Fram Ultra Oil Filter Leak Testing Results

[CharlieBauer]

I have tested 5 Fram Ultra XG2 filters for whether they leak between the leaf spring and end cap.

Here is a summary of the results. In separate posts below are pictures of the test results.

• Manufactured January 13th 2021 - should have seal between the end cap and leaf spring

• NOT a leaker

• Manufactured August 19th 2022 - OG media but likely no seal between the end cap and leaf spring

• Filter #1: SLOW LEAKER: Over 135 minutes for oil to no longer be visible
• Filter #2: SLOW LEAKER: 60 minutes for oil to no longer be visible

• Manufactured June 25th 2024

• Filter #1: FAST LEAKER: 5-7 minutes for oil to no longer be visible
• Filter #2: FAST LEAKER: 5-7 minutes for oil to no longer be visible

 

[fantastic]

It looks as if there's a good, better, best endcap leak category depending on date of manufacturing on these Fram's. The newer it is the faster it leaks..

 

[CharlieBauer]

NON LEAKER Manufactured January 13th 2021

Starting, then 20 minutes, then 3.5 hours, then 13 hours:

 

[Glenda W.]

If you don’t mind I can add my results.

Fram Extra Guard PH10060
2024 121st day
Non leaker

Fram Endurance FE7317
2024 197th day
Leaker

Fram OG Titanium FS7317(no bypass seal)
2023 166th day
Non Leaker

 

[CharlieBauer]

Filter #1 of 2 Manufactured August 19th 2022: 135+ Minute Leaker

These pictures are of the 2nd time I filled just in case the first small quantity I used had filled in the gap between the end cap insert and the outside of the bypass valve "cup"

10 minutes, 50 minutes, 80 minutes, 110 minutes, 135 minutes, 11.5 hours.

At 11.5 hours, I flipped the filter to see if any oil came back, again, in case it had pooled in the gap. None came out.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Filter #2 of 2 Manufactured August 19th 2022: 60 Minute Leaker

These pictures are of the 3rd time I filled just in case the first two times I had filled in the gap between the end cap insert and the outside of the bypass valve "cup"

30 minutes, 60 minutes, 10.5 hours.

At 10.5 hours, I flipped the filter to see if any oil came back, again, in case it had pooled in the gap. None came out.

 

[Fair enough]

I have tested 5 Fram Ultra XG2 filters for whether they leak between the leaf spring and end cap.

Here is a summary of the results. In separate posts below are pictures of the test results.

• Manufactured January 13th 2021 - should have seal between the end cap and leaf spring

• NOT a leaker

• Manufactured August 19th 2022 - OG media but likely no seal between the end cap and leaf spring

• Filter #1: SLOW LEAKER: Over 135 minutes for oil to no longer be visible
• Filter #2: SLOW LEAKER: 60 minutes for oil to no longer be visible

• Manufactured June 25th 2024

• Filter #1: FAST LEAKER: 5-7 minutes for oil to no longer be visible
• Filter #2: FAST LEAKER: 5-7 minutes for oil to no longer be visible

As I pictured before, my summer 2024 made would have been a fast leaker, maybe the fastest yet. I can try to post better pics of the actual spring to show the bumps that raise the whole end side up. The ruffles are minor league players in leaking compared to that.
In fact I am soured on their oil filters now, except I want to see the racing versions. They were very well built, with a bypass valve gasket. Those should be ok. Not concerned with the few percent efficiency loss. That’s just an opinion piece, but the gaps are indisputable facts. Even though I have this bypass filter theory.
My spring had what looks like a piece of metal stamped into it. Plus the filter was dirty.

 

[CharlieBauer]

FAST LEAKERS Manufactured June 25th 2024

Start of Filter 1, Start of Filter 2, and then 5-7 minutes later

 

[CharlieBauer]

It looks as if there's a good, better, best endcap leak category depending on date of manufacturing on these Fram's. The newer it is the faster it leaks..

Yes. But give them credit for coming up with their own categorization: Best, Marginal, Ridiculous

 

[ZeeOSix]

PF cold oil races, now leaf spring leak races.

 

[CharlieBauer]

As I pictured before, my summer 2024 made would have been a fast leaker, maybe the fastest yet. I can try to post better pics of the actual spring to show the bumps that raise the whole end side up. The ruffles are minor league players in leaking compared to that.
In fact I am soured on their oil filters now, except I want to see the racing versions. They were very well built, with a bypass valve gasket. Those should be ok. Not concerned with the few percent efficiency loss. That’s just an opinion piece, but the gaps are indisputable facts. Even though I have this bypass filter theory.
My spring had what looks like a piece of metal stamped into it. Plus the filter was dirty.

My fast leakers were made a day apart from yours. The bypass valve "cup" is probably doing a better job of sealing than the uneven leaf spring sealing sides that don't sit flush.

I would say that the uneven leaf spring seal is so bad that even with a non metal gasket / seal, it would still leak. Whoever decided to make the leaf spring as narrow as possible and remove the seal / go to the same endcap on both ends, is a dunce. If you do something like that to save money, you have to be monitoring that your manufacturing is not going out by an even tighter tolerance than before.

That and the other things you mention clearly show that cost cutting is more important than quality. So yes, no more Fram for me either.

 

[twX]

If you want to get fancy, I'd suggest sealing a hose around the bypass valve, then connecting it to an oil container elevated to produce ~1 psi. This way the pressure on the bypass valve will be known. If you also measure the volume of oil drained over a certain time, it would be possible to calculate the flow rate of the leak at a given pressure. From this, it's possible to calculate a decent estimate of the percentage of oil that would leak through in typical operating conditions.

You'd want the container of oil to have a lot more volume than the hose, and you'd want to take the time and volume measurements before the container gets too empty, so that the pressure doesn't change too much as the oil drains.

 

[CharlieBauer]

If you want to get fancy, I'd suggest sealing a hose around the bypass valve, then connecting it to an oil container elevated to produce ~1 psi. This way the pressure on the bypass valve will be known. If you also measure the volume of oil drained over a certain time, it would be possible to calculate the flow rate of the leak at a given pressure. From this, it's possible to calculate a decent estimate of the percentage of oil that would leak through in typical operating conditions.

You'd want the container of oil to have a lot more volume than the hose, and you'd want to take the time and volume measurements before the container gets too empty, so that the pressure doesn't change too much as the oil drains.

Do you know the formula for the calculation?

 

[ZeeOSix]

If you want to get fancy, I'd suggest sealing a hose around the bypass valve, then connecting it to an oil container elevated to produce ~1 psi.

Think he's trying to measure the leak between the leaf spring and the end cap, not the bypass valve.

 

[Fair enough]

Do we buy a new car with a dent in the fender and measure it to see if it’s small enough to take it?

 

[twX]

Do you know the formula for the calculation?

To calculate the pressure, you can use a online hydrostatic pressure calculator. 3 feet of elevation will produce around 1.1 psi if the oil has a density of 850 kg/m^3. The height measured should be the average of the initial fill level and the end-of-test level.

To calculate the flow rate, measure the volume required to fill the container between the two marked levels. The flow rate will just be that volume divided by the test duration.

From there, you need to compare the calculated leakage flow rate to the flow rate that would be going through the media at that same ~1.1 psi of pressure. This should be in the range of 2-4 GPM for most filters at operating temperature. If you provide the filter model, I can help get a better estimate of this.

Some adjustment for viscosity might be required since oil filter dP data we'll be using for comparison is usually with ~15 cST oil, while you'll be doing the test at room temperature with ~100 cST oil. I can help estimate a correction factor for this, but it won't be perfect, so I'd suggest using the thinnest grade of oil you have on hand so that this won't introduce as much error.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don't see how you're going to be able to do this flow test on an assembled filter. Plus, as the oil flow leaks through the gaps and fills the dome end, it will stop flowing once the dome becomes filled with oil.

 

[CharlieBauer]

To calculate the pressure, you can use a online hydrostatic pressure calculator. 3 feet of elevation will produce around 1.1 psi if the oil has a density of 850 kg/m^3. The height measured should be the average of the initial fill level and the end-of-test level.

To calculate the flow rate, measure the volume required to fill the container between the two marked levels. The flow rate will just be that volume divided by the test duration.

From there, you need to compare the calculated leakage flow rate to the flow rate that would be going through the media at that same ~1.1 psi of pressure. This should be in the range of 2-4 GPM for most filters at operating temperature. If you provide the filter model, I can help get a better estimate of this.

Some adjustment for viscosity might be required since oil filter dP data we'll be using for comparison is usually with ~15 cST oil, while you'll be doing the test at room temperature with ~100 cST oil. I can help estimate a correction factor for this, but it won't be perfect, so I'd suggest using the thinnest grade of oil you have on hand so that this won't introduce as much error.

Can you do the calculation on this data?

• 15ml of M1 0w40 at 75f
• Filter model is XG2
• 5 min leak time. 60 min leak time. 180 min leak time.

 

[twX]

I don't see how you're going to be able to do this flow test on an assembled filter. Plus, as the oil flow leaks through the gaps and fills the dome end, it will stop flowing once the dome becomes filled with oil.

Yeah, I was envisioning cutting the filter apart, sealing a tube around the top of the end cap, around the leaf spring, and applying pressure from the top side of the filter. One problem with that is that it would be no pressure on the leaf spring, though if the gap doesn't change with pressure applied it, that shouldn't really matter all that much. I suppose you could set a weight on top of it.

Can you do the calculation on this data?

• 15ml of M1 0w40 at 75f
• Filter model is XG2
• 5 min leak time. 60 min leak time. 180 min leak time.

It isn't possible unless the pressure is known, which is why I suggested sealing the area around the leak and letting a column of oil drain through it. You'd have to cut the filter open and fabricate something. It would be a bit of a project.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Can you do the calculation on this data?

• 15ml of M1 0w40 at 75f
• Filter model is XG2
• 5 min leak time. 60 min leak time. 180 min leak time.

Don't know the pressure driving it from the gravity unless you know the depth of the oil, which would be very small in this case. If the oil depth was say only 5 mm, the head pressure is going to be super low. And the head pressure in this case changes as the oil level goes down from the small starting depth (and therefore a very small driving pressure) to zero depth after it's all leaked down. So it would have to be integrated between the starting depth to zero depth. Not going to be easy and maybe not very accurate to calculate. Might get a rough estimate if you used the average oil depth and assumed it stayed constant during the time it takes to leak out the 15 mL of oil. Then you'd have to asssume that same avg driving pressure was across the media and come up with an estimated flow through the media with that same oil viscosity at that same super low PSI.

The leak rate calculation done in the other big thread by @Glenda W. based on the measured leak path size with an assumed 0.8 PSI dP is probably more accurate. But as has been mentioned, the leak gap size can be all over the place, not consistant between filters.