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

[fantastic]

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?

I'm sure they've tested their media but they're not showing us ALL of their filter efficiencies. With Fram nonchalantly sticking "Wire Backing" marketing on their boxes when they're not actually wire backed is more of what these filter companies are willing to do to slap something together & send it out the door for their bottom line. so we need to question Fram's or any other filters "Honesty" & understanding of what we're paying for.

 

[ZeeOSix]

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.

But what was the actual total media area in both filters - the Ascent tested OG XG10575 vs new XG10060? Remember that it's been shown that there is more media in the non-wire backed Ultras. Could very well be that the added media area actually increases the efficiency down low.

Even if both those filter sizes had the same OG media, the XG10575 tested by Ascent is 0.7 inch longer, and would therefore have more media area.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'm sure they've tested their media but they're not showing us ALL of their filter efficiencies. With Fram nonchalantly sticking "Wire Backing" on their boxes when they're not actually wire backed is more of what these oil companies are willing to do so we need to question Fram's or any other filters "Honesty" & understanding of what we're paying for.

Have you ever tracked what other companies do with their boxes when they are actively making changes to their oil filters? Do they all change perfectly in sync with each other? Are they all perfect, except for Fram?

 

[kschachn]

The amount of sheer nonsense in this thread is quite something. All trying to make some sort of point that has no technical basis as far as I can see.

 

[kschachn]

Have you ever tracked what other companies do with their boxes when they are actively making changes to their oil filters? Do they all change perfectly in sync with each other? Are they all perfect, except for Fram?

It’s really something isn’t it?

 

[OVERKILL]

But what was the actual total media area in both filters - the Ascent tested OG XG10575 vs new XG10060? Remember that it's been shown that there is more media in the non-wire backed Ultras. Could very well be that the added media area actually increases the efficiency down low.

Even if both those filter sizes had the same OG media, the XG10575 tested by Ascent is 0.7 inch longer, and would therefore have more media area.

I'm having a hard time picturing efficiency of the same media going from >99.8% to 91% based on that small change in dimensions. Is it possible? Sure, is it likely? No.

Ultimately, the "new and improved" cellulose blend media claim as to higher efficiency hinges exclusively on this questionable screenshot, and requires one to not only ignore all the other errors in that strangely low quality capture with heavily moired fonts (but somehow, only in the bolded and larger font efficiency section), but to also either ignore the Ascent data for the OG Ultra altogether, or accept, without question, that somehow, going from the 4"x2.98" can dimensions to the 3.3"x3" ones drops efficiency by almost 10% at 15 microns.

And of course it also requires us to ignore all the other missteps and questionable stuff to come out of post-acquisition First Brands FRAM.

I've always questioned the legitimacy of that screenshot, which, given the inexplicable quality issues, could be a fake, but even if we ignore that bit, the other problems with what is stated on it make the credibility of the whole thing highly suspect.

 

[fantastic]

Have you ever tracked what other companies do with their boxes when they are actively making changes to their oil filters? Do they all change perfectly in sync with each other? Are they all perfect, except for Fram?

Of course not... My rant is not a Fram bash & I mentioned "other companies" too. I think you're being level headed about the whole situation.

 

[bullwinkle]

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?

My issue with the new media-it’s not strong enough to support the claimed mileage rating, there have already been examples of wavy/questionable media on sub 10K runs. And, YES, I believe First Brands WOULD grab some unknown media, slap it into an Ultra or Titanium, and jack up the price to make some extra $ on them!

 

[bullwinkle]

The amount of sheer nonsense in this thread is quite something. All trying to make some sort of point that has no technical basis as far as I can see.

Don’t need “technical basis” when it can be seen with the naked eye! Or read with one, when it comes to FB’s bogus specs vs. the Ascent test & Jay Buckley’s posts. Like I’ve stated, I’m not buying First Brands premium filters any longer-price is too high, quality not any better than anybody else’s!

 

[Al]

Since I plan on running all UOAs out to 15K miles and am 77 years old, I will be making some filter purchases at advance auto..lol
I'll be set for life

 

[ZeeOSix]

but to also either ignore the Ascent data for the OG Ultra altogether, or accept, without question, that somehow, going from the 4"x2.98" can dimensions to the 3.3"x3" ones drops efficiency by almost 10% at 15 microns.

You're not considering the possible impact of the total media area difference between the OG Ultra and the new Ultra, even though the Ascent OG had the 0.7 inch longer size to start with, which in itself could impact the ISO efficiency.

Back when Purolator was Purolator, and wasn't ran by M+H, there was communication with Purolator on the PureONE efficiency - old threads about it still exist in this forum. It was over 99% @ 20μ, similar to the OG Ultra. Yet the PureONE back then was mostly cellulous/blend, never advertised as a "full synthetic" or "dual-layered" media of any kind. The PureONEs back then also had lots of media area. Remember how the increase of dP can impact the ISO test results. We even saw some of that occurring in the Acsent test data. The dP vs debris sloughing factor can really impact the resulting ISO 4548-12 efficiency.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Deleted, double post.

 

[ZeeOSix]

My issue with the new media-it’s not strong enough to support the claimed mileage rating, there have already been examples of wavy/questionable media on sub 10K runs.

So your "scientific analysis" is they can't perform per Fram's claim because some have been seen here with "wavy pleats". Don't become a forensic investigator, scientist or engineer, lol.

 

[fantastic]

You're not considering the possible impact of the total media area difference between the OG Ultra and the new Ultra, even though the Ascent OG had the 0.7 inch longer size to start with, which in itself could impact the ISO efficiency.

Back when Purolator was Purolator, and wasn't ran by M+H, there was communication with Purolator on the PureONE efficiency - old threads about it still exist in this forum. It was over 99% @ 20μ, similar to the OG Ultra. Yet the PureONE back then was mostly cellulous/blend, never advertised as a "full synthetic" or "dual-layered" media of any kind. The PureONEs back then also had lots of media area. Remember how the increase of dP can impact the ISO test results. We even saw some of that occurring in the Acsent test data. The dP vs debris sloughing factor can really impact the resulting ISO 4548-12 efficiency.

If Purolator advertised those "Ones" like fram did back then it was only like 7,500 Mile filter marketing LOL. Perhaps since it was a lower mileage filter they could filter down to 99%@20 with just cellulose/blend. But Add in they probably had the disclaimer (*Based on this single, xyz, filter we tested to standard) marketing we all see today & I think we were probably duped on the efficiencies across the filter lineup. As you well know that advertising efficiencies of one single filter referenced doesn't equate to the whole line.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If Purolator advertised those "Ones" like fram did back then it was only like 7,500 Mile filter marketing LOL.

My point was that you don't need dual-layer full synthetic media to have high efficiency. And that using more media area in a filter can help the efficiency, holding capacity and also the dP vs flow performance, which can also effectthe overall ISO efficiency.

 

[bbhero]

“ Back when Purolator was Purolater” …

And back when Fram was Fram and not run by welfare First Brands…

Both are the same in how they have cheapened and made those products not as good as they were…Before being taken over by a new company.

That’s a fact.

 

[fantastic]

My point was that you don't need dual-layer full synthetic media to have high efficiency. And that using more media area in a filter can help the efficiency, holding capacity and also the dP vs flow performance, which can also effectthe overall ISO efficiency.

I understood what you were saying & that's exactly how I took it.

 

[Robvette]

Both are the same in how they have cheapened and made those products not as good as they were…Before being taken over by a new company.

That’s a fact.

Fwiw - all the filters I’ve cut open under the Mann-Hummel brands have looked really good. Bosch, Mobil 1, Purolator, Wix - every cut open has looked good.

And, because we apparently now know that FB filter media is at best 98% at 20 to 30 microns, imho choosing a well constructed and consistent Mann-Hummel filter now seems reasonable.

 

[ZeeOSix]

“ Back when Purolator was Purolater” …

And back when Fram was Fram and not run by welfare First Brands…

Both are the same in how they have cheapened and made those products not as good as they were…Before being taken over by a new company.

That’s a fact.

Only Frams that has been "cheapened" is the Ultra and Titanuim, without really raising the cost in these economic times. The EG, TG and other Frams haven't really changed. Fram could have kept the OG Ultra and Titanium and charged more, instead of coning out with the Endurance.

 

[ZeeOSix]

And, because we apparently now know that FB filter media is at best 98% at 20 to 30 microns, imho choosing a well constructed and consistent Mann-Hummel filter now seems reasonable.

If you want worse efficiency on most models.

I'm still not 100% convinced that what the Fram chat guy told you is 100% correct without further information, like some major change has occurred since the Endurance came out, not that long ago.