FRAM XG10955 - Pentastar 2011-2013

[RD_3]

Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
Originally Posted by RD_3
Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
Looks strikingly similar to the Wix XP version of this filter http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=2091434. Note that many Wix cartridge filters are manufactured in Korea as well. Just saying....

Queue the ISO 4548-12 testing performance numbers, Wix's terrible performance with the XP, and Fram XG superiority discussions....


The NP 47526/57526XP is metal wire backed and made in the US, the XG is synthetic backed and made in Korea.


Not always. The Wix XP for my Mazda is made in Poland, and has black plastic (synthetic) wire mesh: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4772189/1. We know many Wix filters are also made in Korea, so my theory still stands.

It's also worth mentioning that the OEM filters for my Mercedes, made by MANN (Wix's parent company) use a white filter media with white plastic/synthetic backing. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4764940/1. In fact, all filters I reviewed for my Mercedes had strikingly similar media appearance. The filters themselves varied, but the media did not appear to.

There is no reason that MANN (Wix) is not the supplier of the filter media on this model Fram filter, and possibly the manufacturer of the filter itself.


There, I clarified my post. I was referring to my specific application for the 2011-2013 pentastar motor...I figured most could understand that. Clearly, not all filters from one company are manufactured in the same country.

 

[SnowmanCO]

Originally Posted by RD_3
Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
Originally Posted by RD_3
Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
Looks strikingly similar to the Wix XP version of this filter http://www.wixfilters.com/Lookup/PartDetails.aspx?Part=2091434. Note that many Wix cartridge filters are manufactured in Korea as well. Just saying....

Queue the ISO 4548-12 testing performance numbers, Wix's terrible performance with the XP, and Fram XG superiority discussions....


The NP 47526/57526XP is metal wire backed and made in the US, the XG is synthetic backed and made in Korea.


Not always. The Wix XP for my Mazda is made in Poland, and has black plastic (synthetic) wire mesh: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4772189/1. We know many Wix filters are also made in Korea, so my theory still stands.

It's also worth mentioning that the OEM filters for my Mercedes, made by MANN (Wix's parent company) use a white filter media with white plastic/synthetic backing. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4764940/1. In fact, all filters I reviewed for my Mercedes had strikingly similar media appearance. The filters themselves varied, but the media did not appear to.

There is no reason that MANN (Wix) is not the supplier of the filter media on this model Fram filter, and possibly the manufacturer of the filter itself.


There, I clarified my post. I was referring to my specific application for the 2011-2013 pentastar motor...I figured most could understand that. Clearly, not all filters from one company are manufactured in the same country.


Thanks for the clarification. I have never seen the Wix XP version of this filter besides the stock images on Wix's website. I couldn't find any detailed images showing the markings on the filter. If you, or anyone else, has any detailed images of the NP47526 or Wix 57526XP, I think it would be helpful to compare.

I am mostly intrigued by the white filter media on the Fram model, and am noting it's similar appearance to other non-Fram synthetic filters out there. When everyone talks about how the Fram XG are the best filters out there because of their filtering performance, it makes me wonder how different one synthetic filter is from another.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
When everyone talks about how the Fram XG are the best filters out there because of their filtering performance, it makes me wonder how different one synthetic filter is from another.


The can be very different. Look at the efficiency of the full synthetic WIX XP for instance.

 

[SnowmanCO]

This is exactly why I don't trust those efficiency numbers. People go back and forth about one filter being so much more efficient than another based on the testing manufacturers do on a handful of filter models.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
This is exactly why I don't trust those efficiency numbers. People go back and forth about one filter being so much more efficient than another based on the testing manufacturers do on a handful of filter models.


A handful of filter models pretty much defines the performance of that particular media. Having ISO 4548-12 test data is better than nothing and "guessing" what the efficiency might be. There is no other current official industry used efficiency test, so how else are you going to determine what filters do a better job of filtering vs another ... because a certain car made it to 250,000+ miles without blowing up?

 

[RD_3]

Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
This is exactly why I don't trust those efficiency numbers. People go back and forth about one filter being so much more efficient than another based on the testing manufacturers do on a handful of filter models.


I've always wondered about the fine print on the Fram website under the Ultra...and now on the box of the filter I posted.

The website states under the Fram Ultra webpage... "*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.

Where are they testing Ultra models for the Ultra efficiency rating...?

Look at the back of the box I posted and they must have updated their lingo to now include one XG filter with two EG filters. Are the ratings now an average between all three?

Again, I'm not trying to split hairs...I just question like Snowman does. Regardless, I am going to use the filter, hence why I purchased it. I realize I posted something similiar to this question a year or two ago and Zee responded with good points. I realize 20.000001 micron particles are greater than 20 microns. My attention is more focused on the specified filters used for the tests...

 

[SnowmanCO]

Originally Posted by RD_3
Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
This is exactly why I don't trust those efficiency numbers. People go back and forth about one filter being so much more efficient than another based on the testing manufacturers do on a handful of filter models.


I've always wondered about the fine print on the Fram website under the Ultra...and now on the box of the filter I posted.

The website states under the Fram Ultra webpage... "*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.

Where are they testing Ultra models for the Ultra efficiency rating...?

Look at the back of the box I posted and they must have updated their lingo to now include one XG filter with two EG filters. Are the ratings now an average between all three?

Again, I'm not trying to split hairs...I just question like Snowman does. Regardless, I am going to use the filter, hence why I purchased it. I realize I posted something similiar to this question a year or two ago and Zee responded with good points. I realize 20.000001 micron particles are greater than 20 microns. My attention is more focused on the specified filters used for the tests...


Exactly. They still make the following claim for the Ultra, "2-ply synthetic, metal-screen-reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency.*", but when you read the fine print in the asterisk there is no mention of any of the XG (Ultra) filters, "*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns." There is a double asterisk that talks about the Ultra, but only for filter capacity, "**FRAM Group mulitpass testing of representative sampling of average filter capacity of comparable competitive retail products based on ISO4548-12 for XG8A and XG3387A." The filter that is being discussed in this thread also does not have a "metal-screen reinforced media" design.

There is no doubt the Ultra is a solid filter. Fram's website has made it difficult to find the true specs on the filter. It just seems like all the "truth" about what the filter is capable of has been posted on this forum from Motorking, and has spread like wildfire. You have to realize he was in Sales/Marketing for Fram until recently when he was let go when Trico purchased Fram.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by RD_3
The website states under the Fram Ultra webpage... "*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.

Where are they testing Ultra models for the Ultra efficiency rating...?

Look at the back of the box I posted and they must have updated their lingo to now include one XG filter with two EG filters. Are the ratings now an average between all three?


I think the text on their website about the XG is a typo. Look at the TG efficiency language.

Fram is trying to be lazy by using an all inclusive type of statement that's obviously confusing. I and others here pointed this out to Motorking a few times, and he was going to pass it on to Fram, but since he's not with Fram anymore doubt he cares.

People should call Fram and ask about their efficiency statement, and when they see the confusion factor maybe they will clarify it like it's been done on the new boxes.

Fram isn't "mixing" efficiency tests between the EG, TG and XG. They are all done separately.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by SnowmanCO
There is no doubt the Ultra is a solid filter. Fram's website has made it difficult to find the true specs on the filter. It just seems like all the "truth" about what the filter is capable of has been posted on this forum from Motorking, and has spread like wildfire. You have to realize he was in Sales/Marketing for Fram until recently when he was let go when Trico purchased Fram.


And Motorking mentioned many times that he represented the company, and anything he said had to be accurate or he was open to legal repercussions just like if it was said by Fram itself.

 

[ABursell]

Just noticed the Pro version of this filter. From what I remember, the Pro has traditionally been the same as the Ultra, without the black grip on the can. However, this filter seems different- I don't have one on hand but at least the material is a different color. Haven't seen other Pro vs. Ultra catridges to compare. Thoughts?

 

[Job]

Originally Posted by ABursell
Just noticed the Pro version of this filter. From what I remember, the Pro has traditionally been the same as the Ultra, without the black grip on the can. However, this filter seems different- I don't have one on hand but at least the material is a different color. Haven't seen other Pro vs. Ultra catridges to compare. Thoughts?



I think the FPS is the Ultra not the FP.

I wonder how the polishing of machined aluminum and steel away with crankcase oil and a piece of felt is going? Pretty slow I bet.

 

[ABursell]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
I think the FPS is the Ultra not the FP.


My mistake- you are correct. Wonder if there will be FPS versions of these?