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

[ZeeOSix]

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.

Yeah, that's clearly a blatant mis-matched claim by Purolator. The BOSS is actually >46u per Spec Sheet.

Purolator's claim on the Purolator ONE:
https://www.purolatornow.com/en/products/oil-filters/purolator-one.html

PL30001 (ONE) Spec Sheet shows 99% @ 25u (close, but doesn't match website claim).

Purolator's claim on the Purolator BOSS:
https://www.purolatornow.com/en/products/oil-filters/purolator-boss.html

PLB30001 (BOSS) Spec Sheet shows 99% @ >46u.

 

[Bellavita]

Yeah, that's clearly a blatant mis-matched claim by Purolator. The BOSS is actually >46u per Spec Sheet.

Purolator's claim on the Purolator ONE:
https://www.purolatornow.com/en/products/oil-filters/purolator-one.html

View attachment 192228

PL30001 (ONE) Spec Sheet shows 99% @ 25u (close, but doesn't match website claim).

View attachment 192231

Purolator's claim on the Purolator BOSS:
https://www.purolatornow.com/en/products/oil-filters/purolator-boss.html

View attachment 192229

PLB30001 (BOSS) Spec Sheet shows 99% @ >46u.

View attachment 192232

Thank you for sharing ZeeOSix. For perspective it's interesting how we're micro analyzing some Titaniums that have the wrong box through a running change use up and Purolator is wrong on every one on the shelf and continues to do so.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Thank you for sharing ZeeOSix. For perspective it's interesting how we're micro analyzing some Titaniums that have the wrong box through a running change use up and Purolator is wrong on every one on the shelf and continues to do so.

It's possible that before M+H took over Purolator that those efficiency claims shown on their website were true. But if their current Spec Sheets show otherwise, they should be updating their website efficiency claims.

 

[fantastic]

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.

Since Purolators 20 microns claim was there before the spec sheets became available I'd rely on the worst value of the two not the 20 micron value and in that case go with the sheet specs. Also, the specification sheets from Purolator are something tangible in writing with more than just efficiencies & that changes things quite substantially. I think Purolator has done a good job in allowing us to see these sheets of tested filters. Fram needs to show us INDIVIDUAL tested filter sheet results for ANY filter we want to buy. Most people if given a choice would want to see an individual spec sheet & not an "Equivalent" statement from Fram. You might be happy with how they market their filters but some of us are not buying the marketing across ALL of their filter line.

All popular filter companies that have the capability to test individual filters should give us consumers that exact testing data via a sheet. That would be proper & informative to make a buying decision.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

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.

With all the gas money you’ve spent driving around to AAPs, you could’ve bought a Frantz system and turned EVERY filter you’ve got into a 99.9%@ 2 micron filter

 

[ZeeOSix]

Since Purolators 20 microns claim was there before the spec sheets became available I'd rely on the worst value of the two not the 20 micron value and in that case go with the sheet specs. Also, the specification sheets from Purolator are something tangible in writing with more than just efficiencies & that changes things quite substantially. I think Purolator has done a good job in allowing us to see these sheets of tested filters. Fram needs to show us INDIVIDUAL tested filter sheet results for ANY filter we want to buy. Most people if given a choice would want to see an individual spec sheet & not an "Equivalent" statement from Fram. You might be happy with how they market their filters but some of us are not buying the marketing across ALL of their filter line.

All popular filter companies that have the capability to test individual filters should give us consumers that exact testing data period via a sheet. That would be proper & informative to make a buying decision.

Guess you won't be buying anything but Purolators, because no other company will give out specific Spec Sheets like they have done. I think once they see some of the reaction on this forum they will probably stop giving out the info and claim it's "proprietary" company info, lol.

And there is no way that Purolator or any other filter company that makes literally hundreds of different models of filters has tested every one of those models and sizes. They have tested a handful, then came up with a model to predict the efficacy of the other models and sizes, which is a valid and common way of doing it.

 

[fantastic]

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.

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.

 

[ZeeOSix]

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.

I've never said or claimed that Fram's efficiency claim is for ALL filter models/sizes across the line. Their claim clearly specifies specific filter models. But I do believe their efficiency claims based on the average of the 3 filters they reference. Like I said above, there may be some outliers in the line due to some outsourcing on some models, but if there are filters in the line that use the same exact media that Fram's efficiency claim is based on with 3 reference sized filters, then I'd say those will meet the same claim.

 

[fantastic]

Guess you won't be buying anything but Purolators, because no other company will give out specific Spec Sheets like they have done. I think once they see some of the reaction on this forum they will probably stop giving out the info and claim it's "proprietary" company info, lol.

And there is no way that Purolator or any other filter company that makes literally hundreds of different models of filters has tested every one of those models and sizes. They have tested a handful, then came up with a model to predict the efficacy of the other models and sizes, which is a valid and common way of doing it.

I've already stated many times that I buy/bought Fram's too (I just mentioned it earlier in the other post LOL). If these sheets remain available for the long haul then it could put pressure on other companies to do the same. The power of corporate competition sort of speak. They may quit giving them out & that would be unfortunate but it's something we should be happy about while it lasts.

I've never said or claimed that Fram's efficiency claim is for ALL filter models/sizes across the line. Their claim clearly specifies specific filter models. But I do believe their efficiency claims based on the average of the 3 filters they reference. Like I said above, there may be some outliers in the line due to some outsourcing on some models, but if there are filters in the line that use the same exact media that Fram's efficiency claim is based on with 3 reference sized filters, then I'd say those will meet the same claim.

If you're happy with the three filter claims then fine. But there are some on here that think that efficiency claim is across all of their filters. That's the only issue I have. I'm skeptical about that. Fram can do better at showing us consumers the data. Along with the other companies. Some are happy with how filter companies advertise their efficiencies but I'm, again, skeptical w/o the testing data. I want to see the tested filter evidence for any filter I choose to buy. Too much to ask? Not in the slightest & the big filter companies could switch that on when they choose too.

 

[fantastic]

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.

Specification sheet for all filters that are tested would cut through that marketing jargon from Fram.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If you're happy with the three filter claims then fine. But there are some on here that think that efficiency claim is across all of their filters.

There are also some who think that all Purolator' ONEs are 99% @ 20u based on the claim on Purolator's website.

That's the only issue I have. I'm skeptical about that. Fram can do better at showing us consumers the data. Along with the other companies. Some are happy with how filter companies advertise their efficiencies but I'm, again, skeptical w/o the testing data. I want to see the tested filter evidence for any filter I choose to buy. Too much to ask? Not in the slightest & the big filter companies could switch that on when they choose too.

Do you believe Fram's claim on the 3 different sized filters in the filter line? If not, why.

At one time, WIX wouldn't even say what the efficiency of the WIX XP was after it got flamed for them advertising it at 50% @ 20u. A call to WIX Tech Line on the phone, the guy actually told me the efficiency was "proprietary".

 

[Bellavita]

I've already stated many times that I buy/bought Fram's too (I just mentioned it earlier in the other post LOL). If these sheets remain available for the long haul then it could put pressure on other companies to do the same. The power of corporate competition sort of speak. They may quit giving them out & that would be unfortunate but it's something we should be happy about while it lasts.


If you're happy with the three filter claims then fine. But there are some on here that think that efficiency claim is across all of their filters. That's the only issue I have. I'm skeptical about that. Fram can do better at showing us consumers the data. Along with the other companies. Some are happy with how filter companies advertise their efficiencies but I'm, again, skeptical w/o the testing data. I want to see the tested filter evidence for any filter I choose to buy. Too much to ask? Not in the slightest & the big filter companies could switch that on when they choose too.

Hi Fantastic,

Help me understand why some on BITOG think Fram's performance claims are for all of their filters when their point of sale packaging and website use the following language stating an average, (example is for the Tough Guard product line) :

"*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."

 

[Mewbs]

View attachment 192185

Well if I kept these to myself and use these once a year I would be in my early 60s when they will be all used up. They'll likely last me about 10 years since I got other 2 family Toyota vehicles to use them on.

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

Pretty sure there are plenty of us here including the OP doing that. Been doing it for a while before I joined this forum. As long everyone gets what they want its a win win for all parties.

With all the gas money you’ve spent driving around to AAPs, you could’ve bought a Frantz system and turned EVERY filter you’ve got into a 99.9%@ 2 micron filter

Gas money isn't a concern for a gas sipping Yaris, I drive 100 miles a day throughout the week as a daily commute to work. There are plenty of AAP stores per city/town region along the way to stop by.

If I really wanted to go to the extreme I would've gone with a custom combo bypass + custom machined remote mount to use those higher end heavy duty Donaldson Blue and FleetGuard Stratapore-NN filters. It doesn't make sense to extend a small car oil capacity by another 3-4 quarts but would be an awesome fun project and hobby to prove the point lol. Bypass systems make more sense for medium to heavy duty applications where general maintenance cost is usually higher compared to a small passenger vehicle.

My autism senses are tingling so maybe it will happen someday if I ever get a truck to play with.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ He thinks everyone is "hiding something" if they can't whip out a Spec Sheet on any specific oil filter model.

 

[fantastic]

There are also some who think that all Purolator' ONEs are 99% @ 20u based on the claim on Purolator's website.

That is an excellent point & one I'm trying to make... We need specification sheets to cut through the marketing & that's exactly what M&H has done with the sheets if requested. As you see marketing isn't talking to engineering LOL BUT we can't see how bad or good Frams are across the board b/c they're not showing us their filter testing data.

Do you believe Fram's claim on the 3 different sized filters in the filter line? If not, why.

I need the testing data to back that claim up...LOL Two sources of information to make an informed answer. And as you see on the Purolator they can put anything on the box or site for their claim to fame. Fram's already tested those filters in their claim so if they should be able to produce a specification sheet for those filters tested to standards then I'd say of course I'd believe them but only for those filters.

At one time, WIX wouldn't even say what the efficiency of the WIX XP was after it got flamed for them advertising it at 50% @ 20u. A call to WIX Tech Line on the phone, the guy actually told me the efficiency was "proprietary".

 

[ZeeOSix]

I need the testing data to back that claim up...LOL Two sources of information to make an informed answer. And as you see on the Purolator they can put anything on the box or site for their claim to fame. Fram's already tested those filters in their claim so if they should be able to produce a specification sheet for those filters tested to standards then I'd say of course I'd believe them but only for those filters.

As pointed out a few times already, we do have an independent test source of data (Ascents ISO 4548-12 testing) that shows the OG Ultra actually tested better than Fram's claim. So if Fram was accurate in their claim then, why would you think they are not now?

 

[fantastic]

Hi Fantastic,

Help me understand why some on BITOG think Fram's performance claims are for all of their filters when their point of sale packaging and website use the following language stating an average, (example is for the Tough Guard product line) :

"*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."

Fram has used the word "or Equivalent" in their marketing. If you stay around here long enough you'll see that many here believe Fram's 99%@20 micron claims are for ALL of their filters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Fram has used the word "or Equivalent" in their marketing. If you stay around here long enough you'll see that many here believe Fram's 99%@20 micron claims are for ALL of their filters.

Look at my join date. If someone believes any oil filter's efficiency claim is for their whole line, then they haven't been around here long enough. Some companies (like Microgard for instance) don't even give a reference filter model that their efficiency claim is based on. And some companies don't even give a test standard the efficiency is based on.

It's been discussed 100s of times how the size of an oil filter can impact the efficiency, depending on the design of the media and the ability to hold already captured debris as the filter loads up and the dP increases.

It's pretty clear that Fram references the filters they base the efficiency claim on. And if you look-up those filter models and their sizes, you can see they are indeed different sized filters.

 

[KCJeep]

Since Fram’s claim is spread across 3 filter sizes, one of which is fairly small, and the whole line is made of the same media and construction type I’m comfortable with their efficiency claims. I’d think other manufacturers would take them to task if it wasn’t accurate as well.

What I’m not comfortable with is the general cost cutting and quality downturn in the Fram line up that has been documented here.

 

[fantastic]

As pointed out a few times already, we do have an independent test source of data (Ascents ISO 4548-12 testing) that shows the OG Ultra actually tested better than Fram's claim. So if Fram wasn't lying then, why would you think they are now?

This testing data was great from Ascent on that one Fram filter. That makes me believe marketing is on good ground but to a point. We've gone down this road before. I'm not going to claim they are lying.

Look at my join date. If someone believes any oil filter's efficiency claim is for their whole line, then they haven't been around here long enough. It's been discussed 100s of times how the size of an oil filter can impact the efficiency, depending on the design of the media and the ability to hold already captured debris as the filter loads up and the dP increases.

I'm not talking about you specifically about that. Of course you know better.

^^^ He thinks everyone is "hiding something" if they can't whip out a Spec Sheet on any specific oil filter model.

You caught me...

I'm really trying to voice concern over making sure us consumers are not being duped. A spec sheet could help in that regard.