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?
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.
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 - ??.
Good Morning Fantastic,
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.
This Fram marketing is already making me dizzy. Are you saying Fram was claiming even better specs?
Assuming the vehicle/s don’t get totaled anyways
The numerous problems with that absolutely farcical gong show that gets called "data" should immediately invalidate it, and yet, here it is again.
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?
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.
Yes. You either believe it or not.
Could depend on the filter model ... as discussed many times in these kind of threads.
