New fram ultra vs tough guard efficiency data
- Thread starter volk06
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
What I find odd/worrisome is the description of the pre-revision/current Ultra, it doesn't match the actual filter.
The filter in question has two layers of synthetic media, and it is just sitting against a screen backing. There isn't a single layer. And it isn't baked on. So what filter are they describing?
I think it’s English, often can be interpreted differently or worded sloppily. Since the old U is full synthetic, synthetic blend means the two synthetic layers are blended, as in not fully separate layers, and baking is missing the c for backing, a typo. The new one is supposed to have “true” two layers, one synthetic blend, which still can mean two different things, and a full synthetic layer. So when someone cuts one open the layers are supposed be less intertwined with each other than the old Ultra.
It doesn’t cast any doubt on the numbers. Being probably a meant for internal use only it probably hasn’t been proof read like for publication. I know all kinds of cast doubt theories are bound to arise, because when people want something they tend to devise ways to get it.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
That's being generous.
I don't think that's what it means, because they use "synthetic blend" in two places in the e-mail, if they meant separate things they wouldn't do so.
It says "baked onto", you think it was supposed to say "backed onto"? Wouldn't the verbiage in that respect be "backed by". I think you might be reaching.
The old layers were already quite distinct, see my tear-down pictures. On top of that, if we look at the old website:
FRAM ULTRA SYNTHETIC® Oil Filters & How to Install | FRAM
Want the best performance from your new engine or the best protection for your older vehicle? There’s no better choice than ULTRA SYNTHETIC® oil filters.
web.archive.org
"the Ultra Synthetic oil filter has the ultimate dual-layer synthetic media which provides up to 20,000 miles of engine protection.1"
Also:
This is a tremendous amount of inconsistency.
Is the OP the original source of this e-mail? I ask, because the image quality of the screenshot is horrendous with a lot of moire around the text. Coupled with the bizarre nature of the statements and it certainly calls into question the integrity of this information and whether we should be simply taking it at face value.
It does state one thing that resonates though:
"Allows for increased production capacity"
Which is of course the logical explanation for the change, regardless of how buggered up the rest of this is, and what I opined on in the other thread.
You are of course free to defend and hand-waive away these inconsistencies at will, but there's certainly enough here to cause a reasonable and rational individual to take pause.
Last edited:
When First Brands took over Fram, I think most of the old Fram employees were replaced by new people that didn't have much knowledge of what they took over. That's why it seems the information they give on the construction of the old Ultra has so many inconsistencies.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Which certainly raises some red flags as to the accuracy then.
But ultimately, the message appears to be that the driver was, as we assumed, that this would improve production capacity/increase production line efficiency, which makes total sense, even if some of what else is stated there is out to lunch.
I suppose. Otoh, seems few here have any problem finding the media (and other) information for original Ultra that's still on their website. It's been posted other thread at least a couple times. Could be too, just doesn't matter or not important to them as it doesn't fit the narrative.
Last edited:
Double post....
Last edited:
1. “Synthetic blend” can be blends of synthetic fibers or a blend of synthetic and non. In either place it’s said. Just because the board use is usually one way doesn’t mean that person writing is thinking one way like you. Big assumption.
2. “Backed onto” is fine, what is wrong with it? I guarantee they aren’t saying baked onto. That’s reaching a lot. Yeah we bake the media onto the screen, like at 375. Or they didn’t type a c, which is more likely?
3. I tore some open before the layers are like they say, intertwined at the boundary. In fact I was wondering for awhile where are the two layers.
4. Explaining does not have to be defending.
5. You can say the numbers are made up. You can, free country.
6. You can go further into creating your own narrative by adding employees were fired etc, that’s even more conspiracy theory than picking at someone’s written words with a goal in mind. That’s way out there to cast doubt on Fram’s numbers. Numbers aren’t open to English meaning. Like to the stars way out there made up associations. New employees that’s why my opinion about the numbers has to be right. Really?
You know it doesn’t matter, have the fun and do what makes you happy here. It’s oil filters, cotton picking oil filters on cars. Wait not cotton, synthetic picking awl filters.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It's literally the industry definition of synthetic blend, this is just getting stupid. If you are just going to troll me you are going to end up on my block list.
There's nothing "wrong" with it, it just isn't what it says, it states baked. And yes, it's quite possible to bake the media onto the screen as part of an adhesion process, that's just not what takes place with the production Ultra. But, given the inconsistency on the media, that's not surprising. It could also be a spelling mistake, but we don't know, it's an inconsistency.
It's clear there are two layers. FRAM's own media says there are two layers, Christ on a cracker, this is getting stupid.
But you are defending, not explaining, and you are being borderline condescending about it to boot.
I didn't say the numbers were made up, don't put words in my mouth. I said it would be logical to question the integrity/legitimacy of the material presented because of the inconsistencies, nothing more.
Are you being intentionally dim? I simply stated that given all the issues with the e-mail, somebody driven by logic and reason would be within their right to question what else has been presented.
Zee has posted a pretty logical take on the subject, you? not so much. He presented a rational explanation for the mistakes, you didn't.
Yet you have wasted a significant amount of my time engaging on this subject. We are done here.
That's what I was eluding to, that the old info on the website generated by Fram before the acquisition seems more accurate than what the recent emails seem to say about the old Ultra.I suppose. Otoh, seems few here have any problem finding the media (and other) information for original Ultra that's still on their website. It's been posted other thread at least a couple times. Could be too, just doesn't matter or not important to them as it doesn't fit the narrative.
I have a question, what is it with all these threads about the Fram ultra oil filter, just because they changed their design? I'm just curious..
I know they took the screen out.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Plus we saw from multiple sources that the XG had the great particle cut combined with top notch flow characteristics plus trapping … Kinda starting over …
Okay I understand now.. I have just never seen, so many people in my life swear by FRAM. LOL
Hard to say for sure. It's still rated at 99% @ 20μ, but the new media might not be as efficient below 20μ regardless of what Fram sent in emails. Only way to verify is an independant ISO test. I'm more concerned about media strength when the filter hits max bypass delta-p in cold winter use.
The old Ultra was top tier. Took awhile for people to see and realize that - I'd bet it's the most used filter here. Now they are bummed to lose it for something that may be a notch down.
