Microgreen - possibly stunning development!

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Pajero
Uncle Dave, you make a good point. I have a stash of Ultra filters, but mine are XG9688. So is my application 99% > 20 microns? It should be if it's made of the same material, but my application is not reference in the asterisk. Not trying to split hairs. Either way, I still like my Ultra's and I know they are well made for now. With this global economy, next year they could be making them in China.

I've been a big Japanese OEM fan, and some Denso products are now being made in China, so who know what the future will bring?

Motorking has given me the specifications on my filter, so I'm satisfied with it's efficiency. MY application was recently redesigned for Hyundai. Meaning it was improved......I'm happy and satisfied and won't lose any sleep. For the first twenty-years I was using OEM Denso filters which are rated @ 40 microns.



Respectfully,

Pajero!



Your filter might meet the old spec, mine might as well. - but they dont SAY it does at least anymore since the website changed.

They say 3 of them meet some spec on the site and box - but they dont blanket the whole lineup like they used to under the spec - why?

Why would they make these changes when before the whole of the ultra line up fell under a clean simple spec 99% efficient @


UD

 

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram always has used the asterisk, then you go find the line below with the asterisk for the details ... even on their website.
...
You're misunderstanding it. The asterisk line is saying what filter models they used during the ISO test. That's very common among filter companies. At least Fram uses 3 different filter models of different sizes to measure the overall efficiency. Some companies just reference one filter that is the largest sized filter they make.

And it's always been xx% for particles >20 microns (greater than 20 microns) ... which if you've ever seen the multiple discussions about that, it essentially means @20 microns and larger.
...

I agree ZeeOSix. There's nothing confusing or misleading about any of this. The efficiency hasn't changed. And like you said, it has always been 99% @ >20 microns (which means 99% @ 20 microns and larger, which has been discussed many times on here and confirmed with Motorking/Jay Buckley of FRAM). It has never been stated as 99% at less than (

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave

I understand it fine.

They didn't use my filter in the test and there are three that meet the spec- the one in the box must not be one of those or it would be on the box.

They used to be clear - now its marketing speak.


You are misunderstanding it. They have used that same statement format for years. No filter company on earth is going to put the efficiency info for the exact filter model on the box. They tested 3 filters of 3 different sizes and based on how they tested is where that efficiency statement came from. Like I said, Purolator for instance only reference one filter (their biggest spin-on) in their ISO 4548-12 reference.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram always has used the asterisk, then you go find the line below with the asterisk for the details ... even on their website.
...
You're misunderstanding it. The asterisk line is saying what filter models they used during the ISO test. That's very common among filter companies. At least Fram uses 3 different filter models of different sizes to measure the overall efficiency. Some companies just reference one filter that is the largest sized filter they make.

And it's always been xx% for particles >20 microns (greater than 20 microns) ... which if you've ever seen the multiple discussions about that, it essentially means @20 microns and larger.
...

I agree ZeeOSix. There's nothing confusing or misleading about any of this. The efficiency hasn't changed. And like you said, it has always been 99% @ >20 microns (which means 99% @ 20 microns and larger, which has been discussed many times on here and confirmed with Motorking/Jay Buckley of FRAM). It has never been stated as 99% at less than (


Then why doesn't the web site say it?

If not the website then how about the box?

The mileage certification changed from 15-20 , the packaging changed, and the website changed.



UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s
I agree ZeeOSix. There's nothing confusing or misleading about any of this. The efficiency hasn't changed. And like you said, it has always been 99% @ >20 microns (which means 99% @ 20 microns and larger, which has been discussed many times on here and confirmed with Motorking/Jay Buckley of FRAM). It has never been stated as 99% at less than (span>, so I don't know where that came from in this discussion. There's really nothing to be worried about here because the efficiency hasn't changed.


Yes, I agree with you on the part in red which I also meant to point out ... thanks Tony.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Then why doesn't the web site say it?


This is why - LINK

Go look at the EG and TG on the website ... they have the same basic efficiency description on the website (with asterisk statement) as how they did it on those boxes you're looking at.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

I understand it fine.

They didn't use my filter in the test and there are three that meet the spec- the one in the box must not be one of those or it would be on the box.

They used to be clear - now its marketing speak.


You are misunderstanding it. They have used that same statement format for years. No filter company on earth is going to put the efficiency info for the exact filter model on the box. They tested 3 filters of 3 different sizes and based on how they tested is where that efficiency statement came from. Like I said, Purolator for instance only reference one filter (their biggest spin-on) in their ISO 4548-12 reference.


I am not misunderstanding it

Nor AM I questioning the spec that used to publish - you are misdirecting the issue .

The issue is they DONT print spec anymore

This change is why you claimed to have called written them - and then you claimed they said it was an omission- but they have not changed it back.

Im ok with the spec not being on the box, but if not it has to be on the website or somewhere.

right now there is NO spec for this filter model anywhere.

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Fact - the efficiency spec on your box tells the whole story, regardless if you believe it or not. It says that XG in the box is 99% @ 20 microns and greater. Fram claims ALL XGs are meeting that spec by that statement, even if your exact filter is not listed in the statement.

So what do you think it means? I don't really think you understand it all, no disrespect but that's how it's coming across. So what's the issue?

They use the same way to show the filter efficiency on their website - the info is currently missing on the Ultra because of what was detailed the link I posted above.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Then why doesn't the web site say it?


This is why - LINK

Go look at the EG and TG on the website ... they have the same basic efficiency description on the website (with asterisk statement) as how they did it on those boxes you're looking at.


Ill look through thoroughly - but I see no answer after a quick glance.

Its awesome the TG and EG have a spec- its a bummer the ultras dont have a real spec with efficiency rating at X microns like it used to be.

It used to be very clear and easy, the EG and T are clear and easy - why not just continue the same way with the ultra?

UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Then why doesn't the web site say it?


This is why - LINK

Go look at the EG and TG on the website ... they have the same basic efficiency description on the website (with asterisk statement) as how they did it on those boxes you're looking at.


Ill look through thoroughly - but I see no answer after a quick glance.


Go read it ... the answer is there. Are you OK tonight?

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fact - the efficiency spec on your box tells the whole story, regardless if you believe it or not. It says that XG in the box is 99% @ 20 microns and greater. Fram claims ALL XGs are meeting that spec by that statement, even if your exact filter is not listed in the statement.

So what do you think it means? I don't really think you understand it all, no disrespect but that's how it's coming across. So what's the issue?

They use the same way to show the filter efficiency on their website - the info is currently missing on the Ultra because of what was detailed the link I posted above.


Im unsure what it means.

At least a few other guys agree with me so Im not the only guy on an island that doesnt get it.

It doesn't say the XG7317 in the box is rated for ANYTHING.

it says 99 %+ dirt trapping efficiency* in one place (note no micron rating)

Follow the * and then it says - group testing of average filter efficiency of XG8A, 3387A & 5967 under iso 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns
(this line has no efficiency rating.)

Nowhere does it say what the the XG7317 in the box is rated at.

Fram changed the site that used to include all filters now only has 3 and partial efficiency statement - why?

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Then why doesn't the web site say it?


This is why - LINK

Go look at the EG and TG on the website ... they have the same basic efficiency description on the website (with asterisk statement) as how they did it on those boxes you're looking at.


Ill look through thoroughly - but I see no answer after a quick glance.


Go read it ... the answer is there. Are you OK tonight?

You ok?

You seem all over on this issue first as an oversight but now its all ok? Has the web site changed?

Heres your quote

"Because before Fram updated their website a week or two ago, they listed detailed ISO 4548-12 efficiency numbers for all their oil filters. They still do on the new website for the EG and TG, but not for the Ultra ... so it's an oversight screw-up by the web guys."




If it was an oversight has it been changed back?


Im fine, but often will see things different after a beer and a night sleep!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Dave - forget it, and I'm not "all over" on my explanations ... more misconceptions going on. Really not worth my effort at this point to explain why you don't get it. Maybe you're use to seeing no efficiency rating on a box or website since you've been using those Microgreens for so long. J/K ... had to say it.

If you read the link I posted you would have seen the response back from Fram on the missing efficiency info for the Ultra. Later ...

 

[UncleDave]

Im used to seeing a filter spec done properly - like Fram used to.

If you want to denote a series acceptance you say something like XG-(series) or XG-XXXX - they didn't they denoted three specific models.

Funny on the MG thats a different disappointment. The auto filter industry almost as inconsistent as the TV business.

I have more fram ultras than MG's and probably more than most anyone here, so Im obviously a fan.

We can disagree without being disagreeable.


UD

 

[Pajero]

Uncle Dave, Perhaps you can message Motorking and he can explain it and address your application. He has always been honest and forth coming with information. Motorking is on many other blogs as well.





Respectfully,

Pajero!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im used to seeing a filter spec done properly - like Fram used to.


I've seen Fram use this way of showing the efficiency for years ... don't know what you think it use to look like.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im used to seeing a filter spec done properly - like Fram used to.


I've seen Fram use this way of showing the efficiency for years ... don't know what you think it use to look like.





Im complaining about the same thing you did in your mail, and the box doesn't help me.

You are happy with an answer from the rep- Id like to see the ultra website changed back to like it was prior.

I shouldn't have to mail the rep for info that was once very clear. Im sur eJay would be helpful hes awesome.

You are satisfied - I'm not. Its Ok.



UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im used to seeing a filter spec done properly - like Fram used to.

I've seen Fram use this way of showing the efficiency for years ... don't know what you think it use to look like.

the the formula was in one place -in one line like the TG and EG is still.

Im complaining about the same thing you did in your mail, and the box doesn't help me.

You are happy with an answer from the rep- Id like to see the website changed to look like the TG or EG rating - like it used to.

I shouldn't have to mail the rep for info that was once very clear.

You are satisfied - I'm not. Its Ok.

UD


What are you talking about ... "the formula".

In my mail?

Got me confused with someone else. And you don't believe the answer to the guy given by Fram? They said it was an oversight and it will be fixed ... what part of "will be fixed" is unclear.

I really don't know why you're so worried about it. Go check the website next week and see if the correction appears ... it eventually will I'm sure.

Go here:
http://www.fram.com/products/consumer-products/oil-filters/fram-tough-guardsup-sup-oil-filter/

Snip it from the bottom of that page - look familiar?

 

[UncleDave]

I changed a bit of that out after I wrote it- ( while multitasking I lay down a draft and go back a lot ) I typed "formula" I meat rating as in 99%
I complained about the same data you did.

I believe Jay said to you that we are all good I believe Jay (Id hire Jay)



I hope they change the site back soon, I like these guy and this product a lot.



UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I changed a bit of that out after I wrote it- ( while multitasking I lay down a draft and go back a lot ) I typed "formula" I meat rating as in 99%
I complained about the same data you did.

I believe Jay said to you that we are all good - I wish they'd change the site back or change the box to be clearer.

UD


It's not "99% >20 microns, just like I showed why by posting that report table in the ISO 4548-12 test procedure.

Jay never told me anything.