Fram Ultra, Titanium & Endurance now 98% at 20-30 microns ISO 4548-12

[Robvette]

Have Ascent test some for you. I'd bet between the filters speced for your engine, the Frams would do better than that AC Delco.

I’m up for the expense of buying a handful of filters and cutting them open, and spending a bunch of time trying to get specifics / details out of manufacturers … but my wife might notice the second mortgage needed for Ascent testing

 

[MrStamper]

Was a Fram titanium enthusiast. But now, the Microgard select from Oreily is my new favorite.

Whip city wrencher cut some up and they look fantastic. No sloppy glue job, clean holes, silicone gasket, etc. just a solid filter and they’re cheaper than Fram

 

[SC Maintenance]

As pointed out, Ascent's test showed the OG Ultra tested better than Fram's claims.

Correct me if I am wrong - but the testing done then was long enough ago that it was Fram the company, not "Fram" the name First Brands can stick on whatever it wants to?

But you are correct - we don't really know until you have an independent test. Who knows they might be even better now?

 

[DannyM]

Was a Fram titanium enthusiast. But now, the Microgard select from Oreily is my new favorite.

Whip city wrencher cut some up and they look fantastic. No sloppy glue job, clean holes, silicone gasket, etc. just a solid filter and they’re cheaper than Fram

They are on the level of a Tough Guard and most of those spin on filters were in the $7 range fwir while that Microgard is $11 . .. Check out the Carquest Premium which is pretty much identical to the Microgard on many of the newer versions and it is in the $7 range.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Correct me if I am wrong - but the testing done then was long enough ago that it was Fram the company, not "Fram" the name First Brands can stick on whatever it wants to?

But you are correct - we don't really know until you have an independent test. Who knows they might be even better now?

My comment was focused more along the lines that Fram's website efficiency claims on the OG Ultra seemed true, even better per Ascent's testing. Based on the email from Fram about the non-wire backed Ultras, it's efficiency (at least for one model) was slightly better in the lower particle range. Yep, who knows for sure without independent testing, but Ascent's test on the OG Ultra showed Fram's claims were believable. But I can't imaging Fram lying about it and putting themselves on the radar of the competition checking each other's claims. They do that, and Fram has it's own ISO test lab so they can and have tested some of the completion's filters.

 

[gfh77665]

I hope the OP will be able to sleep at night. Even if it takes medication.

 

[Mewbs]

OP is really persistent in calling them out over the silent changes, I never seen anyone so enthusiastic over automotive filtration lol. Its really down the rabbit hole at this point. What we're seeing is pretty much FRAM being reduced to a zombie brand of sort where the new corporate parent is leveraging its Fram's original products success and market share while cutting all sorts of corners in the product BOM to turn a greater profit.

On the flip side seeing the Endurance as a suitable replacement for the Ultra/Titanium is pretty much what we're left with. As long as it holds up to what it claims to do I have no problem with paying for it. After all these lines of filters were formerly exclusive to high end oil vendors such as Amsoil.

MicroGard Select and STP Extended Life filters are good alternatives. But if you want to dig deeper you can try looking at fleet market filters such as Donaldson and FleetGuard for some viable options. Though the extreme would mean going as far to making a custom remote filter mount adapters to use the best of their products.

I ended up hording some more wire backed FS3600 throughout this week visiting random AAP stores and upped my total stock of 37 filters. Pretty much set for life lol.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I ended up hording some more wire backed FS3600 throughout this week visiting random AAP stores and upped my total stock of 37 filters. Pretty much set for life lol.

 

[cptbarkey]

Oh dear. A possible downgrade in quality is causing hoarding of the older product? Fram won either way as memories are short.

 

[wemay]

They can't be sued over what the chat line "Tech" said. I mean, come on...he gives the company "between 20% and 30%" leeway.

Pure comedy this new Fram

 

[macarose]

My 1994 Toyota Camry is still on the road with around 400,000 miles on it.

What did I use for the first 236,000 miles? STP and AC Delco filters.

I'm willing to bet that the current owner uses some combination of Cheap-O Quickie Lube filters and Supertechs. I have owned thousands of cars over the years. I have seen a few that sludged up due to a lack of maintenance or an inherent defect within the engine. I have never seen one ever stop running because it had a specific name brand filter that magically made it go, "Poof!".

Oil filtration has become the auto geeks wasteland of worry. You should be more concerned about buying cheap aftermarket parts and the fact that most of the other fluids and filters are never touched at all these days.

 

[Bellavita]

I appreciate the OPs pursuit of understanding of the specs and claims of the filters.

I am bummed and disappointed, but, I can't say that I am surprised. Read this conversation all the way to the end. I really pressed this technical support person. I asked them to double confirm 98% at 20-30 microns per ISO 4548-12.

My guess is that the filters that do still have the metal backed media are actually 99%= at 20 micron and that all new "premium" Fram filters are being built to with different materials and will be 98% at 20-30 microns per ISO 4548-12.

You can see in the conversation below that at 4:45pm we were signing off ... and that's when I asked if he is 100% certain about 98% at 20-30 microns per ISO 4548-12.

I definitely invite other BITOG members to contact Fram to see if you receive the same information.
View attachment 192101
View attachment 192102
View attachment 192103
View attachment 192104

I am impressed with how the Fram customer service associate conducted himself. A lot of questions were asked and the associate did an excellent job answering while also protecting the company's IP. The associate even pulled out prints to aid in answering and was both polite and respectful. This tells me the Fram Division of First Brands values the end customer and provides good training of their associates.

The CS associate's answer as to why the box not matching what is inside and the website is correct. Thousands of filters come off of Fram's lines every day and are also moving in and out of distribution centers and stores. When a running product change occurs, getting perfect packaging/product/website alignment is unlikely even if they were to serialize every filter which is not appropriate for this type of engine part. The use of date codes is their level of inventory control precision which provides good FIFO control for the majority of the volume produced and is appropriate for this type of product. With that said, companies can always do better and work to improve. As a customer, I would return the product for a refund and provide feedback to the company. Fram should also consider adding language to their packaging to cover these exceptions.

In the area of performance specifications I've not seen any company except Fram state on their packaging and website their methods of testing using the average of 3 filters within the specific product line. With the variation that can occur based on the size of a filter, this is both a proper and practical way to state performance to the end customer.

 

[SC Maintenance]

I appreciate the OPs pursuit of understanding of the specs and claims of the filters.

I am impressed with how the Fram customer service associate conducted himself. A lot of questions were asked and the associate did an excellent job answering while also protecting the company's IP. The associate even pulled out prints to aid in answering and was both polite and respectful. This tells me the Fram Division of First Brands values the end customer and provides good training of their associates.

The CS associate's answer as to why the box not matching what is inside and the website is correct. Thousands of filters come off of Fram's lines every day and are also moving in and out of distribution centers and stores. When a running product change occurs, getting perfect packaging/product/website alignment is unlikely even if they were to serialize every filter which is not appropriate for this type of engine part. The use of date codes is their level of inventory control precision which provides good FIFO control for the majority of the volume produced and is appropriate for this type of product. With that said, companies can always do better and work to improve. As a customer, I would return the product for a refund and provide feedback to the company. Fram should also consider adding language to their packaging to cover these exceptions.

In the area of performance specifications I've not seen any company except Fram state on their packaging and website their methods of testing using the average of 3 filters within the specific product line. With the variation that can occur based on the size of a filter, this is both a proper and practical way to state performance to the end customer.

Serialization is not required to match the product to the box. Its not like its a flex line where their building a mix match one after the other - surely these are run in batch. The box should match the material in it if there are any QC standards. I have worked on 100's of factories, including the packaging end - and the box it goes into is no different from any other component - its part of the BOM. Its simply sloppy on their part, or too cheap to scrap boxes they already have more than likely - executive decision.

However they won't get in trouble or sued, because while there are a few federal packaging requirements for certain things - for example food or children's toys, most other labelling requirements are state law, and if there are any no one would ever enforce them.

To me, someone that has worked in automated factories almost 30 years now, its just another example of a manufacturer being cheap and sloppy. Many are, more so these days.

 

[72C10]

This was disappointing to read but I'm not surprised.

Customer service rep did a heck of a job. If you were asked to rate the service, I hope you gave a good rating. I deal with CS from India every day and it's miserable.

 

[KCJeep]

As far as I know, First Brands has not tinkered with the Toughguard media. If one wanted a Fram with high efficiency at reasonable cost it could be a good choice.

That said, as a decades long Fram user I already have a Premium Guard made Carquest Premium on deck for my next OCI. Like many here have mentioned their consistent apparent quality is appealing.

 

[jim302]

Serialization is not required to match the product to the box. Its not like its a flex line where their building a mix match one after the other - surely these are run in batch. The box should match the material in it if there are any QC standards. I have worked on 100's of factories, including the packaging end - and the box it goes into is no different from any other component - its part of the BOM. Its simply sloppy on their part, or too cheap to scrap boxes they already have more than likely - executive decision.

However they won't get in trouble or sued, because while there are a few federal packaging requirements for certain things - for example food or children's toys, most other labelling requirements are state law, and if there are any no one would ever enforce them.

To me, someone that has worked in automated factories almost 30 years now, its just another example of a manufacturer being cheap and sloppy. Many are, more so these days.

I agree 100% on the box and how it should be accurate regarding the contents. If they are being so lax on something you can see, then what other quality steps are they skipping? There was also the thread on 3 of the same filters each with different construction. Are their QC processes really keeping track of the rate of change on the products they are turning out? I doubt it.

They could definitely get sued on the state level, especially in California. TW Garner Foods was sued because Texas Pete is actually from North Carolina (which is even disclosed right on the back of the bottle). That is a frivolous lawsuit that represents everything wrong with the US legal system and California as a state. Thankfully that ridiculous lawsuit was finally dismissed but it wasn't immediately laughed out of court and for a while it looked like they were going to have to fight it. Outright misrepresentation of package contents can definitely get First Brands in trouble.

 

[Bellavita]

Serialization is not required to match the product to the box. Its not like its a flex line where their building a mix match one after the other - surely these are run in batch. The box should match the material in it if there are any QC standards. I have worked on 100's of factories, including the packaging end - and the box it goes into is no different from any other component - its part of the BOM. Its simply sloppy on their part, or too cheap to scrap boxes they already have more than likely - executive decision.

However they won't get in trouble or sued, because while there are a few federal packaging requirements for certain things - for example food or children's toys, most other labelling requirements are state law, and if there are any no one would ever enforce them.

To me, someone that has worked in automated factories almost 30 years now, its just another example of a manufacturer being cheap and sloppy. Many are, more so these days.

Good Morning SC Maintenance,
You are correct in that it is easy to get the boxes matched with the product provided the disposition of the old boxes is to scrap them. What we don't know is how many of the old boxes they would have had to scrap. Typically the purchased items in a BOM have an MOQ that they are purchased under agreement. The larger the MOQ the better the price.

Today companies have sustainability and net zero objectives to eliminate waste and one way to do that is to not scrap materials if possible. The OPs question was on the Fram Titanium that are only sold at Advance Auto Parts Stores. Fram clearly had their customer service team up to speed on the change and how to answer questions. In addition, Fram should have sent a communication to the AAP stores on how to review their stock, communicate the situation to the customer and price adjust for total customer transparency.

 

[fantastic]

Perhaps the agent was being truthful and they DO in fact have a range of efficiencies of 20-30 microns. That would be reasonable. IMO I doubt their 99%@20 microns claim across ALL of their filters. I'm not in the popular Fram camp but I still buy their filters in the hopes they are. However, As they say hope is not a strategy though. More reason to get a Purolator spec sheet for the individual filter you're buying if you want to know for certain what efficiencies it is.

 

[Bellavita]

Perhaps the agent was being truthful and they DO in fact have a range of efficiencies of 20-30 microns. That would be reasonable. IMO I doubt their 99%@20 microns claim across ALL of their filters. I'm not in the popular Fram camp but I still buy their filters in the hopes they are. However, As they say hope is not a strategy though. More reason to get a Purolator spec sheet for the individual filter you're buying if you want to know for certain what efficiencies it is.

Hi Fantastic,
I'd like to trust Purolator but I can't. Its good you can request a spec sheet on a filter but what does it say about a company that on all their point of sale packaging and website they claim "based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001" but if one requests a spec sheet they're usually higher, not lower. The Boss is advertised at 25 microns but their spec sheets have it over 40. For the person making comparisons at the store, Fram appears to be much more reliable with their averaging method. Purolator could correct this so easily using the same average method as Fram because they have all the data but choose not to.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Perhaps the agent was being truthful and they DO in fact have a range of efficiencies of 20-30 microns. That would be reasonable. IMO I doubt their 99%@20 microns claim across ALL of their filters.

Another thing to think about is that some cartridge versions of the Ultra, Titanium and Endurance line may be made by other companies outside the USA and branded as Fram, possibly even using slightly different media. Maybe some of those are more on the 99% @ 30u side of 20-30u the range. But if Fram references 3 different sized filters in the filter line that the efficiency is based on, I'd believe that to be true based on ISO 45448-12 testing as claimed.