New Fram Ultra : Same Filtration & Flow Rate as Prior Ultra ?

[garageman402]

That's incorrect. The mesh was removed because the back layer of media is now a cellulose blend (traditional filter media, like the PureONE or Mobil 1 filter) not a synthetic product. The mesh is only required to provide support for synthetic (microglass, nanofibre...etc) media because it is not rigid.

Ya I saw in their press release that the synthetic media provides better flow, but how can that help when the synthetic blend behind it supposedly impedes it?

I think the wire mesh did take up more space, so it makes sense to use more media.

If this was a cost cutting measure, is wire more expensive than synthetic blend media? Why would they put in more media instead of wire?

 

[OVERKILL]

Ya I saw in their press release that the synthetic media provides better flow, but how can that help when the synthetic blend behind it supposedly impedes it?

I think the wire mesh did take up more space, so it makes sense to use more media.

If this was a cost cutting measure, is wire more expensive than synthetic blend media? Why would they put in more media instead of wire?

The four layers of synthetic media with a wire backing would be more expensive to produce than a blend media with a single layer of synthetic "topper" material, yes. They've increased the media surface area in an attempt to make-up for the flow and holding capacity penalty that the blend media imposes, and holding capacity is likely the reason for the synthetic "topper" layer (which other blend media based filters don't have).

 

[IndyFan]

The four layers of synthetic media with a wire backing would be more expensive to produce than a blend media with a single layer of synthetic "topper" material, yes. They've increased the media surface area in an attempt to make-up for the flow and holding capacity penalty that the blend media imposes, and holding capacity is likely the reason for the synthetic "topper" layer (which other blend media based filters don't have).

When you say "attempt", does that mean you've seen flow data that indicates they did not succeed?

 

[OVERKILL]

When you say "attempt", does that mean you've seen flow data that indicates they did not succeed?

I mean we haven't seen any data or claims from FRAM that indicate that it flows even as well as its predecessor, let alone better. Simply that it flows better than OEM requirements (their statement). Cellulose blend media is inherently inferior in both of those metrics (holding capacity and flow) over a full synthetic media, particularly if we are talking about medias of the same efficiency. As you are aware, I've posted supported data from both Donaldson and Cummins Filtration on this subject multiple times in the past, it isn't up for debate. So, as I said, they've attempted to overcome these shortcomings of the blend media by adding more of it, to increase flow, and by putting a synthetic "topper" on it to improve holding capacity. I'm quite sure both of those measures are sufficient to get the product to where they wanted it to be performance-wise, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a compromise over the old design.

The new design is a cheapening of the product, that's why the made the change. FRAM has always been able to produce a blend media and we've had blend media "premium" filters on the market forever, like the PureONE and Mobil 1 filter. The microglass, nanofibre...etc filters were introduced as yet another tier, a step up from these filters, given the superior characteristics of that type of media. We have seen that not only with passenger car filters, but with heavy duty ones, which is where this technology really first appeared in volume. Companies that were already producing blend media, combo filters and the like spent considerable sums on developing and evolving synthetic medias that were better, in every metric. That's how we ended up with the Stratapore, ELF...etc. FRAM went that route with the Ultra, but has now taken a step back.

As I said in the previous thread, that in no way makes it a bad filter and it still offers the same impressive efficiency. But the filter has been cheapened and is no longer a "top tier" offering like it once was. In terms of construction, it's now far more similar to the PureONE and Mobil 1 offerings, but with slightly better efficiency. It's not the bargain alternative to the EaO and other synthetic media filters that it was originally, and in many cases, offered the same suite of benefits but was even more efficient (it was more efficient than the Royal Purple filter for example, both being synthetic media filters).

 

[Davejam]

As I said in the previous thread, that in no way makes it a bad filter and it still offers the same impressive efficiency. But the filter has been cheapened and is no longer a "top tier" offering like it once was. In terms of construction, it's now far more similar to the PureONE and Mobil 1 offerings, but with slightly better efficiency. It's not the bargain alternative to the EaO and other synthetic media filters that it was originally, and in many cases, offered the same suite of benefits but was even more efficient (it was more efficient than the Royal Purple filter for example, both being synthetic media filters).

Explain how this isn't "top tier"? Do we have data that suggests anything has superior filtration efficiency? No.

Purolator One - 99% at 20 micron (based on 1 filter), Mobil 1 99% at 30 micron.
It beat Royal Purple in Ascent's testing. Based on that testing Fram could comfortably claim 99% at 15 micron.

So, Amsoil is the only one outstanding that we don't know for certain how it compares.
And it is 2x the cost.

 

[OVERKILL]

Explain how this isn't "top tier"? Do we have data that suggests anything has superior filtration efficiency? No.

Purolator One - 99% at 20 micron (based on 1 filter), Mobil 1 99% at 30 micron.
It beat Royal Purple in Ascent's testing. Based on that testing Fram could comfortably claim 99% at 15 micron.

So, Amsoil is the only one outstanding that we don't know for certain how it compares.
And it is 2x the cost.

Efficiency isn't the only metric, which I made clear in the post you cut that snippet from, though it is the one that FRAM in general has typically shown to be exceptional in. In terms of CONSTRUCTION, the shift from a full synthetic media to a cellulose blend with a synthetic topper puts it closer to the Mobil 1 filter and the PureONE, which are still excellent filters, but not in the same category as filters that feature full synthetic media.

Synthetic media filters are in a tier above cellulose blend filters, which is what placed the Ultra above the Tough Guard (the Tough Guard has a cellulose blend media) which is also 99% at 20 microns, just like the Ultra.

Now, the new Ultra does have a synthetic topper (on what may just be the same media as found in the Tough Guard) to increase holding capacity, but that's not the same as having fully synthetic media.

And yes, the EaO is wickedly expensive, that's what made the OG Ultra such an incredible deal. You got a multi-layered extremely efficient synthetic media filter for a VERY good price when compared to other filters with similar media.

 

[Davejam]

yup, i get that its not the only metric, but its a primary one.
There isn't reason to believe that its going to fail.
Nor will the dP be excessive in a reasonable OCI.
Especially not in a 2x 5,000 OCI as was the original question of the thread.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I mean we haven't seen any data or claims from FRAM that indicate that it flows even as well as its predecessor, let alone better. Simply that it flows better than OEM requirements (their statement). Cellulose blend media is inherently inferior in both of those metrics (holding capacity and flow) over a full synthetic media, particularly if we are talking about medias of the same efficiency. As you are aware, I've posted supported data from both Donaldson and Cummins Filtration on this subject multiple times in the past, it isn't up for debate. So, as I said, they've attempted to overcome these shortcomings of the blend media by adding more of it, to increase flow, and by putting a synthetic "topper" on it to improve holding capacity. I'm quite sure both of those measures are sufficient to get the product to where they wanted it to be performance-wise, but that doesn't mean it still isn't a compromise over the old design.

It would only be a compromise over the old design if anyone of the efficiency, holding capacity or delta-p vs flow performance parameters were worse than the previous design. Nobody has any real independent data to say the new one is better, the same, or worse than the old design.

If Fram says it still does 99+% @ 20u and has an up to 20K mile rating, then I'd have to think that the delta-p vs flow is still very good because all of those performance parameters are tied together when the filter goes through the ISO 4548-12 tests.

 

[OVERKILL]

It would only be a compromise over the old design if anyone of the efficiency, holding capacity and delta-p vs flow performance were worse than the previous design. Nobody has any real independent data to say the new one is better, the same or worse than the old design.

No, but we know that in terms of synthetic media vs a blend of the same efficiency, the synthetic is better in all three of those categories, that's why they added the topper and increased pleat count, to counteract that.

If Fram says it still does 99+% @ 20u and has an up to 20K mile rating, then I'd have to think that the delta-p vs flow is still very good because all of those performance parameters are tied together when the filter goes through the ISO 4548-12 tests.

Sure, and the ToughGuard is also 99+ @ 20u, but lacks the up to 20K mile rating. I haven't compared surface area but I'd posit that the difference there is the synthetic topper that increases holding capacity and I suspect the blend used in the ToughGuard is the same as we are seeing for the foundation of the Ultra now. Obviously a very efficient media, but it needed help to provide sufficient holding capacity.

If you shoot the moon and you didn't need to, dialling it back a bit will still result in an exceptional product, which I feel was what happened with the original Ultra.

It's a lot like the change from PAO to VISOM in M1 0w-40. Both lubes met the exact same OEM approvals and were likely overkill but we know that there are specific areas where VISOM (Group III) is a compromise even if the performance of the end product was still exceptional.

 

[OVERKILL]

yup, i get that its not the only metric, but its a primary one.
There isn't reason to believe that its going to fail.
Nor will the dP be excessive in a reasonable OCI.
Especially not in a 2x 5,000 OCI as was the original question of the thread.

As I detailed in the other thread, my nitpicking on this change isn't meant to disparage the product and I never once implied that it was going to fail or offer up poor performance. It's a technical analysis of the change and, objectively, identifying the reason for it (to save money), the technical reasons why it makes sense (the previous filter was overkill, we know blend media can be high efficiency and flow well in passenger vehicle applications) and what exactly was changed, along with providing details, from a technical perspective, on those changes.

I suspect a lot of people are choosing to use the Ultra where the ToughGuard is arguably just as good, offering the same efficiency. Unless you are pushing extended OCI's or your engine sheds a tremendous amount of crud, if both filters are equally efficient and both now use the same base media, paying more for the Ultra buys you what?

 

[ZeeOSix]

No, but we know that in terms of synthetic media vs a blend of the same efficiency, the synthetic is better in all three of those categories, that's why they added the topper and increased pleat count, to counteract that.

My point was does it really matter what the media is or how the element is designed if it's 99+% efficient, has up to 20K use holding capacity and has decent delta-p vs flow performance? The media could be made of unicorn fur, but if it doesn't really perform any better than what value does the unicorn fur really have?

 

[OVERKILL]

My point was does it really matter what the media is or how the element is designed if it's 99+% efficient, has up to 20K use holding capacity and has decent delta-p vs flow performance? The media could be made of unicorn fur, but if it doesn't really perform any better than what value does the unicorn fur really have?

I'm sure it matters to some people, which is why I've provided the details I have. I don't need to run oils with PAO in them when, objectively, Group III will perform similarly, but I choose to because I know that there are certain things that PAO is simply better at (oxidation resistance, cold temp performance...etc) even if it doesn't really matter in typical service because the formulation of the final product is still excellent.

We are group that splits hairs and analyzes things to death. As I noted in my response to Davejam, none of what I've presented here is meant to disparage the product, I'm just highlighting the details on the changes and what they mean, from a technical perspective. What they mean in terms of performance to the end user are probably nothing. You'd have to run them in the lab to see the difference. Were the changes made to improve profit/reduce cost? Yes. That's the same as with the VISOM situation. In both cases, the change was meant to be transparent to the end user.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Yes, I was disappointed just like you and many others that Fram changed the Ultra design, but if the new one performs just as well then I'll keep on using it. I'm interested in seeing some C&Ps of the new Ultra to verify how it looks after some long OCI use in the real world.

There really aren't any full synthetic wire backed filters out there right now that perform the same or better as the old Ultra, and probably won't performs as well as the new Ultra design either.

 

[OVERKILL]

^^^ Yes, I was disappointed just like you and many others that Fram changed the Ultra design, but if the new one performs just as well then I'll keep on using it. I'm interested in seeing some C&Ps of the new Ultra to verify how it looks after some long OCI use in the real world.

I'm interested in seeing some C&P's of long OCI's as well. The TG has always seemed to hold up well, so if it's the same media, it should do fine.

There really aren't any full synthetic wire backed filters out there right now that perform the same or better as the old Ultra, and probably won't performs as well as the new Ultra design either.

The EaO should, but it's insanely expensive. The Stratapore offerings SHOULD be too, but the passenger car applications are so limited it's probably not worth mentioning.

 

[SammyChevelleTypeS3]

I wouldn't bank on the 20,000 mile durability of the old one, but 10,000 should be doable. I have 2 XG7317s for the son's Accord, 10K will be the limit on those.

FILTERs N OILs. My son does in no way take after his old man and my neurotic OilChangeDelusions. When it comes time for his oil changes. He will not budge. He does between 4000 - 5000 mile oci and he buys what ever walmart filters + oil brands happen to be on sale. He got a good laugh and called BS on my theory of changing from one oil to another not good cause most use different add packs. He says if they were so badly incompatible there would be warnings on bottles.
Now my garages and shop cabinets are a constant source of amusement for him and his older brother when they visit at the same time. Last time was too much for them. They said "pops you really need to start up some of your old hobbies again. You taking this oil thing a bit too far now!" when they saw a bunch of oil analysis test kits in the shop. My only defense was "well isn't that a hobby!? Yup, at some point I can catch them laughing and joking as they check to see what is the latest of my niche (they call snake) oils I have stocked up on. I kinda see now why he called BS on my oil change theory cause last time he looked he saw not only Amsoil but also, Ravenol + Shaeffer's oils all lined up next to a row of filters all looking like they are standing at attention.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The EaO should, but it's insanely expensive. The Stratapore offerings SHOULD be too, but the passenger car applications are so limited it's probably not worth mentioning.

Yeah, the EAO is basically twice as much as the Ultra. Not really willing to pay double for a filter that's harder to obtain for basically the same performance.

 

[Krieg]

.,

 

[ollie]

That's incorrect. The mesh was removed because the back layer of media is now a cellulose blend (traditional filter media, like the PureONE or Mobil 1 filter) not a synthetic product. The mesh is only required to provide support for synthetic (microglass, nanofibre...etc) media because it is not rigid.

I was not able to touch the media so I can only go by what was shown on the videos I watched. The authors in numerous videos pointed out that both filtering medias looked and felt exactly the same. Both sides were shown and I could not see a difference. Thickness was also the same. The new design was just more length of the same material as the old one. Only difference being the missing inner metal mesh.

Of course the videos could be bogus. I would have to tear into them myself and have the filter analyzed in a lab to actually disprove it. I'm pretty confident both filters will do the job regardless if there is a difference in the filter materials composition.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I was not able to touch the media so I can only go by what was shown on the videos I watched. The authors in numerous videos pointed out that both filtering medias looked and felt exactly the same. Both sides were shown and I could not see a difference. Thickness was also the same. The new design was just more length of the same material as the old one. Only difference being the missing inner metal mesh.

That's not true ... the media was changed. It wasn't just the change of removing the metal wire backing.

 

[OVERKILL]

I was not able to touch the media so I can only go by what was shown on the videos I watched. The authors in numerous videos pointed out that both filtering medias looked and felt exactly the same. Both sides were shown and I could not see a difference. Thickness was also the same. The new design was just more length of the same material as the old one. Only difference being the missing inner metal mesh.

Of course the videos could be bogus. I would have to tear into them myself and have the filter analyzed in a lab to actually disprove it. I'm pretty confident both filters will do the job regardless if there is a difference in the filter materials composition.

FRAM's site now states that the media is a blend, and you can't remove the mesh without changing the media, as the synthetic media lacks sufficient rigidity to stay put without it.

Here's what FRAM states:

Now, the cellulose blend media has a synthetic layer bonded to it, so if you are handling it, the outer face will indeed feel the same as the old filter, one of which I cut open in this thread:

FRAM Ultra XG2 (old style) tear-down

Had this dented Ultra that was in my purchase haul I bought from Amazon. Figured I'd C&P it with some specific attention paid to the media. Observations: - Can was very easy to cut, it isn't overly thick - Strong smell to the potting material, which was still very pliable - Media and metal...

bobistheoilguy.com

Whereas this is the new style:

Fram Ultra ripping us off?

Cut open an XG10575 today. 2 layers, a very thin, soft, almost like felt-like cellulose or maybe even cotton outer layer with a paper back layer. No 2-layer fiberglass. No wire backing. I'm running an XG2 right now, and feel the need to cut one of those open to make sure. I feel betrayed here...

bobistheoilguy.com

You can clearly see the media is quite different.