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

[ZeeOSix]

No, that's part of exactly what I'm considering, which is premised on the accuracy of that screenshot; the requirement to take the numbers on it at face value and not question their legitimacy. To set aside the rift in the 15-micron figures between it and the Ascent data and just accept that it's the size difference in play.

While I'm not questioning the possibility for a blend media to be high efficiency (despite my position on the legitimacy of that screenshot), I AM questioning what amounts to a 10% drop in efficiency with a 0.7" shorter can and subsequently a bit less media. The Royal Purple, which does in fact have less media due to having a shorter media stack inside the can, was 3.3% less efficient in the Ascent testing. Now, different media, certainly, but also synthetic. This should at minimum, raise an eyebrow, and if it doesn't, well, then I don't think there's any value in continuing this conversation.

Let's back up a bit and take another look. If you were to compare the media area of the wire-backed Ultra XG10060 to the new non wire-backed Ultra XG10060 as shown it Fram's table in post 70, what I'm saying is the efficiency difference below 20 microns could certainly be from more media area in the new XG10060. Plus, as I already pointed out, the OG XG10575 in the Ascent testing was larger (0.7 inch longer) than the OG XG10060 would be, which could also have an impact on an efficiency difference between those two OG Ultras (10575 vs 10060).

Also, keep in mind that exactly how the ISO 4548-12 efficiency test was conducted (within the limits of the official procedure) can have an impact on the resulting test data. For instance, the overall ISO efficiency can be affected by what dP rise from new to "fully loaded" is defined to end the test run. If the same oil filter is ISO tested and the test ends with a 5 PSI dP rise, vs an 8 PSI dP rise, then the resulting ISO efficiency could be different due to the debris sloughing factor.

Since Fram has their own ISO test lab, they most likely run all their filter tests at the same test parameters to obtain a consistent result. If Ascent used a higher dP cut-off point to end the test runs, then that could also be a reason their is some seen differences. As mentioned many times before in these discussions, Ascent would have to run a new non wire-backed XG10575 at the same test parameters as before to see what the real efficiency change is between the OG wire-backed vs new non wire backed XG10575 under the same exact test conditions.

But looking at Frams test data for the new XG10060 and trying to compare those results to Ascent's test on the XG10575 is not really apples-to-apples ... all you can do is fudge factor it to try and make some kind of conclusion which may not be totally accurate.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Regarding Fram’s new ISO 4548-12 claim of “98% at 20 to 30 microns” I actually think this makes more sense than a single claimed micron efficiency.

That would make sense if they wanted to put a "cover all models" statement for a specific filter line. But Fram specifically references 3 filter models in their efficiency claims. Has anyone asked Fram what they show for efficiency on the same filters that Fram references?

From Fram's website - the 3 filters that the efficiency claim is based on.
Titanium: FS8A, FS3387A and FS4967
Endurance: FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967

 

[Bellavita]

If you read the pinned filter media thread, synthetic media isn't rigid like cellulose/blend media, so it needs something to add structure, which is a mesh backing, either made of wire or polymer. The OG Ultra and most of the other non-Purolator filters use a wire screen. This screen is potted to the end cap material along with the media, keeping it in place. This encircles the centre tube.

Cellulose/blend media is either potted to metal end caps or bonded to fibre ones. In either instance, it's not backed with anything rigid and simply encircles the centre tube. This means that this media can deflect if exposed to considerable dP, particularly if there are large gaps in the pleat spacing, which we saw with Purolator, lending themselves to tearing.

Of course another issue with cellulose/blend media is that it absorbs moisture, which also causes distortion, so if you already have distorted pleats from water uptake, this may increase the likelihood of a tear at a wide pleat space under significant dP.

Synthetic media, held firmly in place by the co-potted screen, and not absorbing moisture, has never, in any of the filter tear-downs on this site, shown to deflect or tear.

Hi Overkill,
Thank you for the detailed reply, I appreciate it. I recently put a Fram Ultra Synthetic on my engine and your last sentence reinforces that it will work well. If a synthetic filter performs well without wire backing, is the addition of wire backing used more as a selling feature versus something that is needed for a filter to perform and last its rated miles?

 

[OVERKILL]

Hi Overkill,
Thank you for the detailed reply, I appreciate it. I recently put a Fram Ultra Synthetic on my engine and your last sentence reinforces that it will work well. If a synthetic filter performs well without wire backing, is the addition of wire backing used more as a selling feature versus something that is needed for a filter to perform and last its rated miles?

There are no fully synthetic media filters that I'm aware of that don't have some form of screen backing.

 

[Robvette]

Good Afternoon Mewbs,
Your comments are spot on. I made a table of the Fram products comparing price to performance and the Titanium is not only redundant but $3.52 more than the Ultra for the same performance (Filtration & Life). If you're a Tough Guard fan, it’s only $1.80 more to step up to the Ultra and $5.32 to move to a Titanium.

I know the Brand Ranks videos are not endorsed by the content police here, but, this individual test they performed seemed reasonable and well executed and it illustrates that while Tough Guard efficiency looks to be virtually equal to the Ultra, Ti and Endurance - its ability to clean oil isn’t even close.

Here’s the video containing this test LINK

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ If people can't trust official ISO 4548-12 test data, then they certainly can't trust the results of a home-made test rig's test results. There could still be some improvements made with the Brand Ranks 2nd generation test rig testing.

 

[Bellavita]

I know the Brand Ranks videos are not endorsed by the content police here, but, this individual test they performed seemed reasonable and well executed and it illustrates that while Tough Guard efficiency looks to be virtually equal to the Ultra, Ti and Endurance - its ability to clean oil isn’t even close.
View attachment 192587
Here’s the video containing this test LINK

Good Morning Robvette,

I put my trust in performance data that tests to ISO 4548-12 by certified equipment in labs that filter companies and private test labs use. Back in April 2015, ZeeOSix shared an excellent video of the type of equipment required to perform the test properly.

ISO 4548-12 Test Bench

I thought this was interesting, as some company has to make these certified test machines. Here's one, in India of all the places. If anyone is interested in taking a 2nd mortgage out on their house and buying a certified ISO 4548-12 test bench to do oil filter efficiency testing in their...

bobistheoilguy.com

 

[Robvette]

If people can't trust official ISO 4548-12 test data

I put my trust in performance data that tests to ISO 4548-12

The problem is when Fram tech support tells you expressly that the published ISO 4568-12 info on their boxes and website is not applicable to their current filters.

The gold standard is Purolator providing ISO 4568-12 results for each individual filter.

Also, even tho this particular Best Ranks test isn’t ISO anything, based on their result, I sure would spend the extra few $$ for an Ultra.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

I'm not going to say they are False but what I will say is that there are some of us that are skeptical of those claims across ALL of their filters. You're obviously taking of their avg 3 filter claims with face value & I completely understand that but I am skeptical. At least we can bash Purolator & say "See their marketing doesn't match up to the actual testing data" but with Fram, especially with thier high efficiency claims, what are they hiding? They have the tools to do it so that's not it. If Fram's marketing is up to par with the test data then they should show us to remove or prove my doubts.

You can be skeptical all you want, but since validated testing is ~$1600 per filter, you can either take them or another company at face value since that’s all you can do. Yes, it sucks, but other than trial and error via UOA particle counts, there’s no way other than “trust” to pick which company you choose for filters.

So it’s definitely a “what have you done for me lately” market right now.

 

[fantastic]

You can be skeptical all you want, but since validated testing is ~$1600 per filter, you can either take them or another company at face value since that’s all you can do. Yes, it sucks, but other than trial and error via UOA particle counts, there’s no way other than “trust” to pick which company you choose for filters.

So it’s definitely a “what have you done for me lately” market right now.

I still buy some Fram's "In the hopes of it being efficient" LOL. The filters I buy are not the chosen **referenced efficiency filters on the box though. The Purolator Spec Sheets have been wonderful showing us what the individual filters are. I think I remember seeing a post from motorking how they tested like 30+ of their filters. Of course we never saw those results. I've just been thinking if M&H is being nice enough to give us the tested filter data then I encourage anyone to go out & buy them for that reason alone. I have started buying them for that reason anyways. Also, we can't claim Fram's X filter is better than Purolator X filter b/c Fram's not sharing the data (not saying you are).

 

[kschachn]

I still buy some Fram's "In the hopes of it being efficient" LOL. The filters I buy are not the chosen **referenced efficiency filters on the box though. The Purolator Spec Sheets have been wonderful showing us what the individual filters are. I think I remember seeing a post from motorking how they tested like 30+ of their filters. Of course we never saw those results. I've just been thinking if M&H is being nice enough to give us the tested filter data then I encourage anyone to go out & buy them for that reason alone. I have started buying them for that reason anyways. Also, we can't claim Fram's X filter is better than Purolator X filter b/c Fram's not sharing the data (not saying you are).

Hmm. Yes wonderful in showing how bad some of them are. No thanks.

That’s a bit bizarre but I’ve gotten a bit used to bizarre reasoning and logical contortions on here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I sent an email to Fram asking for specific efficiency numbers on a couple of models. Will see what they say in response.

 

[bullwinkle]

How many of the "trash" filters have you run to 20,000 and have seen them fail? How have they failed?

I haven't run any of them that far, because I didn't think they could make it, and a disintegrating cellulose bomb in an engine isn't my idea of maintenance. Didn't run the FIRST OG Ultra to 19,700, it was the THIRD, after the first two were dissected to see how much carbon, debris, dirt, etc. was in them. Like I said above-do anything you want, but I don't advise it, and I don't much care for First Brand's cheapening premium filters & lying about it.

 

[bullwinkle]

No, that's part of exactly what I'm considering, which is premised on the accuracy of that screenshot; the requirement to take the numbers on it at face value and not question their legitimacy. To set aside the rift in the 15-micron figures between it and the Ascent data and just accept that it's the size difference in play.

While I'm not questioning the possibility for a blend media to be high efficiency (despite my position on the legitimacy of that screenshot), I AM questioning what amounts to a 10% drop in efficiency with a 0.7" shorter can and subsequently a bit less media. The Royal Purple, which does in fact have less media due to having a shorter media stack inside the can, was 3.3% less efficient in the Ascent testing. Now, different media, certainly, but also synthetic. This should at minimum, raise an eyebrow, and if it doesn't, well, then I don't think there's any value in continuing this conversation.

View attachment 192509

From what I've seen, the RP/Endurance white media is a lot thinner than the old Ultra pink was (is?), that is likely a factor. Short of throwing a bunch of $$$ at Ascent to test the newer ones, we'll likely never know for sure.

 

[fantastic]

Hmm. Yes wonderful in showing how bad some of them are. No thanks.
That’s a bit bizarre but I’ve gotten a bit used to bizarre reasoning and logical contortions on here.

You mean 99%@17 microns is "Bad"... How about the others that are 99%@25... Others 99%@30 is somehow "Bad" now? Purolator offers excellent oil filter efficiencies & data to back it up no matter how "Bizarre" you think it is. Explain how those efficiencies are "bad","bizarre, & "contortions of logic"? facts & data only.

99%@17
99%@25

 

[kschachn]

You mean 99%@17 microns is "Bad"... How about the others that are 99%@25... Others 99%@30 is somehow "Bad" now? Purolator offers excellent oil filter efficiencies & data to back it up no matter how "Bizarre" you think it is. Explain how those efficiencies are "bad","bizarre, & "contortions of logic"? facts & data only.

99%@17
99%@25

I think I was pretty clear in stating that some of them are bad. Did you miss that key word?

And yes your reasoning here is indeed bizarre at times.

 

[fantastic]

Hmm. Yes wonderful in showing how bad some of them are. No thanks.

That’s a bit bizarre but I’ve gotten a bit used to bizarre reasoning and logical contortions on here.

I think I was pretty clear in stating that some of them are bad. Did you miss that key word?

And yes your reasoning here is indeed bizarre at times.

So you've decided to wage personal attacks on me b/c you think SOME of Purolator filters are "Bad"? That doesn't make any sense. Explain...

 

[kschachn]

So you've decided to wage personal attacks on me b/c you think SOME of Purolator filters are "Bad"? That doesn't make any sense. Explain...

We've discussed this before.

It's hardly a personal attack. You have an agenda which is obvious to others as well, not just myself. What it is I do not know.

Read back the discussion in this thread and it is clear.

 

[fantastic]

Hmm. Yes wonderful in showing how bad some of them are. No thanks.

That’s a bit bizarre but I’ve gotten a bit used to bizarre reasoning and logical contortions on here.

I think I was pretty clear in stating that some of them are bad. Did you miss that key word?

And yes your reasoning here is indeed bizarre at times.

We've discussed this before.

It's hardly a personal attack. You have an agenda which is obvious to others as well, not just myself. What it is I do not know.

Read back the discussion in this thread and it is clear.

Now you claim a new one... That I have an "agenda". You don't know what it is but I have one? Explain that one. Any more personal attacks before we get back to discussing filters?

 

[kschachn]

I think everything is pretty clear to most people in this thread. And others.