List of oil filters with 99% efficiency at 20 microns.

Maybe some guys like running (and do run) an Ultra for two 10K OCIs, or three 6-7K OCIs, or four 5K OCIs ... more than one way to use an oil filter to it's max potential. Cuts the cost per OCI of the filter down too.
Would love to know the statistics of multiple filter users versus single--not saying you are wrong, but I'll bet a steak dinner that number is miniscule versus those who use them once.
 
Would love to know the statistics of multiple filter users versus single--not saying you are wrong, but I'll bet a steak dinner that number is miniscule versus those who use them once.
Doesn't change the fact that a filter like that can be ran more than one OCI. Quite a few people here do it, just like Honda and some other makers recommend it in the OM. If someone is worried about wasting the Ultra or even a TG, then run it more than one short OCI. It doesn't hurt anything, and saves some money, time and waste.
 
Yes, there's a synthetic "topper" layer on top of a cellulose blend backer layer, giving you two layers.

The cellulose blend media is probably the same or similar to the TG media. This achieved two things:
1. Allowing the maintaining of the filtration efficiency claim
2. Allowing the deletion of the wire backing, which was a second step, reducing production line efficiency. The cellulose blend backed media can be put on the centre tube the same way as any other filter, which was not the case for the wire backed media.

Well, there were 4 layers in the wired backed media. Two layers of 2-ply synthetic media. The screen wasn't there to provide any filtration, just to provide the rigidity needed for the structure/integrity the depth filtration synthetic media doesn't have.

I haven't seen any good virgin cut opens posted on here, but the video that was posted, I grabbed this screenshot:
View attachment 143599
Which shows the thin white synthetic "topper" on the cellulose blend backer.

In comparison, here's the OG Ultra media I C&P'd:
View attachment 143602
View attachment 143601

Which is two layers of 2-ply media.

The cellulose is the back layer, the synthetic "topper" is the front layer.
From Overkill's photos, the Fram OG wire backed filter looks superior (even without the wire backing), as it has two 2-ply synthetic medias, while the new cheapened Fram Ultra has only one "thin" synthetic media bonded to a cellulose media.

But the unknown is: After the "cheapening" of the new Fram Ultra filter, could Fram's claim that the new Ultra has higher efficiency @15 and @20 microns than the old wire backed Fram Ultra be true?

I would like to believe that the new Ultra has higher efficiency @15 and at @20 microns than the old Ultra,
but would welcome an educated opinion from Overkill, ZeeOSix, and anyone else.
 
Last edited:
From Overkill's photos, the Fram OG wire backed filter looks superior (even without the wire backing), as it has two 2-ply synthetic medias, while the new cheapened Fram Ultra has only one "thin" synthetic media bonded to a cellulose media.

But the unknown is: After the "cheapening" of the new Fram Ultra filter, could Fram's claim that the new Ultra has higher efficiency @15 and @20 microns than the old wire backed Fram Ultra be true?

I would like to believe that the new Ultra has higher efficiency @15 and at @20 microns than the old Ultra,
but would welcome an educated opinion from Overkill, ZeeOSix, and anyone else.
Well, it's still shown on Fram's website as rated at 99+% @ 20u ... and still rated at 20K miles, so the holding capacity it equal to the old Ultra. What other oil filters have that rated efficiency and holding capacity at the price of the Ultra, regardless if the media is wire backed or not?
 
Well, it's still shown on Fram's website as rated at 99+% @ 20u ... and still rated at 20K miles, so the holding capacity it equal to the old Ultra. What other oil filters have that rated efficiency and holding capacity at the price of the Ultra, regardless if the media is wire backed or not?
Thanks ZeeOSix.

If we don't worry about the loss of the wire backed support,
should we still be concerned that it went from 2 two-ply synthetic medias to 1 two-ply consisting of 1 synthetic media bonded to a cellulose media (See Overkill's photo's above).
 
Thanks ZeeOSix.

If we don't worry about the loss of the wire backed support,
should we still be concerned that it went from 2 two-ply synthetic medias to 1 two-ply consisting of 1 synthetic media bonded to a cellulose media (See Overkill's photo's above).
Not really IMO if it's still 99+% @ 20u efficient and still rated for 20K miles. At that efficiency, any slight change up or down is hair splitting IMO. People seem to worry more about the wavy pleats after use than any slight change in efficiency. As many have mentioned, we haven't seen a torn Ultra with the new media yet, so it seems to take the abuse of use.
 
From Overkill's photos, the Fram OG wire backed filter looks superior (even without the wire backing), as it has two 2-ply synthetic medias, while the new cheapened Fram Ultra has only one "thin" synthetic media bonded to a cellulose media.

But the unknown is: After the "cheapening" of the new Fram Ultra filter, could Fram's claim that the new Ultra has higher efficiency @15 and @20 microns than the old wire backed Fram Ultra be true?

I would like to believe that the new Ultra has higher efficiency @15 and at @20 microns than the old Ultra,
but would welcome an educated opinion from Overkill, ZeeOSix, and anyone else.
Let’s take a look at the Fram website and see the description of the new Fram Ultra, especially the part on its filtering ability.

Www.fram.com

Wait. Nothing there? :eek:
 
I believe the test date is before the new Fram Ultra was released. The test date was March 31, 2021.
Correct, but my comment wasn't about the efficiency of the Ultra, either new or old media. It was about what Overkill was mentioning in post 58, and showing those tested filters particle size related to 99% efficiency.
 
Let’s take a look at the Fram website and see the description of the new Fram Ultra, especially the part on its filtering ability.

Www.fram.com

Wait. Nothing there? :eek:
Says the Ultra is 99+% efficient. Then look at the footnotes. Fram is still referencing the average if 3 different sized filters - the way it should be done, instead of referencing only their largest sized filter.

Capture+_2023-03-06-21-31-30.png

Capture+_2023-03-06-21-27-27.png
 
Last edited:
Not really IMO if it's still 99+% @ 20u efficient and still rated for 20K miles. At that efficiency, any slight change up or down is hair splitting IMO. People seem to worry more about the wavy pleats after use than any slight change in efficiency. As many have mentioned, we haven't seen a torn Ultra with the new media yet, so it seems to take the abuse of use.
So the new (cheapened) Fram Ultra still has the highest efficiency of 99%+ @20 microns.

On the test graph's that Overkill posted, the wire backed Fram Ultra in the test graph had a 99.8% efficiency @15 microns.
The new Fram Ultra might be the same or better @ 15 microns due to the this info from Fram
(note Fram's efficiency#'s are more conservative than the test graph we have):


So 99.8% efficiency @ 15 microns is probably the highest efficiency we can find in any filter.
Can't think of any reason to consider another filter.
 
Last edited:
Says the Ultra is 99+% efficient. Then look at the footnotes. Fram is still referencing the average if 3 different sized filters - the way it should be done, instead of referencing only their largest sized filter.

View attachment 143680
View attachment 143679
Would the Ultra be my best bet for highest efficiency at the 20 micron mark if I’m only doing 5K-7.5K changes? It may even be overkill, but money isn’t an issue and I want to use the best product available. I used to use the Amsoil filters but have read negatives about them and thought I had found a filter in the Ultra, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement on them since they updated the filter.
 
Would the Ultra be my best bet for highest efficiency at the 20 micron mark if I’m only doing 5K-7.5K changes? It mvay even be overkill, but money isn’t an issue and I want to use the best product available. I used to use the Amsoil filters but have read negatives about them and thought I had found a filter in the Ultra, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement on them since they updated the filter.
If cost and going overkill isn't a concern, then I'd go with the new wire backed Fram Endurance, which is 99% @ 20μ.

If you're doing 5K to 7.5K OCIs, then you could easily leave the FE on for two 7.5K OCIs or three 5K OCIs and increase the ROI.

 
Last edited:
Would the Ultra be my best bet for highest efficiency at the 20 micron mark if I’m only doing 5K-7.5K changes? It may even be overkill, but money isn’t an issue and I want to use the best product available. I used to use the Amsoil filters but have read negatives about them and thought I had found a filter in the Ultra, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement on them since they updated the filter.
I have been using the ultra for 5-6K OCI. There $8.48 at China Mart and deliver for free if you buy $35 worth of stuff at a time.

When I am out however I think I will switch to Fram Tough Guard which is $1.50 lower cost and also 20um. Its single layer with fiber end caps - so it is a "lesser" filter in those ways, but it is rated at 20um so for short OCI I am hoping its good.
 
The only Chrysler products I recall burning oil were the early 90s minivans with the Mitsubishi engine. And those have long disappeared from the roads around here. Probably has been 20 years or more since I've seen one.
Well, still have a 1987 Dodge Royal Mini Ram 3.0L MITSU (Caravan cargo) running around well today. 230+k mi, 2nd 3-spd trans midway, and did HG job last '21. Love it's size and function, respect the MITSU 3.0L. It's outlasted many. It ticked a bit in the past but the valve stems were pretty simple to change A pleasure to work on. Talk about getting yer money's worth.
Also have a 1991 Grand Caravan SE as a daily working great and in great condition. Only con is the Bendix 10 brake sys really.
1985 Chev S10 4x4 (carbureted) for the occasional yard/dump runs and working well. The standing factor with all: regular oil changes (4 or 5k max with full synth and any 'decent/brand' filter) and common repairs as they arise of course.
 
Well, still have a 1987 Dodge Royal Mini Ram 3.0L MITSU (Caravan cargo) running around well today. 230+k mi, 2nd 3-spd trans midway, and did HG job last '21. Love it's size and function, respect the MITSU 3.0L. It's outlasted many. It ticked a bit in the past but the valve stems were pretty simple to change A pleasure to work on. Talk about getting yer money's worth.
Also have a 1991 Grand Caravan SE as a daily working great and in great condition. Only con is the Bendix 10 brake sys really.
1985 Chev S10 4x4 (carbureted) for the occasional yard/dump runs and working well. The standing factor with all: regular oil changes (4 or 5k max with full synth and any 'decent/brand' filter) and common repairs as they arise of course.
You fixed an engine ticking problem by changing the valve stem seals? I assume you meant seals and not the whole valve.
 
Back
Top