I hope you don’t have children or are past enjoying retirement, because that right there is a lot of wasteful overthinking. Half of America could have had oil changes in all that time and not one would have known what was used.
Fram Ultra, Titanium & Endurance now 98% at 20-30 microns ISO 4548-12
- Thread starter Robvette
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2023
- Messages
- 469
Pretty sure the aftermarket automotive filtration segment is very small compared to OEM filter contracts, quicklube jobbers and fleet market. OP may be overthinking but lets be fair, he's quite angry to spend his hard earned money to get something different than what he expect it to be. Would you feel the same if you bought something fairly high ticket and got a back of rocks instead?
Maybe OP should install a bypass filtration system on his corvette and never have to worry about micron ratings again.
He’s not exactly getting rocks he’s just getting a product that’s undergoing a design change due to whatever fram’s reasonings may be. I can’t say I’d put myself in that situation I wouldn’t spend that much on an oil filter. It’s also difficult for me to invest that much effort into something that is out of my control and will fall on deaf ears.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2020
- Messages
- 298
The Fram back then is different from the Fram of today - it’s not the same company. What we do know about today’s Fram is that we cannot believe anything that’s currently in print - none of it has been updated to align with current materials and construction.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Mine for the Jeep are from Korea and look perfect …
If what the Tech Line guy told you in the chat session is true, then something must have changred lately. Or maybe he's actually giving innacurate info - ??.
For example, the Endurance hasn't been out very long, and when it showed up on Fram's website it showed the same efficiency specs as it shows now , which is 99+% at 20μ and greater based on 3 specified model numbers. Why would they list it as that if it wasn't?
Also, when the non wire-backed Ultra came out, there was an email from Fram posted here showing the efficiency was actually slightly better below 20μ on a specific filter model number. So who knows for sure what's accurate or not.
Too bad Motorking isn't still the Fram Rep, as he could get accurate info from the right people.
Good Morning Fantastic,
I'm not aware of any Fram claims that their performance specs are across all filters because they use the average of three filters within the product line that are of different sizes. They make this statement on both their point of sale packaging and their website.
When the original OG Ultra was changed to the synthetic sprayed/synthetic blend media, without any changes to the boxes (and resultant dramatic loss of media strength, depth filtration, even long term filtering ability) and Fram CS started with their (obviously false) narrative of "it's better than the old design"-I knew that 'caveat emptor" was now the order of the day for them. The ongoing business of "black" silicone ADBVs and efficiency claims pulled out of a rep's backside have just reinforced that belief. Again, I could just buy my indy's Service Pro XL (PG XL) filters for ~$5 each, run them for 1 year, 5000-7500 miles, call it a [CENSORED!] day.
Morning, Understood & It's been discussed before. Here's the last one HERE Their "equivalent" statement & the fact some say "Fram is 99%@20 microns" for any filter someone happens to be discussing. That throws the hot potato around then some run with it as it's the case across all. I will say it may be true that they in fact all are that efficient but I'm skeptical it's ALL of their filters.
Now go looking for numbers posted prior to that by motorking and on other websites. Trico’s original ultra numbers are hogwash.
This Fram marketing is already making me dizzy. Are you saying Fram was claiming even better specs?
Who has worn out a properly maintained passenger vehicle engine? The air filter and sealed intake is way , way more important than an oil filters filtering ability. All that matters is the oil filter doesn't fail. I worked in fleet maintenenance for too many years years for any one to prove any different other than regurgitating marketing claims..
Assuming the vehicle/s don’t get totaled anyways
Murphy is licking his chops at the last sentence.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The numerous problems with that absolutely farcical gong show that gets called "data" should immediately invalidate it, and yet, here it is again.
- "baked onto" media
- "true dual-layered media" while the OG was already dual-layered media
JFC, First Brands couldn't even represent the existing product properly, and the OG Ultra tested by Ascent, which is 4"x2.98" vs the 10060, which is 3.3"x3", so similar in size, was >99.8% efficient at 15 microns.
We really don't have any independent data to prove what the "long term filtering ability" is of the new Ultra media, let alone what the actual independent ISO test efficiency is on the new Ultra. How can statements like this be made with zero proof to back it up? Sure, Fram CS makes some claims that seem to be off, but does that mean everything they say is wrong? Kind of a jumping to conclusions IMO. Does anyone here really believe Fram would use a new media without thoroughly testing it out, or do some here think they just pull some new media out of a barrel, slap it into filters and send them to the stores?
Last edited:
Just have to be able to read what's meant in their statement. IMO, they shouldn't use the "equivalent" statement because it confuses too many people. I've discussed this before, and even discussed it with Motorking when he was here, and suggested they only reference the filters in the specific filter line that the efficiency is based on. One filter line's efficiency should have nothing to do with another line's efficiency.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Yes. You either believe it or not.
Could depend on the filter model ... as discussed many times in these kind of threads.
