Fram Ultra XG9688 Before HPL Cleaner and Post HPL OCI 5200Miles

[OVERKILL]

First, I'm in no way saying my buying choice is "Superior". That is your words & narrative not mine.

You are arguing that it is more informed. I'm countering (as is @ZeeOSix) that your argument as to *how* it is more informed is utter nonsense.

Purolators come with an ISO test on the individual filters which is what I like. When I say how much I like it I usually get some on here riled up about how terrible they are etc. Then they'll say why don't you run X brand filter because they say 99%@20 microns (W/O any data to show how they got there). You're only using Fram as an example but there are a lot of filter companies out here advertising those claims with little to back it up.

Dude, the guy you were arguing with, @BrendanC was talking about two FRAM filters, in a thread with the FRAM Ultra in the bloody title:

cleaner oil is better oil period. if you’re not going to run an OE filter, why not atleast go grab an ultra at walmart or better yet an endurance instead of the BOSS.

To which you responded:

We all want clean oil so please show me the filter you use that has been tested to the ISO standard to get your oil cleaner than every other filter on the market.

Which is the data we are discussing, provided by both FRAM and Ascent.

Fram is not the only company that makes high efficiency claims.

You are literally arguing with two people here that are talking about FRAM filters guy.

I'll continue to be responsible & let others know that there is data lacking on proper ISO filter tests when there are claims that aren't backed up. If you want to believe ANY company that claims 99%@20 microns, across all of their respective models, w/o any evidence than have at it.

But you aren't being responsible, you are being ridiculous, bordering on unhinged. The people you are arguing with here are talking about the high end FRAM filters, which have been tested (particularly the OG Ultra) and backed up by the Ascent data. Your claim of "data lacking" in this context is impotent hand wavy contrarity, seemingly for the sake of simply being a dissenting voice, I must assume due to an already invested position that you don't want to back down from due to some perceived potential loss of face.

If you can read my tire remix spin of this discussion as presented above and still can't see the parallels and why this posturing is so ridiculous, well, I'm not sure what else can be said at this point

 

[ZeeOSix]

What was wrong with Ascent's testing? No one here is arguing that there was bad data on that OG Ultra filter.

Stems back to the sample of one in post 67. If anything, if a filter tested much worse than expected I could see "a sample of one" being a fluke because the filter could have been defective. But when a sample of one tests to what it is expected to, or better than claimed, then it's hard to blame it on "a sample of one" unless that sample was a "ringer" or the test was ineffective or was ran wrong for some reason. Then the conspiracy theories come into play, lol.

 

[fantastic]

You are arguing that it is more informed. I'm countering (as is @ZeeOSix) that your argument as to *how* it is more informed is utter nonsense.

Dude, the guy you were arguing with, @BrendanC was talking about two FRAM filters, in a thread with the FRAM Ultra in the bloody title:

To which you responded:


Which is the data we are discussing, provided by both FRAM and Ascent.

You are literally arguing with two people here that are talking about FRAM filters guy.

But you aren't being responsible, you are being ridiculous, bordering on unhinged. The people you are arguing with here are talking about the high end FRAM filters, which have been tested (particularly the OG Ultra) and backed up by the Ascent data. Your claim of "data lacking" in this context is impotent hand wavy contrarity, seemingly for the sake of simply being a dissenting voice, I must assume due to an already invested position that you don't want to back down from due to some perceived potential loss of face.

If you can read my tire remix spin of this discussion as presented above and still can't see the parallels and why this posturing is so ridiculous, well, I'm not sure what else can be said at this point

ISO Filter testing data is Nonsense? I'm Unhinged? I would like to see the testing data & if you are sold on what you see w/o that data then go ahead. You have no ISO test results on individual filters, except for the single Ascent filter, so you've instead resorted to your antics again because you've got nothing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

ISO Filter testing data is Nonsense? I'm Unhinged? I would like to see the testing data & if you are sold on what you see w/o that data then go ahead. You have no ISO test results on individual filters, except for the single Ascent filter, so you've instead resorted to your antics again because you've got nothing.

So you don't believe Fram's efficiency claims on the referenced filter models they show on their website? Did you see post 79?

I don't understand how someone can think an oil filter is so great just because a Spec Sheets show how bad it is.

 

[fantastic]

Stems back to the sample of one in post 67. If anything, if a filter tested much worse than expected I could see "a sample of one" being a fluke because the filter could have been defective. But when a sample of one tests to what it is expected to, or better than claimed, then it's hard to blame it on "a sample of one" unless that sample was a "ringer" or the test was ineffective or was ran wrong for some reason. Then the conspiracy theories come into play, lol.

Pretty sure I've seen different part numbers referenced for their efficiency claims depending on what it said on the box. Figured you'd like to see ISO testing data on filters.

 

[BrendanC]

ISO Filter testing data is Nonsense? I'm Unhinged? I would like to see the testing data & if you are sold on what you see w/o that data then go ahead. You have no ISO test results on individual filters, except for the single Ascent filter, so you've instead resorted to your antics again because you've got nothing.

what you are failing to understand is that the Fram meet its specs on the box and even beat them by a bit. the BOSS didn’t meet the specs printed on the box nor did exactly meet the specs published by purolator. the OG fram has been proven to be one of the best filters of all time by their wording on their boxes and by ascent’s testing. i understand statistics, im a mechanical engineer and my whole degree is based on statistics and physics. but when the filter (in this case an XG10575) met and even exceeded its claims on the box i will bite. the purolators are all over the place with the claim on the box being from a PBL3001 (a GIGANTIC filter in comparison) and it didn’t meet that. that is why a lot of us choose to follow the OG ultra media and why i have 16 or 17 3675’s and another 4 7317’s in my collection. the BOSS is an amazingly nice filter and will serve you well. some of us just prefer cleaner oil.

I will not respond again as the argument has gone on long enough.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Pretty sure I've seen different part numbers referenced for their efficiency claims depending on what it said on the box. Figured you'd like to see ISO testing data on filters.

Got some box photos and examples to back it up?

 

[fantastic]

what you are failing to understand is that the Fram meet its specs on the box and even beat them by a bit. the BOSS didn’t meet the specs printed on the box nor did exactly meet the specs published by purolator. the OG fram has been proven to be one of the best filters of all time by their wording on their boxes and by ascent’s testing. i understand statistics, im a mechanical engineer and my whole degree is based on statistics and physics. but when the filter (in this case an XG10575) met and even exceeded its claims on the box i will bite. the purolators are all over the place with the claim on the box being from a PBL3001 (a GIGANTIC filter in comparison) and it didn’t meet that. that is why a lot of us choose to follow the OG ultra media and why i have 16 or 17 3675’s and another 4 7317’s in my collection. the BOSS is an amazingly nice filter and will serve you well. some of us just prefer cleaner oil.

I will not respond again as the argument has gone on long enough.

Are you saying that Fram meets it's efficiency on every one of their filters for their respective line (every TG meets 99%@20 microns)? Yes, the Purolator Boss tested better than advertised with Ascent.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Pretty sure I've seen different part numbers referenced for their efficiency claims depending on what it said on the box. Figured you'd like to see ISO testing data on filters.

Just took this photo off a Fram XG7317 filter box. Compare it to their website info ... same referenced filter models listed.

 

[Davejam]

OG ultra media was proven to be 99% @20um by andrew at ascent. i may not use a 10575 but i use a 3675 which is close in size. main difference is 13/16 -16 and 22mm aswell as bypass in filter (10575). i have a pretty good stock of OG media fram titanium 3675’s that should last the remaining lifetime of my truck. am building up a stock of old 7317’s but its difficult to find old ones due to how many people buy them.

How do you even go about finding old 7317's at this point? Would love to get a few.

 

[Bellavita]

So you believe that the three filters that Fram references for the ISO 4548-12 efficiency are the only ones that meet their claimed efficiency, and all others are something entirely different? Is it a conspiracy theory that Fram somehow only made some "super filters" to be used for their efficiency claims? We also have the Ascent data points - maybe Fram secretly planted a couple of special filters for Andrew to unknowingly buy off the shelf for his testing, lol. I remember when Ascent was going to test those filters, and some Fram haters were wringing their hands thinking the Ultra wouldn't meet the claims, but it actually was better than Fram's claim. Image of Wile E. Coyote blowing himself up with "dyn-o-mite" (goodtimes, lol). The way those filters ranked per Ascents testing pretty much matched how they would rank if looking at their ISO 4548-12 efficiency claims by the manufacturers.

What's funny about the whole M+H Spec Sheets and Purolator's website is that they are blatantly misleading people by showing the Boss PBL30001 being 99% @ 25u on their website, yet the Spec Sheet shows it's 99% >46u. That's a big discrepancy. And you don't trust Fram's claims?

PurolatorBOSS® Oil Filters

PurolatorBOSS® Maximum Oil Filters deliver peak performance and maximum engine protection for up to 20,000 miles.

www.purolatornow.com

View attachment 196273

Spec Sheet ... 99% >46 microns. Why don't the two claims match?

If you heard the Boss was 50% @ 22u (which is pretty close to 20u), would you feel the same as hearing it was 99% >46u?

View attachment 196274

ZeeOSix,
When you brought up Wile E. Coyote, I felt we had to pay homage to his sole supplier ACME, with its incredible range of products from the "Greco-Roman Catapult" to the "Rocket Powered Roller Skates"! Gosh I miss that cartoon series!

 

[fantastic]

Just took this photo off a Fram XG7317 filter box. Compare it to their website info ... same referenced filter models listed.

View attachment 196299

View attachment 196298

I'll keep looking around for that. I do trust Fram. I just have a "Trust but verify" mindset with oil filters.

 

[BrendanC]

How do you even go about finding old 7317's at this point? Would love to get a few.

have to find stores in low traffic/low income areas. people are less likely to spring for the “premium” oil filters there. i found my 7317’s in zachary Louisiana i believe while visiting my family and doing my aunts brakes (thank goodness for speed perks points)

 

[ZeeOSix]

I'll keep looking around for that. I do trust Fram. I just have a "Trust but verify" mindset with oil filters.

These were picked off of Fram's website just now ... see a pattern? These are the filters the reference for each filter line.

Ultra: XG8A, XG3387A and XG4967

Endurance: FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967

Titanium: FS8A, FS3387A and FS4967

Tough Guard: TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967

Extra Guard: PH8A, PH3387A and PH4967

 

[fantastic]

These were picked off of Fram's website just now ... see a pattern? These are the filters the reference for each filter line.

Ultra: XG8A, XG3387A and XG4967

Endurance: FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967

Titanium: FS8A, FS3387A and FS4967

Tough Guard: TG8A, TG3387A and TG4967

Extra Guard: PH8A, PH3387A and PH4967

That is probably part of the confusion I was seeing different numbers, on the boxes, but when you lay it out like that it makes more sense.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That is probably part of the confusion I was seeing different numbers, on the boxes, but when you lay it out like that it makes more sense.

If you can find a current box with different numbers, post up the photos.

 

[fantastic]

If you can find a current box with different numbers, post up the photos.

I do notice that Fram doesn't use the "or equivalent Fram TG or EG models" wording on the box you posted from their website. Not sure why they'd leave that part off unless there was no room on the box.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I do notice that Fram doesn't use the "or equivalent Fram TG or EG models" wording on the box you posted from their website. Not sure why they'd leave that part off unless there was no room on the box.

This was discussed before many times in the past, even with Motorking when he was still here, and about the confusion their statements sometimes caused. Since then, most of the statements are cleaned up for the most part on Fram's website and boxes. A few remain. I think Fram doesn't have very good website support within their own organization. I could go through their website and suggest clarifications that anyone at Fram who does that for their job should also be able to see. IMO, a manufacture's website needs to be kept accurate and updated all the time, since it's a main connection between their products and the buying public.

 

[fantastic]

This was discussed before many times in the past, even with Motorking when he was still here, and about the confusion their statements sometimes caused. Since then, most of the statements are cleaned up for the most part on Fram's website and boxes. A few remain. I think Fram doesn't have very good website support within their own organization. I could go through their website and suggest clarifications that anyone at Fram who does that for their job should also be able to see. IMO, a manufacture's website needs to be kept accurate and updated all the time, since it's a main connection between their products and the buying public.

Probably the same reason we see the Purolator discrepancies. We've beat this dead horse several times now & If some here want to believe that their whole model line up is TG 99%@20 then so be it. I'd just like to see the testing to verify. Testing takes the marketing out of the equation.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Probably the same reason we see the Purolator discrepancies. We've beat this dead horse several times now & If some here want to believe that their whole model line up is TG 99%@20 then so be it. I'd just like to see the testing to verify. Testing takes the marketing out of the equation.

Nobody is claiming the whole filter line is 99% @>20u based on 3 reference filters, but there's a good chance that most of them are if the same exact media is used in all sizes and based on how oil filters work. What's disturbing to me is that Purolator is blatantly misleading people with their Boss efficiency PBL30001 claim on their website that isn't anywhere close to the actual Spec Sheet that you trust so much - see post 78.

As I've mentioned in that link given in post 79, we all know that Fram has some filters in some filter lines that are made by others and branded as Fram. And that could be why Fram told Robvette what they did in that thread. But the specific filter models I asked Fram about came back with the answer from Fram that they were indeed 99% @>20u.