- Joined
- Feb 5, 2023
- Messages
- 244
Which itself becomes the worst thing that can happen for the shareholders in the long run after the corner cutting results in a drop in reputation leading to lower sales.
Latest Fram Ultra Synthetic oil filter as of 2023 January - Is it still a good choice?
- Thread starter Bill7
- Start date
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I edited my reply right before you quoted me.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2023
- Messages
- 244
Indeed!
The key mistake made is failing to understand that the original product was one of the best products in the market and it was sold at a basement price below most of their competition. If they needed to up the price to keep turning profits, they could have. If they were concerned about wanting to create a new product for the price range of the old product, they could have. Why not raise the price of the original ultra to 12-13 dollars and create a synthetic blend with no wire backing with metal end caps for the price range of the old Ultra (call it the Endurance)?
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Price increase with no change in construction/quality never goes over well.
They realized the “mistake” in underpricing a quality item & corrected it. In fact the testing done in this forum by Andrew at Ascent may have aided in them finding out.
Ultra is an old name, they want to create new & exciting product lines, not raise the price of an old line with no improvements. Remember the Bel Air was the top of the line, then it was demoted behind the Impala. Same principle applies here. Their efficiency rating remained the same (99+% @ 20u), but the quality seems to have diminished.
The pics I referenced in post #90 of this thread show the new Ultra tearing as the old Pure One did. The filter was in for 9k miles, Fram says it’s good for 20k, so was the tearing caused by length of time or excessive pressure/flow? Good cause to use a metal screen backing, IMHO.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2023
- Messages
- 244
I haven't looked very thoroughly but it was my impression that the competition's prices had all gone up as well (especially Wix). That's why I suggested a new replacement product for the price point.
Usually, a trim doesn't get downgraded though as the extra guard didn't become the champion jobber filter line, they just created a new name for the new product. Some companies after their product is proven to be superior, the strategy is to raise the price with the old pricing being a discount price for a new product until they get their customers hooked ( hence many luxury Brands over the years).
The bottomline is why after having it proven how superior your product is would you decide to discontinue it. If the name was old, they could have downgraded the Ultra and made the Endurance the old Ultra thereby keeping the best product from a filtering efficiency perspective going. I don't think from a marketing standpoint that this strategy makes sense as look at how the domestic manufacturers strategy of changing car names frequently on their sedans vs. the Japanese have done with keeping the Camry, Accord, Civic, Corolla, etc names for decades. Better not to confuse customers.
True, or maybe it was connected to some supply chain issues going on at that time. Could also be that some inflation was going on behind the scenes with supply chain materials that we the consumer don't see until later down the line.
I just cut open some old used Ultras I found while cleaning up the shed. Those things were tanks compared to the new ones. No wrinkles or gaps in the media.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2023
- Messages
- 244
All interesting points. That's why I would think making the endurance a new line for a direct competitor for the pure one and saving the ultra name until they could either build it correctly or adjust the price would have been better.True, or maybe it was connected to some supply chain issues going on at that time. Could also be that some inflation was going on behind the scenes with supply chain materials that we the consumer don't see until later down the line.
Fram has its own ISO test lab, so they know exactly how their filters perform. I bet they also use the lab to test new products, and did so when they changed the media on the Ultra. Sad part is that the media without a wire backing doesn't seem to hold up as well in actual use than the OG Ultra with wire backed media.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2023
- Messages
- 244
Perhaps it made the public more aware of how premium their product truly was (or maybe their was a legal problem with the product being better than the champion made models for amsoil and royal purple)?
Whatever Fram's goal was it leaves a bad taste in my mouth knowing they cheapened a great product. But, what options are better for the price? I've already bitten the bullet and put an Endurance on my daughter's car that is likely to see an extended OCI, but it feels like I spent $4 more to get the level of performance I used to get.
Keep in mind that Fram's efficiency rating is based on 3 different sized filters. The testing Ascent did was on one size filter. If one or two of the 3 filters Fram references in their efficiency spec is a bit lower in efficiency, then it drags the average down a little bit.
Last edited:
I think their cheapening of the Ultra just made the Tough Guard and Extra Guard a better value, and pushed their top tier filters to a new price level. The Endurance is a good filter, but unless you are doing extended drains at 10k+ miles it doesn't make sense. This seems to be the theme with many of the manufacturers, Purolator as one example. Is the higher cost of the Purolator One/Boss filters worth it for what you get over the basic filters? Probably not for most applications.
The Purolator Boss is pushing $14 for my application on Amazon, and the Endurance is $13 at WalMart. Hard to say those are worth it when a Fram PH16 is $4 with 95% at 20 microns and the TG16 is under $7 for 99% at 20 microns both with silicone ADBV.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
I'm not so sure I like those numbers due to the wording. Granted, the XG Box says: "FRAM Group testing of oil filter capacity and efficiency of XG8A, XG 3387A, & XG4967 under ISO4548-12 for particles greater than 20microns", so they are averaging efficiency over (3) XG models. But the Titanium box, however, in Whip City Wrencher's vid says: "FRAM Group testing of oil filter capacity and efficiency of PH8A, 3327A, and 4967 and comparable economy and OES filters under ISO4548-12 for particles greater than 20microns", NOT all FS (Titanium) models. I have seen other boxes where the filters used for averaging were not all the same filter line, but I can't remember where. Probably Whip City or Ford Boss Me, when they show the boxes.
So they haven't even tested a Titanium? They are using numbers sourced from "other" filters? Including "comparable economy" filters?
The Endurance filters I just got from Walmart don't even have ratings printed on the box........
Maybe some early boxed on the Titanium were printed showing wrong info ... who knows. But the bottom line is that what Fram is trying to say is the efficiency rating is based on the average of the 3 referenced filters in that filter line (PH, TG, XG, FS). When Motorking was active here, there were a few times when people would get all wound up about how Fram phrased that efficiency statement and he tried to get Fram to clarify it.
For the Fram Endurance, the Fram website says:
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
If I was the guy writing that statement I would leave the "or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models" out of the statement, because what they really mean is: *FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
If you go to Fram's website and look at that efficiency statement on all the filter lines, they always reference the 8A, 3387A and 4967 filter models.
There is no way they can reference the efficiency of for example the Endurance (FE) based on any other filter line besides the FE. Same goes for any of the other filter lines. They would have to have tested the 8A, 3387A and 4967 models for each filter line (PH, TG, XG, FE, FS).
*FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
If I was the guy writing that statement I would leave the "or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models" out of the statement, because what they really mean is: *FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of FE8A, FE3387A and FE4967 under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns.
If you go to Fram's website and look at that efficiency statement on all the filter lines, they always reference the 8A, 3387A and 4967 filter models.
There is no way they can reference the efficiency of for example the Endurance (FE) based on any other filter line besides the FE. Same goes for any of the other filter lines. They would have to have tested the 8A, 3387A and 4967 models for each filter line (PH, TG, XG, FE, FS).
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Exactly, so why DID they include the TG & EG in that statement? Wait, it says "or" equivalent TG "or" EG models, so they are not included with the TE for averaging? Still vague.
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Did he? Did he share the results? Do you have the link to the thread?
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
So, what would make a larger filter perform more poorly than a small filter, given the same media? I have seen this (size matters) posted before, but why would it make a difference? Larger surface area of the media? Higher delta p for a small filter? I realize the size Andrew tested was an XG10575, which is not really that small, in fact I use it as an oversize for GM PF48.
Who knows why they include the other filter lines in the statement. I think it's left over garbage when Motorking tried to get them to make the statements more clear. Fram tried, but this is what it is now, which is still confusing. They should read like I showed in post #116. There is no way anyone tests a different model line of filters to determine the efficiency of another totally different line of filters.
Last edited:
