New to the cartridge oil filter party....

[CR94]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
... For a while, there was one part number Fram Ultra cartridge that had a 1.091" inside (tube) diameter, when it should have been 1.110", a delta difference of about 0.02" which caused a very snug fit.
The filter does need to drop in the tube housing or cage-guide easily, and Fram did have a problem for a while with that. ...
That problem evidently was not limited to the Ultra version. Only a little over one year ago, I bought a WalMart ST10358, which appears extremely similar to a Fram CH10358. (Whether made by Fram or by somebody else on old Fram tooling, I don't know.) It has the same defect as the Ultra---"very snug fit" on the center tube of the cap.

I get the impression somebody designing these Fram 10358 cartridges sadly misunderstood how the cartridge fits and seals against oil bypassing. Contrary to your implication, that dimension does not need to be a high-precision fit, because the way it fits on the center tube is not primarily what blocks oil from bypassing around the end. It could just as well, or probably better, be 1.12" diameter. There's no need for it to be tight, or almost tight. Sealing is against the flat surfaces at the ends, aided by a spring that maintains constant axial load on the cartridge.

The Toyota (Denso) cartridges have that dimension perfect---large enough to slip easily over the center tube, yet small enough that the bump on the tube functions well as a detent to keep the cartridge from falling off when you tilt the cap with filter in place. My made-in-China Fram TG10358 fits well on the center tube, too.

I also used a Purolator L16311 which had very generous clearance between that diameter and the center tube. That wouldn't have caused oil to bypass the media, but when I took the cap off, with filter inside, I made the mistake of tilting it to let the oil drain out. Because the Purolator fit too loosely to be retained by the detent bump, the cartridge slid out and plopped into my pan of warm oil, about a foot from my face. Ick!!

 

[Talent_Keyhole]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
I went to Fram website and could not find any performance data on the Ultra or any other filter. Maybe I missed something.


The ISO 4548-12 efficiency is shown on their website.


No spec sheet, I finally had to watch their promo video. They claim 99% efficiency. In the fine print in the video it says *FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns." Ok, then what is the absolute efficiency? I can find chinese made, $2.50 filters that will filter at that efficiency above 20 microns, 25, 30. Love how they play word games in marketing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
I went to Fram website and could not find any performance data on the Ultra or any other filter. Maybe I missed something.

The ISO 4548-12 efficiency is shown on their website.

No spec sheet, I finally had to watch their promo video. They claim 99% efficiency. In the fine print in the video it says *FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns." Ok, then what is the absolute efficiency? I can find chinese made, $2.50 filters that will filter at that efficiency above 20 microns, 25, 30. Love how they play word games in marketing.


What kind of "spec sheet" are you looking for? You don't really need the "absolute efficiency" when you have the ISO 4548-12 efficiency rating. Doubt you'll find $2.50 Chinese filters rated at 99% @ 20 microns. In fact, I doubt those Chinese filter will even have a published ISO 4548-12 efficiency number.

It's not "word games" if you understand the ISO efficiency rating system. ISO 4548-12 is where the "greater than xx microns" comes from, so Fram is actually mirroring the spec. And as has been hashed over about 100 times, saying "at 20 microns" is essentially saying "for particles greater than 20 microns" since 20.00001 microns is greater than 20 microns.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Talent_Keyhole
I went to Fram website and could not find any performance data on the Ultra or any other filter. Maybe I missed something.

The ISO 4548-12 efficiency is shown on their website.

I finally had to watch their promo video. They claim 99% efficiency. In the fine print in the video it says *FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency of PH8A, 3387A and 4967 or equivalent FRAM TG or EG models under ISO 4548-12 for particles greater than 20 microns."


The same statement is all over their website.

 

[oil_film_movies]

ZeeOSix is the best filter analyst we have on these threads;;; whatever he recommends, just follow it and don't ask questions. I'm not kidding.

CR94, I do wonder why Fram couldn't get their filter tube diameter correct. It's as if they don't do quality control on that aspect, and it does make one pause. Still, Fram Ultra's usually do fine. Hoping they fixed thier tube dimension issues several years ago when they surfaced.

And, yes, 4548-12 with stated micron level (20 microns typical) is all one needs to know. Forget 'absolute rating' worthless info.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
... CR94, I do wonder why Fram couldn't get their filter tube diameter correct. It's as if they don't do quality control on that aspect, and it does make one pause. Still, Fram Ultra's usually do fine. Hoping they fixed thier tube dimension issues several years ago when they surfaced. ...
In case this wasn't clear, the dimension in question is not actually a tube diameter. It's the diameter of the center hole in the end cap (or corresponding hole in endcapless designs such as Denso), which must fit over the steel center tube built into the cartridge housing cap.

From what I read on BITOG, evidently spin-on Ultras indeed "usually do fine." I'm not fully convinced they know what they're doing with their US-made cartridges. On another hand, the made-in-China Fram TG10358 looks good and fits properly.

Purolator cartridges for the same application have questionable aspects, too.

 

[ChrisD46]

+1 !!!! .... I have been using this Fram Ultra 9999 in my 3.8L Sedona with excellent results - this is one very high quality filter which can go 2 or 3 5K mile oil changes if you prefer .
Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
Fram Ultra XG9999 .. Here is the reason: 4548-12 tests are best, and its good for 20,000 miles, wire-backed.

Big as it is, that thing will have no problem going a full 20,000 miles. I've seen bigger engines with much small oil filters. For example, GM V8's use the PF64, not big at all!

 

[4WD]

Just admit the model number factors in …

 

[Ponchinizo]

From what I've seen on BITOG, Purolators and Frams fail occasionally. Seems to me Purolator more often with more severe failures, but that could be chalked up to bias from the community.

Regardless, I won't use either of them, and just stick to OEM. Never had a denso filter fail on me and i haven't seen one fail online anywhere either. They seem to prioritize flow over efficiency, but those Toyota's last a long long time so I figure the engineers who spec'ed that filter know what they're talking about. At any rate they know more than me!

 

[kschachn]

Where have you seen flow rates and efficiency ratings for Denso filters?

 

[Ponchinizo]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Where have you seen flow rates and efficiency ratings for Denso filters?


I haven't! That's why i said "seems like", i did not want to come off as claiming I had any hard data on them. Apologies if I did.

I've only read here and on Toyota forums that the denso filters prioritize flow over efficiency, but without hard data to back it up. I probably shouldn't trust those opinions at all, but I consider BITOG fairly credible in general.

My primary reason for using them is to just default to what the Toyota engineers designed for that car since I don't really know enough to justify changing the vehicles filtration in any way, given I find the OEMs for ~$4 a filter. And I've never ever seen a failed Denso filter. If the FU or PureOne was cheaper than OEM I would consider them for the savings, but as it is I see no reason to use anything other than the OE filter.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by Ponchinizo
Originally Posted by kschachn
Where have you seen flow rates and efficiency ratings for Denso filters?


I haven't! That's why i said "seems like", i did not want to come off as claiming I had any hard data on them. Apologies if I did.

I've only read here and on Toyota forums that the denso filters prioritize flow over efficiency, but without hard data to back it up. I probably shouldn't trust those opinions at all, but I consider BITOG fairly credible in general.

My primary reason for using them is to just default to what the Toyota engineers designed for that car since I don't really know enough to justify changing the vehicles filtration in any way, given I find the OEMs for ~$4 a filter. And I've never ever seen a failed Denso filter. If the FU or PureOne was cheaper than OEM I would consider them for the savings, but as it is I see no reason to use anything other than the OE filter.




I started to use Denso filters in the early 90's and by the mid 90's I was using them exclusively for years. Never a problem and I put hundreds of thousands of miles in those vehicles.

Now I'm using Roki since they are OEM and I suspect I will have the same experience with them as I did with the Denso.

 

[oil_film_movies]

Originally Posted by Ponchinizo
From what I've seen on BITOG, Purolators and Frams fail occasionally.
Only filters I can remember failing on bitog (holes-tears-rips-breaches) are lots of Purolators, Motorcrafts, and one AC-Delco PF64. Frams, no. ....

Can somebody find one, at least one, incident of a Fram allowing unfiltered dirty oil to get past the media?

This would requre some kind of hole, and is not the same as the odd tight-fit issue on some models from years ago.

On your bias accusation, there is no basis for that. .... If a filter performs well, people on here usually rally around it. ... If they don't, it will get excoriated here.

Just to explain clearly, I'm looking for oil filters that are "Rip Torn", as in:

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by oil_film_movies
... Can somebody find one, at least one, incident of a Fram allowing unfiltered dirty oil to get past the media?

This would requre some kind of hole, and is not the same as the odd tight-fit issue on some models from years ago. ...
No, it wouldn't. Other defects in cartridges can have the same effect.