Fram Ultra ripping us off?

Status
Not open for further replies.
kschachn said:
I’m curious as to how you were able to determine that the media is conventional and not synthetic?
Click to expand...
The official word from FRAM (posted in the other now locked thread) is it's now a cellulose blend backer (not synthetic) with a synthetic facer. Which is consistent with the pics in the OP. This is a change from the old Ultra (two distinct synthetic media levels, themselves comprised of multiple layers) which you can see in my recent C&P thread.

The new backing material, being a cellulose blend, doesn't require the screen/mesh support material, which is why it is no longer present.
 
If you trust Fram and their testing, it should be equivalent if not better. If not, go with a different brand or one of their others. Are we going to have 100s of post griping about this? Its a binary choice to me.
 
OptOut, thank you for the update.
Your post helps us make informed decisions.
BITOG members discuss and gripe; the vast majority of the populace doesn't know the difference.
 
What's with the bypass valve color ... looks different. They were either black or more pure white.

20210917_104309-jpg.71340
 
If the filtering efficiency is the same and the it holds together for their claimed 20K miles, I don't see the issue.

Picked up a XG10060 and a XG3614 at Walmart last night. The XG10060 is the old one in the old box with the metal screen. The XG3614 is in a new box but still has the metal screen.

Was kinda hoping it was the new style so I could test it out.
 
Here we go again. As stated in the locked thread, still too early for me to tell. I want to see the Bitog Beta Testers dissections after the filters have been in use and logged some serious miles. Until then I'll use up my 2+ year stash of the older model of the filters.
 
OVERKILL said:
The official word from FRAM (posted in the other now locked thread) is it's now a cellulose blend backer (not synthetic) with a synthetic facer. Which is consistent with the pics in the OP. This is a change from the old Ultra (two distinct synthetic media levels, themselves comprised of multiple layers) which you can see in my recent C&P thread.

The new backing material, being a cellulose blend, doesn't require the screen/mesh support material, which is why it is no longer present.
Click to expand...
I snipped this incorrect information from the Fram website just now... the "metal screen" and "2-layer synthetic" have been removed from the XG product:
1631908632930.webp

wdn said:
Or more likely it’s just shameless cost cutting & profiteering now that the windshield wiper company is running Fram. Like they planned this sort of thing from Day One of the acquisition.
Click to expand...
This was my thought too, not that they planned this design change all along, but it is what they are doing anyway. It's like a "bait & switch" from a big-picture perspective: they turn people on with high quality product and features, many people now saying "Fram Ultra is one of the best oil filters." Then they significantly change the materials and remove some design features without updating the public information and without reducing the price. I'm not saying it's a bad filter, but with so many people talking about the design change it's obvious they removed some good stuff... such as the 2-layer synthetic media and the wire mesh backing. Those features are important and they are now gone... also gone is a lot of the trust people had for the original robust design. So it sounds a whole lot like a money grab, but what do I know... :D
 
DGXR said:
I snipped this incorrect information from the Fram website just now... the "metal screen" and "2-layer synthetic" have been removed from the XG product:
View attachment 71397

This was my thought too, not that they planned this design change all along, but it is what they are doing anyway. It's like a "bait & switch" from a big-picture perspective: they turn people on with high quality product and features, many people now saying "Fram Ultra is one of the best oil filters." Then they significantly change the materials and remove some design features without updating the public information and without reducing the price. I'm not saying it's a bad filter, but with so many people talking about the design change it's obvious they removed some good stuff... such as the 2-layer synthetic media and the wire mesh backing. Those features are important and they are now gone... also gone is a lot of the trust people had for the original robust design. So it sounds a whole lot like a money grab, but what do I know... :D
Click to expand...

Yes, I went into detail on my own personal take on the changes in the other thread. While efficiency has remained basically the same, the sacrifice will be in the areas of holding capacity and flow. The two layers of synthetic depth filtration media was a better combo from that position, however, they've placed a synthetic "topper" on the blend media (which may be the same media as found in the TG) as well as increasing pleat count in order to keep the performance in those areas at the level of "better than OEM requirements". I expect the original version was WELL beyond those requirements, so even dialling that back is really of no consequence for "Average Joe".

However, they've cheapened the filter and now it's basically not all that different (synthetic blend media) than the Mobil1 filter or similar. It's no longer a synthetic media filter, since the base layer is a cellulose blend. For me, personally, I'll be switching to either a Fleetguard Stratapore or AMSOIL EaO (probably the latter, I have a dealer account) when I'm out of original Ultras, of which I have three or four.
 
OVERKILL said:
Yes, I went into detail on my own personal take on the changes in the other thread. While efficiency has remained basically the same, the sacrifice will be in the areas of holding capacity and flow. The two layers of synthetic depth filtration media was a better combo from that position, however, they've placed a synthetic "topper" on the blend media (which may be the same media as found in the TG) as well as increasing pleat count in order to keep the performance in those areas at the level of "better than OEM requirements". I expect the original version was WELL beyond those requirements, so even dialling that back is really of no consequence for "Average Joe".

However, they've cheapened the filter and now it's basically not all that different (synthetic blend media) than the Mobil1 filter or similar. It's no longer a synthetic media filter, since the base layer is a cellulose blend. For me, personally, I'll be switching to either a Fleetguard Stratapore or AMSOIL EaO (probably the latter, I have a dealer account) when I'm out of original Ultras, of which I have three or four.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting Fleetguards? Looked at the Stratapore for the HEMI but it's $35 a filter and the local Case IH dealer will only sell a dozen at a time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Panda87
Fram Ultra XG2, HPL 5w-40, 1.2k mi C&P
2
Replies
31
Views
448
Panda87
Fabulous50s
Fram Ultra all over the place now?
Replies
7
Views
537
WeyounDS9
M
Virgin C&P - Carquest Premium 84502 - Microgard Select MSL10255 - Fram FE10575
Replies
14
Views
1K
fantastic
TiGeo
Fram lineup vs. Supertech vs. Mann cartridges for VW/Audi EA888.3
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
H
Summary of non-destructive Fram filter testing (and a Carquest Premium added)
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
Hatsuwr
Back
Top Bottom