Fram Ultra XG2

[UNC151]

I picked up 3 of these at AAP for $7.53 each out the door and will be using one of them after this run of AFE and the current MC filter (I will dissect it for all to see). Though these are more than 3x the cost of the MC filters ($7.53 versus $2.30), it is the performance of wire backed synthetic media that I want to see in action. It gives a little more safety net when running 15K+ OCIs (I worry a little about the MC tearing and so it may just be peace of mind).

There is also 5% efficiency difference between the FL-820s and the XG2 (93.7% versus 98.7%--both @ 20um) and that will also be interesting to see if it affects my used oil analysis in any degree. I know...I know--splitting hairs, but hey...this is BITOG!

Stay tuned for results in the near future...

 

[Jim Allen]

You have such good record keeping and a "from-day-one" track record with your truck that yours will be interesting to see. And with all the miles you drive, even 15K won't be a long wait... unlike my 2.5 year runs ( : < ).

I predict we won't see much of a change, if any, but if there is anyone whose setup and recordkeeping could show a change, it would be yours. I hope you won't be changing to a different oil because that could skew the results.

 

[chubbs1]

Look forward to seeing your posts to come.

 

[Sayjac]

I'm assuming you used an AAP code to obtain the lower price for the Ultra.

The Ultra is an excellent filter, and a good value when used for extended oci's. That said, I doubt you will see much if any difference in insolubles as tested in a Blackstone used oil analysis. Blackstone has said (linked below) that they see no difference in any oil filter when it comes to a used oil analysis insolubles test. The question for me, is the used oil analysis insoluble result a valid and reliable test of oil filter efficacy/effectiveness. I've not seen anything to convince me that it is.

Congrats on using AAP codes to get a good price on the Ultra.

Blackstone says oil filter brand doesn't matter.

 

[Rolla07]

Interesting read about filters, Sayjac. I like to go with a pureone or fram TG. Im sticking with 7500 mile intervals and for piece of mind, i dont mind paying 2$ more for a better built oil filter. Mid grade filters (i consider pure one and tg to be midgrade) are what I will use.

Look forward to hearing back about your results!

 

[dnewton3]

I can tell you that used oil analysis will not reveal any significant difference between a lowly Classic and a Pure One, or the OCOD and the FU.

That does not mean they won't do a "better" job, as they do have increased efficiency.

But the thing to understand is that a filter alone is not the sole controlling entity of wear. In fact, the tribochemical barrier is probably the single largest contributor to wear control. In the SAE 2007-01-4133 study, Ford showed that wear goes to almost negligible numbers after a period of time (probably dependent upon each engine and situation, obviously). So once the wear occurs at the first part of the OCI, then the only thing you have left is floating residual that is simply too small for a FF filter to get at. Hence the UOA numbers stay about the same. Yet as long as big particles are caught with regularity, no appreciable damage is done to the equipment.

So, getting a "better" filter really does not manifest into UOA changes or less real-world wear, as any decent filter is good enough to catch the big stuff.

What you get with "better" filters is a capacity increase that is certainly tangible, but ONLY if you run the FCI long enough to usurp the alternative lesser capable product.

As I've shown with my two recent longer OCIs, "normal" filters are at least capable in some situations out to 15k miles. So to get "better" results, you'll likely have to surpass 15k miles substantially.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I can tell you that used oil analysis will not reveal any significant difference between a lowly Classic and a Pure One, or the OCOD and the FU.

This would be secondary to the primary issue of running a filter that was not designed to do so for 15K+ miles. This part was "if there is an improvement so be it, but it is not a necessity".

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
As I've shown with my two recent longer OCIs, "normal" filters are at least capable in some situations out to 15k miles. So to get "better" results, you'll likely have to surpass 15k miles substantially.

I am running my FL-820s out to 15K (perhaps a little more if the UOA allows). Does this mean that I am not concerned about doing so? No, I am definitely concerned there could be a failure because (as far as I know and have read) Ford has not stated that it can be ran that long. In fact, if I want to "stick to known facts", the limit would be 7500 as that is what is stated in my OM (even the 2013 models have a max of 7500 as an OCI).

Do I think it can be ran longer than that? Yes, but 15K (aka double the recommended time) is likely reaching some threshold where the chance of a failure increases exponentially. With that in mind, I would define "better results" as zero failures and not necessarily better filtration, less wear, etc (of course, it could be argued that it would not be better until a failure occurs--but it would be too late that point, would it not?).

The wire backing helps ensure the media is not overly strained and I understand it is not the "be-all, end-all" to a potential failure. While I have learned to usually wring most (sometimes all) of the value in an overall OCI, the old saying of "penny-wise and pound-foolish" could apply to this scenario.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
I'm assuming you used an AAP code to obtain the lower price for the Ultra.

I did; 3 is the sweet spot using the ES123 AAP code. They are $10.79 each and the code reduces the cost by $10 on a $30 purchase.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
I predict we won't see much of a change, if any, but if there is anyone whose setup and recordkeeping could show a change, it would be yours. I hope you won't be changing to a different oil because that could skew the results.

The AFE was really nice at 10K, I cannot wait to see the 15K results (about 1700 miles to go). Thus far, it had the lowest overall wear metal readings of any oil used to date, even less than some oils at shorter intervals. I have 5 jugs of Mobil 1 5W-20 leftover from Dad's stash, but I will run another load of AFE to see how it performs a second time.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I can tell you that used oil analysis will not reveal any significant difference between a lowly Classic and a Pure One, or the OCOD and the FU.

That does not mean they won't do a "better" job, as they do have increased efficiency.

But the thing to understand is that a filter alone is not the sole controlling entity of wear. In fact, the tribochemical barrier is probably the single largest contributor to wear control. In the SAE 2007-01-4133 study, Ford showed that wear goes to almost negligible numbers after a period of time (probably dependent upon each engine and situation, obviously). So once the wear occurs at the first part of the OCI, then the only thing you have left is floating residual that is simply too small for a FF filter to get at. Hence the UOA numbers stay about the same. Yet as long as big particles are caught with regularity, no appreciable damage is done to the equipment.

So, getting a "better" filter really does not manifest into UOA changes or less real-world wear, as any decent filter is good enough to catch the big stuff.

What you get with "better" filters is a capacity increase that is certainly tangible, but ONLY if you run the FCI long enough to usurp the alternative lesser capable product.

As I've shown with my two recent longer OCIs, "normal" filters are at least capable in some situations out to 15k miles. So to get "better" results, you'll likely have to surpass 15k miles substantially.

Agreed.
I used low-end filters in my LS400 at the first oil change 19-20 years ago. The first 3-4 years I changed oil+filter every 6-7k/6mo with dino, after that I increased the FCI to 1 year (I reused filter). The car has 350k miles now and no lube related problems.

If an engine generates more than 5-6 grams of metals in 15-16k miles then it's dying, no filter can save it.

 

[MrQuackers]

I installed my first ever Motorcraft filter on my SL2 2100 miles ago and I do not recall the oil looking this clean before after so many miles on the Saturn 1.9

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
What you get with "better" filters is a capacity increase that is certainly tangible, but ONLY if you run the FCI long enough to usurp the alternative lesser capable product.


Agreed. I used low-end filters in my LS400 at the first oil change 19-20 years ago. The first 3-4 years I changed oil+filter every 6-7k/6mo with dino, after that I increased the FCI to 1 year (I reused filter). The car has 350k miles now and no lube related problems. If an engine generates more than 5-6 grams of metals in 15-16k miles then it's dying, no filter can save it.

I think somehow the focus has shifted to better efficiency of the filter (a perk of use) versus using a filter designed for long OCIs (my primary need). My engine produces very little insoluables and therefore it is a non-issue. Further, the FL-820s filter could do a 7500 (even a 10K) OCI in its sleep, but because I am going to go to 15K (perhaps beyond depending on the UOA), I think it is pushing the envelope (we shall see the condition in 1600 miles or so). Thus the change to a filter designed for a 15K OCI (which probably means it can go further). If somehow the Ultra filters "better" then I consider that to be a perk of use; my main concern is failed media and the wire backing should help prevent that.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

But the thing to understand is that a filter alone is not the sole controlling entity of wear. In fact, the tribochemical barrier is probably the single largest contributor to wear control. In the SAE 2007-01-4133 study, Ford showed that wear goes to almost negligible numbers after a period of time (probably dependent upon each engine and situation, obviously). So once the wear occurs at the first part of the OCI, then the only thing you have left is floating residual that is simply too small for a FF filter to get at. Hence the UOA numbers stay about the same. Yet as long as big particles are caught with regularity, no appreciable damage is done to the equipment.


Could it also be true that the longer the OCI, the more partials are generated that are too small for the oil filter to catch, and that would result in higher insolubles as a result of a longer OCI vs an OCI a bit shorter?

 

[dnewton3]

"Insolubles" in a Blackstone UOA are a visual measurement against a standard reference document regarding coloration, after dilution and centrifuge compaction, IIRC my visit correctly. So what we get in that reading is a blend of anything that is not soluble as a generalization. Therefore oxidation and soot are the main contributors to that reading. Metal particles are not generally able to affect the outcome, altought they are certainly present, in that particular test at Blackstone.

Generally, the longer you run oil, the higher your insol number will be, because the soot and oxidation will increase with exposure duration.

Until the add-pack is overwhelmed in a lube, it is the dispersents and detergents that work to keep contamination under control. It is the tribochemical barrier that helps keep wear in check. Together those two make up the bulk of engine protection. A typical full-flow filter really only catches larger stuff that the other two cannot address.

Using a filter that has greater efficiency and capacity cannot ever hurt the engine, but it cannot really "help" until the other two become compromised. That is why UOA data shows that premium filters in "normal" use really never distinguish themselves in real world applications.

Like I've said many times before, until something is overwhelmed, it's "better" alternative really holds no advantage.

Because 2010_FX4 is intending to go 15k miles, a larger capacity (not physically larger, but greater holding capacity) filter is a good idea. While I don't directly agree that wire-backed media is "needed" up to that point, I understand his fear and cannot offer anything that would change his mind that he has not already seen or considered; he is well informed, cautious and methodical and I applaud him for that!

I'd like to think that as the data rolls in, and he sees excellent continued numbers, he might even push it past 15k miles! That is where I would fully be in agreement that greatly extended OCIs will reward the user of premium lubes and top-tier filters. At 12-15k miles, he's kind of at the cusp of a no-man's land; it's a twilight rather than day or night. That FCI is probably nearing the pragmatic useable lifecycle of a "normal" filter, but not quite a 100% assurance that a premium filter is "needed". Past 15k miles, I'd most certainly agree I'd want that "extra" protection as well that only would come from top-tier stuff.

I convinced myself that "normal" products can go 15k miles in my application. But he'll have to find his own comfort level with his own situation. But he gets high marks in my book for taking a consistent, methodical approach, rather than a willy-nilly shot-gun style of wingin' it.

 

[Sayjac]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
.... With that in mind, I would define "better results" as zero failures and not necessarily better filtration, less wear, etc (of course, it could be argued that it would not be better until a failure occurs--but it would be too late that point, would it not?).....

Ok, that makes more sense to me now, especially considering Bstone says they see no differences in standard UOA results in any filter brand anyway. You are thinking that Ultra filter construction in this case will ensure longevity and proper function of the filter over the length of the extended oci. So, no Ultra filter failure = better results, NOT, using Ultra = better results than any other filter in Bstone standard UOA test results.

As for wringing the 'absolute' most out of an oci including oil and filter, the elephant in the room imo is the cost of regular Bstone UOA sampling, which if true ROI is to be determined must be included.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: sayjac


As for wringing the 'absolute' most out of an oci including oil and filter, the elephant in the room imo is the cost of regular Bstone UOA sampling, which if true ROI is to be determined must be included.

That's a very good point but I contend you don't need to repeatedly UOA. Once you have established the condition of the oil using a particular combo of OCI, oil, filter, engine and operational cycle, IMO you don't really NEED to UOA unless some major part of the equation changes.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
.... With that in mind, I would define "better results" as zero failures and not necessarily better filtration, less wear, etc (of course, it could be argued that it would not be better until a failure occurs--but it would be too late that point, would it not?).....

Ok, that makes more sense to me now, especially considering Bstone says they see no differences in standard UOA results in any filter brand anyway. You are thinking that Ultra filter construction in this case will ensure longevity and proper function of the filter over the length of the extended oci. So, no Ultra filter failure = better results, NOT, using Ultra = better results than any other filter in Bstone standard UOA test results.

Yes, quite correct. Perhaps it is needless worry, but running a filter for more than twice the recommended miles (15K versus 7.5K) could lead to a failure which I do not want. The filter media in the FL-820s tends to become wavy (especially where the filter pleats have wide gaps) and that aspect seems like a potential point of failure to me when using them for extended OCIs.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
As for wringing the 'absolute' most out of an oci including oil and filter, the elephant in the room imo is the cost of regular Bstone UOA sampling, which if true ROI is to be determined must be included.

I concur on your thoughts, but I made the decision to UOA every fluid change in my FX4 the day I bought it (so for me that cost is included). The purpose was many fold, but not the least of which is that others may learn something along the way from my investment including that most (if not all) could run the oils in their vehicles much further than they ever thought possible without taking a huge risk.