NAPA Platinum vs Fram Ultra

[RazorsEdge]

To anyone that is interested and lives near a Meijer store, you can buy any Fram product this week for 25% off. Many common Fram Ultra filters are only ~$7.



I would buy a Royal Purple oil filter because my favorite color is purple and they have those neat purple anti-drainback valve.

Well, speaking of that color purple. I just changed oil last week and used RP HMX 5w30

 

[ZeeOSix]

There is no real world conclusive tests about which filter is most efficient I have seen ...

There actually is. ISO 4548-12 isn't a "hoax" that's been used for over 20 years around the world to rate filter efficiency, and there's also plenty of SAE studies that show filters that rated higher in efficiency on the bench kept the oil cleaner in the real world.

 

[PimTac]

With all the oil filter brand consolidation lately , this kind of topic starts to become moot.

Who makes your favorite filter?

 

[OilReport99]

I've used Fram Ultra for the last ten years but might stop at NAPA to pick up a couple of the Platinum ones. Either will get the job done.

 

[Job]

There actually is. ISO 4548-12 isn't a "hoax" that's been used for over 20 years around the world to rate filter efficiency, and there's also plenty of SAE studies that show filters that rated higher in efficiency on the bench kept the oil cleaner in the real world.

Never said the lab bench test is a “hoax.” Where did I say that? You already know what I mean so don’t know why you try to spin it to something else. For one I am not on the hoax calling side of the aisle by any means

 

[ZeeOSix]

Never said the lab bench test is a “hoax.” Where did I say that? You already know what I mean so don’t know why you try to spin it to something else. For one I am not on the hoax calling side of the aisle by any means

If you believe that "There is no real world conclusive tests about which filter is most efficient", then you either haven't read or listened to the data that shows there is, or you must think it's all a "hoax". You don't have to directly say something to make it seem like that's what you think.

What's your reasoning for believing that "There is no real world conclusive tests about which filter is most efficient" ... ??

 

[Job]

If you believe that "There is no real world conclusive tests about which filter is most efficient", then you either haven't read or listened to the data that shows there is, or you must think it's all a "hoax". You don't have to directly say something to make it seem like that's what you think.

What's your reasoning for believing that "There is no real world conclusive tests about which filter is most efficient" ... ??

Same old same old. I think what I want. No I never said or thought the test was a hoax. But you have to know more and be right, even to what people are thinking, so carry on. I don't buy your theories
and graphs at all.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Same old same old. I think what I want. No I never said or thought the test was a hoax. But you have to know more and be right, even to what people are thinking, so carry on. I don't buy your theories
and graphs at all.

LoL ... don't buy my theories, you mean the data that's out in the real world. All those graphs and numbers that seem so confusing. You do however believe in the Frantz filter data for some reason, hummm.

 

[Job]

LoL ... don't buy my theories, you mean the data that's out in the real world. All those graphs and numbers that seem so confusing. You do however believe in the Frantz filter data for some reason, hummm.

Yeah the Frantz third party test where they did a test sample on a Ford diesel, left the contaminated oil in, and the Frantz cleaned it in 200 miles means something to me.
The real world is the real world of cars driving on roads, not a machine on a bench in a room loaded rapidly with particles because they have no practical way to duplicate any better the real world.
Thats why we see someone running 400k on a supposedly less efficient Toyota filter. But in reality it is likely very efficient compared to others like it or the engine would be worn out from all those “particles.”
Members here have done particle counts using the Fram Ultra and I see the the results as pretty much the same as others, sometimes worse than others. Nothing to get excited about.

https://www.frantzfilters.com/science/

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yeah the Frantz third party test where they did a test sample on a Ford diesel, left the contaminated oil in, and the Frantz cleaned it in 200 miles means something to me.
The real world is the real world of cars driving on roads, not a machine on a bench in a room loaded rapidly with particles because they have no practical way to duplicate any better the real world.

You still don't seem to get it. There have been real world use tests that show that filters that tested more efficient in the lab also filtered the oil better in real world use, which in turn gave a cleaner oil PC and less engine wear. If that's not real world, I don't know what is. Not really any different than the Frantz test. It's pretty funny when people don't believe that an international test procedure (approved by a world committee) that's been used for 20+ years isn't a good way to compare oil filter efficiency, which also has also been proven to correlate into real world performance.

 

[4WD]

Yeah the Frantz third party test where they did a test sample on a Ford diesel, left the contaminated oil in, and the Frantz cleaned it in 200 miles means something to me.
The real world is the real world of cars driving on roads, not a machine on a bench in a room loaded rapidly with particles because they have no practical way to duplicate any better the real world.
Thats why we see someone running 400k on a supposedly less efficient Toyota filter. But in reality it is likely very efficient compared to others like it or the engine would be worn out from all those “particles.”
Members here have done particle counts using the Fram Ultra and I see the the results as pretty much the same as others, sometimes worse than others. Nothing to get excited about.

https://www.frantzfilters.com/science/

Many years ago my dad had a Franz filter that used single ply toilet paper. Now I see they sell both cellulose and synthetic cartridges … are they better or just couldn’t get any Scott or Cottonelle ?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Thats why we see someone running 400k on a supposedly less efficient Toyota filter. But in reality it is likely very efficient compared to others like it or the engine would be worn out from all those “particles.”

As has been discussed many times, there are other factors beside just the oil filter in the trifecta of engine maintenance. So your statement is pretty much invalid because in "real world" use, there are too many factors unless someone performed a very controlled real world test like some SAE papers have done.

And just because an engine "made it to 400K miles" says absolutely nothing about the level of wear that specific engine had. All it says is that it was still running, and pretty worn out engines can still run pretty decently, and most people couldn't tell much difference in performance compared to the same engine if it wasn't worn quite as much.

 

[AutoMechanic]

Picked up a Napa Platinum filter today for my Mazda B2200 was told it was made by Wix so I definitely will use it. It was the last one they had and it was on sale cheaper than I get the Bosch for at O’Reilly so I couldn’t pass it up. Though I am going to use conventional oil with it not synthetic so we will see how it works.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Though I am going to use conventional oil with it not synthetic so we will see how it works.

Doesn't matter ... oil is oil to an oil filter. The NAPA Platinum (same as the WIX XP) is a long OCI filter, so that's why it's touted as a filter to be used with synthetic oil for longer OCIs.

 

[AutoMechanic]

Doesn't matter ... oil is oil to an oil filter. The Platinum is a long OCI filter, so that's why it's touted as a filter to be used with synthetic oil for longer OCIs.

Oh ok got it. I haven’t used a platinum or premium filter before so I wasn’t exactly sure how it would work out.

 

[OVERKILL]

Same old same old. I think what I want. No I never said or thought the test was a hoax. But you have to know more and be right, even to what people are thinking, so carry on. I don't buy your theories
and graphs at all.

Theories? It's a standardized testing protocol to gauge efficiency using a purpose-built particulate of a known size to measure, directly, the actual efficiency of the media.

Thinking what you want and being right can be two wildly different things. Typically, it is wise to, if the evidence presented supports, be open to the idea of revisiting the validity of the position you've taken if it doesn't seem to align with that of those more knowledgable on the material.

Yes, you can certainly dismiss standards and test protocols out of hand, but I wouldn't describe doing so as wise nor would I suggest anyone actually do such a thing unless they had an equally technical and validated standard that they deemed superior. There's little value in partaking in exchanges of a technical nature if one is allergic to the material that makes it technical.

 

[Blagoje]

Many years ago my dad had a Franz filter that used single ply toilet paper. Now I see they sell both cellulose and synthetic cartridges … are they better or just couldn’t get any Scott or Cottonelle ?

Is synthetic TP more effective when it matters?

 

[Job]

someday? It's a standardized testing protocol to gauge efficiency using a purpose-built particulate of a known size to measure, directly, the actual efficiency of the media.

Thinking what you want and being right can be two wildly different things. Typically, it is wise to, if the evidence presented supports, be open to the idea of revisiting the validity of the position you've taken if it doesn't seem to align with that of those more knowledgable on the material.

Yes, you can certainly dismiss standards and test protocols out of hand, but I wouldn't describe doing so as wise nor would I suggest anyone actually do such a thing unless they had an equally technical and validated standard that they deemed superior. There's little value in partaking in exchanges of a technical nature if one is allergic to the material that makes it technical.

It wasn't replied to you, so why are you getting into it? His theories and graphs, not the lab tests. What they do in the lab test is correct for what it tests. It tests something different than real world use.The test like Frantz did is a better one, leave dirty oil in, change filters, compare particle counts between the two filters. With enough samples maybe someday the real world efficiency king can be crowned. It looks so far the race is pretty even.

 

[OVERKILL]

It wasn't replied to you, so why are you getting into it?

Because last time I checked there was no policy on who could wade into a discussion here.

His theories and graphs, not the lab tests.

Well, in this case, he's talking about the lab test, and specifically mentioned the standard that determines filter efficiency.

What they do in the lab test is correct for what it tests.

Yes, it tests filter efficiency at a given particle size.

It tests something different than real world use.

No, it doesn't. Real world use generates myriad particles of various sizes, some of which will pass through the filter, some of which won't. The efficiency of the filter directly correlates with how much of that particulate is captured by the media. A more efficient filter will result in fewer contaminants in circulation, that's why bypass filtration with even finer media is often employed on heavy duty truck applications.

The test like Frantz did is a better one, leave dirty oil in, change filters, compare particle counts between the two filters.

It's not "better", it's just a different test that essentially demonstrates the same thing. A filter with an extremely high efficiency rating will result in fewer particles in circulation. Compare a FRAM Ultra to a filter that's 80% efficient at 30 microns and you'll see very different particle counts.

With enough samples maybe someday the real world efficiency king can be crowned. It looks so far the race is pretty even.

Not sure what you are trying to say here For OTS filters for passenger car applications the most efficient media is what's found in the FRAM Ultra followed closely by the AMSOIL EaO and Royal Purple offerings. All use synthetic glass depth filtration media to reduce the amount of material in circulation and Cummins has posted a ton of material, which I've shared on here in the past, as to how that works and its effects, as has Donaldson.

 

[Blinker]

GM also did a study decades ago and came to the conclusion that higher efficiency oil filters prolong the service life of the engine.

@Farnsworth are you arguing just for the sake of argument at this point?