difference in flow that bothers my lq9. So i think the TSB should be adhered to. Better flow using an ACdelco or something with less efficiency.. Hyundai had a similar TSB a ways back. Toyota OEM fliters, honda filters, all very low efficiency, high flow. My opinion being on here for a while has changed. I no longer think having clean oil matters as much as optimal flow.

 

[901Memphis]

The differential pressure in the synthetic media filters will be lower than cellulose filters so it's not that crazy for the Ultra to have a lower bypass setting and still maintain full filtering without bypass during cold start.

 

[dave1251]

No it is not. GM issued the TSB for a reason.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by 901Memphis

The differential pressure in the synthetic media filters will be lower than cellulose filters so it's not that crazy for the Ultra to have a lower bypass setting and still maintain full filtering without bypass during cold start.

Do you have data to back that up? All I've seen is a comparison chart done years ago on various cellulose-glass fiber blended semi-synthetic media oil filters, showing there was (and there can be today) a pretty good spread between even that one type of oil filter media. I'd basically agree that the Fram Ultra, with its unique all-synthetic double layer media CAN be different on pressure drop. We don't know. MotorKing was a poster on here who could maybe tell us. Fram has been mostly mum on this whole GM-Mazda-Subaru bypass pressure valve setting issue. Its like they don't want to address it or something. In the chart above, the "Ultraguard" I'm pretty sure is referring to an AC-Delco Ultraguard, not a Fram Ultra, so I think that used the typical blended glass-paper media like the others. That chart does show there can (not always) be a different flow rate that pops the bypass valve. Another factor is using an oversized oil filter, where one can physically do so. Some of us can. With an oversize one, the pressure drop should be even less, since the flow is spread out across more media area. I'm almost concluding, without real proof I can't yet, that using an oversize Fram Ultra oil filter should equal using the lousy paper media AC-Delco oil filter, even though the Ultra has a minus 10 psi too low bypass threshold (13 vs. 23 psi). ...2018 Equinox 1.5L turbo engine, also covered by the notorious GM TSB about bypass valve settings.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by LeakySeals

The Escalade in my sig doesn't like the Ultra. Slaps and ticks at startup too much for my liking. No noises at all with the tough guard. Both are close (Ultra at 99%+, TG at 99% @20um). But the Ultra has multiple synthetic layers and a screen so there must be a difference in flow that bothers my lq9. So i think the TSB should be adhered to. Better flow using an ACdelco or something with less efficiency.. Hyundai had a similar TSB a ways back. Toyota OEM fliters, honda filters, all very low efficiency, high flow. My opinion being on here for a while has changed. I no longer think having clean oil matters as much as optimal flow.

It's not the flow performance that causing the start-up noise ... it's most likely a leaking ADBV.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by carviewsonic

Originally Posted by SnowDrifter

I think it's worth noting that the bypass valve setting on the filter is dependent on the media's strength and pressure drop across it at a given viscosity and flow. GM specs that for their own filters, for their own media

I wondered about that.. I would like to know if the Fram Ultra is less restrictive than the ACDelco, and therefore doesn't need a bypass setting as high as the ACDelco.

Originally Posted by 901Memphis

The differential pressure in the synthetic media filters will be lower than cellulose filters so it's not that crazy for the Ultra to have a lower bypass setting and still maintain full filtering without bypass during cold start.

In this linked thread, I asked Motorking if he could provide any flow vs delta-p data on the Ultra. Conclusion was it flows very well. Read from this post and beyond - LINK.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies

In the chart above, the "Ultraguard" I'm pretty sure is referring to an AC-Delco Ultraguard, not a Fram Ultra, so I think that used the typical blended glass-paper media like the others. That chart does show there can (not always) be a different flow rate that pops the bypass valve.

That graph was used by AC Delco to promote their Ultraguard, which was a wire backed full synthetic filter. I use to use them on my Z06 when they first came out. I think the graph was generated using filters without a bypass valve, as obviously if they did have a bypass valve it would have opened up in many of those cases and the curves would have clearly shown that.

 

[carviewsonic]

"In this linked thread, I asked Motorking if he could provide any flow vs delta-p data on the Ultra. Conclusion was it flows very well. Read from this post and beyond - LINK." Thanks ZeeOSix

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

That graph was used by AC Delco to promote their Ultraguard, which was a wire backed full synthetic filter. I use to use them on my Z06 when they first came out. I think the graph was generated using filters without a bypass valve, as obviously if they did have a bypass valve it would have opened up in many of those cases and the curves would have clearly shown that.

OK, so the old ACdelco Ultraguard (not the current ACdelco Ultraguard at all!) was full syn and wire backed too. Did not know that. ... I do think all the other oil filters there had some glass in them, blended to some extent with some paper fibers. 901memphis's assertion that he thinks the Fram Ultra would have a lower pressure drop may be OK. In your "LINK"ed thread you mentioned above, you basically concluded that a Fram Ultra had a similar pressure drop to the old PureOne, and the chart I showed above had the PureOne having a low pressure drop in the group of semi-synthetic fiber oil filters (not the Ultraguard).

 

[oil_film_movies]

Consolidating the info as best can be estimated: Say the current new PF64 and/or PF63E acts like the old Mobil1 oil filter in the chart. Should be a conservative estimate, since the PF64/63E oil filters are all paper, and the old M1 filter had some glass fibers blended in. With that, a PF64/63E would pop it's bypass valve at about 2.75 gpm flow (34F, 5w30 oil), and a current Ultra, being like the old PureOne, would pop it's valve at about the same 2.75 gpm. Now add the fact that I can easily fit an oversized Fram Ultra on my '18 Equinox 1.5L turbo, the Fram Ultra would end up bettering the original PF64 the factory fit, in the area of bypass valve popping ....(not to mention filtering efficiency too, another subject).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

That graph was used by AC Delco to promote their Ultraguard, which was a wire backed full synthetic filter. I use to use them on my Z06 when they first came out. I think the graph was generated using filters without a bypass valve, as obviously if they did have a bypass valve it would have opened up in many of those cases and the curves would have clearly shown that.

OK, so the old ACdelco Ultraguard (not the current ACdelco Ultraguard at all!) was full syn and wire backed too. Did not know that. ... I do think all the other oil filters there had some glass in them, blended to some extent with some paper fibers. 901memphis's assertion that he thinks the Fram Ultra would have a lower pressure drop may be OK. In your "LINK"ed thread you mentioned above, you basically concluded that a Fram Ultra had a similar pressure drop to the old PureOne, and the chart I showed above had the PureOne having a low pressure drop in the group of semi-synthetic fiber oil filters (not the Ultraguard).

I'm sure you've seen this graph generated from the flow vs delta-p data Purolator gave some years ago for a new (yellow) PureOne. In the linked thread I gave above, the Ultra flowed just as good or even better than the PureOne shown in the graph below. Keep in mind, this is for HOT 5W-30 oil at 200 F. Most engines won't even get close to putting out 10 GPM, which shows only 4 PSI of delta-p across the media in the graph below.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies

Another thing I wanted to point out on that graph of cold oil flow (5W-30 @ 34F) is that most of those oil filters have 8 PSI or less at 2 GPM of flow. On a cold engine start-up the RPM level is pretty low, so the oil pump isn't going to be putting out over 2 GPM unless you start revving it up pretty good before it warms up. Even the best flowing filter in the graph shows to have about 5 PSI of delta-p at 2 GPM. So this is a good reason to let the engine warm-up for a few minutes and drive off easy until the oil warms up pretty good.

 

[oil_film_movies]

ZeeOSix, yes those charts are for a specific temperature and visc condition. .......To me the the real take-away is the relative performance between the various brands and media types. .... Since the Fram Ultra is very likely as good or better than a PureOne was on pressure drop performance, as you've basically estimated on what info you had a while ago, 901memphis's assertion that the bypass threshold doesn't have to be as high as the paper PF64/63E (or other Subie or Mazda high bypass pressure filters out there) may be correct.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies

ZeeOSix, yes those charts are for a specific temperature and visc condition. .......To me the the real take-away is the relative performance between the various brands and media types. .... Since the Fram Ultra is very likely as good or better than a PureOne was on pressure drop performance, as you've basically estimated on what info you had a while ago, 901memphis's assertion that the bypass threshold doesn't have to be as high as the paper PF64/63E (or other Subie or Mazda high bypass pressure filters out there) may be correct.

Yep ... I've also mentioned the same basic thing many times in threads about high bypass valve settings. Now if Fram or any other aftermarket filter maker designs a filter to match the same higher bypass valve setting of the OEM filter, are they doing it just because the OEM guys did it and there's a valid reason (that was verified through analysis and testing), or do they do it just to "match" the spec so people see that and buy it because it matches a spec? Hummm ...

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Yep ... I've also mentioned the same basic thing many times in threads about high bypass valve settings.

Its the first time I've actually seen pressure diff numbers that may suggest the same or fewer bypass events in a Fram Ultra vs. the PF64/63E. Your past work on PureOne vs. Ultra, although it was at different temperatures (visc), combined with the charts, was good but not absolutely conclusive since I don't have current PF64/63E pressure drop performance. If assumptions about similar past products being similar enough to the paper PF64/63E are true, then it should be good enough.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix

Now if Fram or any other aftermarket filter maker designs a filter to match the same higher bypass valve setting of the OEM filter, are they doing it just because the OEM guys did it and there's a valid reason (that was verified through analysis and testing), or do they do it just to "match" the spec so people see that and buy it because it matches a spec? Hummm ...

Fram could simply challenge the GM memo directly. After all, GM impugns Fram's reputation directly by saying "Oh, BTW customers & technicians, our oil filters are some of the only ones with acceptable bypass thresholds." That excludes Fram from their own market for filters! Fram should come back and say, hey, wait a second GM, our test show a Corvette running the puny wimpy PF64 paper oil filter gets more bypass events for winter startups than our Fram Ultra recommended fitments, even with a lower bypass setting. Question is, does Fram have the guts to do this? Or do they find it easier to just up the bypass pressure threshold without a fight?

 

[Garak]

If it were me in charge at Fram, and it's not, so my opinion isn't worth the bits and bytes, but I'd verify that the filter is fine for the application, modify it if it isn't, and go with it. The OEMs like to talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. They sure talk about their own product and their own specifications as the only way to be, then get upset about patent infringement, as if everyone is in a rush to line up to copy the ecore design or brittle media in the first place. That's what an application guide is for. Either a filter company specifies a filter for a certain application, or they do not. There's no in between, and that's why I despise cross referencing, and even recommend caution when upsizing. I know the filter I'm using is a suitable upsize, but it's not the specified filter according to Wix. So, it's on me. Now, if Wix specifies it, then it had better be suitable for the application.

 

[carviewsonic]

Originally Posted by Garak

If it were me in charge at Fram, and it's not, so my opinion isn't worth the bits and bytes, but I'd verify that the filter is fine for the application, modify it if it isn't, and go with it. The OEMs like to talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue. They sure talk about their own product and their own specifications as the only way to be, then get upset about patent infringement, as if everyone is in a rush to line up to copy the ecore design or brittle media in the first place. That's what an application guide is for. Either a filter company specifies a filter for a certain application, or they do not. There's no in between, and that's why I despise cross referencing, and even recommend caution when upsizing. I know the filter I'm using is a suitable upsize, but it's not the specified filter according to Wix. So, it's on me. Now, if Wix specifies it, then it had better be suitable for the application.

And Fram does specify the XG10575 for my 2018 Impala 3.6 LFX, 9- 15 psi bypass and all. After following this informative thread, I really can't see how my engine could cause that bypass to open very often. I researched aftermarket high pressure oil pumps for various street engines, and 10 gpm were about the highest volumes I came across. Even at that volume the Fram Ultra only drops about 5 psi, well below the bypass limits. I just don't understand what problem GM's service bulletin is trying to solve.

 

[Ablebody]

This is all very interesting info. I think I would just use what GM or Mazda say to use because they are the ones making and testing their vehicles. I never concerned myself before about using any filter I bought because I assumed that when you look it up in the books at the stores it list that particular filter. [censored] I never even knew about a bypass valve. I think I'll look into the filters my vehicle call for and make sure the filters I buy from Walmart (usually) are suitable. So am I right in understanding from some repies to this thread that wix is good about making filters to the manufacturers specs?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by carviewsonic

I just don't understand what problem GM's service bulletin is trying to solve.

I think GM is assuming people are going to do cold starts in -20F climates and rev the engine to redline before the oil warms up. I mean that's really the only way you could cause 20+ PSI across the media. Or else their AC Delco filters are very flow restrictive and produce lots of delta-p. We'll never know that without seeing some flow measurement data.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted by carviewsonic

And Fram does specify the XG10575 for my 2018 Impala 3.6 LFX, 9- 15 psi bypass and all. After following this informative thread, I really can't see how my engine could cause that bypass to open very often. I researched aftermarket high pressure oil pumps for various street engines, and 10 gpm were about the highest volumes I came across. Even at that volume the Fram Ultra only drops about 5 psi, well below the bypass limits. I just don't understand what problem GM's service bulletin is trying to solve.

That's exactly it. Filter manufacturers do update filters from time to time. For my G37, Wix used to call for the 51365, and now calls for the 51358, with the different base plate. Personally, I had no problems with either, or either's oversize option. I, too, am still not sure what GM is driving at here. If they're terribly concerned about bypass, then the solution is obvious - do what they did before and have the bypass in the block.