Well, I'm gonna abandon my pure 1's and try a different filter in my 2004 vibe (1zzfe). I don't like the 40u @99.9% rating. I wonder what that equates to in 20u size? Oh well, after some thought I figured I would try a Fram XtendedGuard (XG4967).It seems I can't escape the 40u rating in most of the premium filters in my car's size. so, I'm gonna try this Fram filter with my fill of Pennzoil Ultra 5w30. My oci is 6 months/6000 mi. but usually ends up mileage wise at 5000 because of 2nd vehicle. What do all of you think about this filter choice. Let me know good or bad. by the way, I have 78,xxx miles on my vibe and am original owner. Thanks!
looking for comments
- Thread starter Neptune
- Start date
- Status
It is an excellent filter, I would say even better than P1/Bosch. Try to search amazon. I found 3 older oversize Xtended Guard for $2.50 with free delivery on prime. And about 20 other huge Frams for about $1.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
XG is a solid filter designed fo 10k oci's. For 5k oci's imo, it's overkill and a waste of money.
I would agree, You can take that OCI out to one year.
XG is a solid filter designed fo 10k oci's. For 5k oci's imo, it's overkill and a waste of money.
I would agree, You can take that OCI out to one year.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Neptune
Well, I'm gonna abandon my pure 1's and try a different filter in my 2004 vibe (1zzfe). I don't like the 40u @99.9% rating. I wonder what that equates to in 20u size? Oh well, after some thought I figured I would try a Fram XtendedGuard (XG4967).
The published efficiency of the XG is 97% at 20 microns. Does is say that right on the box of the XG4967, or something different? How do you know the smaller XGs don't suffer from a worse efficiency rating like the smaller PureOnes? See below.
FRAM XG link:
http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_xtended_guard_oil_filter
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
I was thinking of trying an XG7317 instead of a PureOne PL14610 on the Altima someday, but only if the XG really does filter better.
Well, I'm gonna abandon my pure 1's and try a different filter in my 2004 vibe (1zzfe). I don't like the 40u @99.9% rating. I wonder what that equates to in 20u size? Oh well, after some thought I figured I would try a Fram XtendedGuard (XG4967).
The published efficiency of the XG is 97% at 20 microns. Does is say that right on the box of the XG4967, or something different? How do you know the smaller XGs don't suffer from a worse efficiency rating like the smaller PureOnes? See below.
FRAM XG link:
http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_xtended_guard_oil_filter
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
I was thinking of trying an XG7317 instead of a PureOne PL14610 on the Altima someday, but only if the XG really does filter better.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Neptune
Well, I'm gonna abandon my pure 1's and try a different filter in my 2004 vibe (1zzfe). I don't like the 40u @99.9% rating. I wonder what that equates to in 20u size? Oh well, after some thought I figured I would try a Fram XtendedGuard (XG4967).
The published efficiency of the XG is 97% at 20 microns. Does is say that right on the box of the XG4967, or something different? How do you know the smaller XGs don't suffer from a worse efficiency rating like the smaller PureOnes? See below.
FRAM XG link:
http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_xtended_guard_oil_filter
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
I was thinking of trying an XG7317 instead of a PureOne PL14610 on the Altima someday, but only if the XG really does filter better.
Zee0Six, That's exactly my problem. All filters in my size filter worse than the larger sizes of the same brand. The XG4967 is rated at >20u size, no different than anybody else's.
I realize the Fram does this @ 97% and a pure one @ 99.9%, but I was just looking to try something new and wanted to know what the group thought about the XGs. There's so much negativity toward Fram's Extra Guard,(and I understand why because of the cheap construction),that I wanted to be sure the XG was a more trusted filter. I've cut open my used Pure one filters and they look really nice. maybe I post some pics. I don't like the relief valve on the pure one. I think the coil spring in the XG is much better. I noticed a post recently of the relief valve on a Bosch that was stuck open.
Thanks!
Originally Posted By: Neptune
Well, I'm gonna abandon my pure 1's and try a different filter in my 2004 vibe (1zzfe). I don't like the 40u @99.9% rating. I wonder what that equates to in 20u size? Oh well, after some thought I figured I would try a Fram XtendedGuard (XG4967).
The published efficiency of the XG is 97% at 20 microns. Does is say that right on the box of the XG4967, or something different? How do you know the smaller XGs don't suffer from a worse efficiency rating like the smaller PureOnes? See below.
FRAM XG link:
http://www.fram.com/products/oil_filters/fram_xtended_guard_oil_filter
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
I was thinking of trying an XG7317 instead of a PureOne PL14610 on the Altima someday, but only if the XG really does filter better.
Zee0Six, That's exactly my problem. All filters in my size filter worse than the larger sizes of the same brand. The XG4967 is rated at >20u size, no different than anybody else's.
I realize the Fram does this @ 97% and a pure one @ 99.9%, but I was just looking to try something new and wanted to know what the group thought about the XGs. There's so much negativity toward Fram's Extra Guard,(and I understand why because of the cheap construction),that I wanted to be sure the XG was a more trusted filter. I've cut open my used Pure one filters and they look really nice. maybe I post some pics. I don't like the relief valve on the pure one. I think the coil spring in the XG is much better. I noticed a post recently of the relief valve on a Bosch that was stuck open.
Thanks!
Originally Posted By: Neptune
Zee0Six, That's exactly my problem. All filters in my size filter worse than the larger sizes of the same brand. The XG4967 is rated at >20u size, no different than anybody else's.
Yeah, but it's supposedly rated based on larger filters used for the ISO test ... Purolator does the dame thing if you look at the fine print on their website. But if you look on the box of the PL14610 is specifically says "99.9% @40 microns".
I'm just wondering if there is something similar on the XG4967 box that trumps Fram's blanket statement of "97% @ >20 microns".
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
Zee0Six, That's exactly my problem. All filters in my size filter worse than the larger sizes of the same brand. The XG4967 is rated at >20u size, no different than anybody else's.
Yeah, but it's supposedly rated based on larger filters used for the ISO test ... Purolator does the dame thing if you look at the fine print on their website. But if you look on the box of the PL14610 is specifically says "99.9% @40 microns".
I'm just wondering if there is something similar on the XG4967 box that trumps Fram's blanket statement of "97% @ >20 microns".
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Neptune
Zee0Six, That's exactly my problem. All filters in my size filter worse than the larger sizes of the same brand. The XG4967 is rated at >20u size, no different than anybody else's.
Yeah, but it's supposedly rated based on larger filters used for the ISO test ... Purolator does the dame thing if you look at the fine print on their website. But if you look on the box of the PL14610 is specifically says "99.9% @40 microns".
I'm just wondering if there is something similar on the XG4967 box that trumps Fram's blanket statement of "97% @ >20 microns".
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
On the box it says 97% compared to a economy average of 20 microns." It appears to be a very nice filter. I don't think I'll be losing much if anything vs. the pureone. I wonder what the "leading economy filter" is?
Originally Posted By: Neptune
Zee0Six, That's exactly my problem. All filters in my size filter worse than the larger sizes of the same brand. The XG4967 is rated at >20u size, no different than anybody else's.
Yeah, but it's supposedly rated based on larger filters used for the ISO test ... Purolator does the dame thing if you look at the fine print on their website. But if you look on the box of the PL14610 is specifically says "99.9% @40 microns".
I'm just wondering if there is something similar on the XG4967 box that trumps Fram's blanket statement of "97% @ >20 microns".
Note what footnote 2 says:
"FRAM Group testing of filter efficiency and capacity of models equivalent to PH8A, 3387A and 6607 under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."
On the box it says 97% compared to a economy average of 20 microns." It appears to be a very nice filter. I don't think I'll be losing much if anything vs. the pureone. I wonder what the "leading economy filter" is?
Originally Posted By: Neptune
On the box it says 97% compared to a economy average of 20 microns."
Hard to say if that means all sizes of the XG are filtering at that level. I guess if it says it on the actual box the XG4967 is in, then it must be true.
Who knows, 97% @ 20 microns might be about the same as 99.9% @ 40 microns. I have never seen any correlation to know for sure.
On the box it says 97% compared to a economy average of 20 microns."
Hard to say if that means all sizes of the XG are filtering at that level. I guess if it says it on the actual box the XG4967 is in, then it must be true.
Who knows, 97% @ 20 microns might be about the same as 99.9% @ 40 microns. I have never seen any correlation to know for sure.
- Status
