Up to the store selling them, depending on their wholesale cost and what profit level they seek. Some stores are more greedy on profit making than others.
Oh oh, more Ultra drama
- Thread starter Nayov
- Start date
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Their description of it was wrong in the blurb about the new media (along with the "baked on" verbiage). That whole quote from them was pretty bad with inconsistencies and wrong language.
Pretty sure I found a post by Motorking where he said it was full synthetic media and posted it the last time we had this conversation, which I think we've had at least 3 or 4 times now?
EDIT:
For posterity:
And:Motorking said:
Motorking said:
Last edited:
Like I said ... don't believe everything, especially right after First Brands bought Fram and basically fired everyone who know what was going on. As said, I'd trust the info on their website first since I'd bet that info gets vetted before publishing. I doubt the janitor is solely updating the website, lol.
Who knows if Fram meant 100% "full synthetic" when they use the term "synthetic". It could be (as Motorking info shows), or it could be it was close to 100% synthetic and simply therefore called "synthetic". Fram has never used the terms "100% Synthetic" or "Full Synthetic" on their website. Only Motorking said it was full synthetic. Fram still uses the word "Synthetic" right on the can of the new Ultra, even though it's shown as a "synthetic blend" on their website.
https://www.fram.com/products/oil-filters
When's the last time you actually saw "100% full synthetic" oil when it's really not by formulation and still called "synthetic" or even "full synthetic" oil.
Last edited:
Even though Jay made a big deal about 13 grams (in this specific case), it’s only a half-ounce of dirt. This highlights @High Performance Lubricants recommendation of changing filters every 5k miles until it is known that the engine is no longer harboring a bunch of particulates. Lesser filters will absolutely need to be changed at shorter frequencies when first moving to an oil that’s full of ANs/Esters to protect the engine from filter bypass, IMO…
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, and the website just says >99% at 20 microns. Nobody is arguing the new filter is of significantly poorer efficiency than the OG, but we DO know that the model of OG that was tested fared significantly better than what was shown in that quote from First Brands, and so per your point, I'm not believing everything I read and I think am justifiably sceptical of the accuracy of what is claimed in that e-mail, since so many other details were incorrect.
See edit, I included the quotes from Motorking giving the detail on the media. It was about as much of a blend as I am the uncle of Bill Gates.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, per the Ascent testing data, the OG Ultra had the 2nd highest holding capacity tested, so, I think it was something to be proud of and he was right to be. But yeah, if you are liberating significant amounts of stuff like we saw with my first HPL run, changing the filter early, no matter how good that filter is, is probably a good idea.
No, the Fram website says the new Ultra is still 99+% for particles greater than 20u ... just like the old Ultra did.
Comments have already been made why Ascent's testing could show better than Fram's efficiency claims. It's not surprise to me that it tested better. I'm betting Fram wants to be on the conservative side in their claims to keep the lawsuit lawyers away. You can bet these big filter companies that have their own ISO test lab capability are cross testing each others oil filters. Fram does it with their competitors.
Like already said ... when's the last time you saw a "full synthetic" oil that was actually 100% full synthetic?
Same thing could be going on with oil filter media claims.
Will have to say though the Premium Guard filters have looked much, much better vs the new Fram Ultra filters.
Some saylooks don’t matter and that is true.
To a point…
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Ummmm, dude, that's what I just said, I just used the > sign instead of the +.
Right, but that doesn't mean anything in that e-mail was accurate.
That's pretty weak, lol. There are several full synthetic filter medias on the market and the two main types are microglass (which Jay said FRAM was using) and spun polymer like what Cummins (Fleetguard) uses and Purolator is now using. These do not have a cellulose component to them; they are in no way a "blend".Like already said ... when's the last time you saw a "full synthetic" oil that was actually 100% full synthetic?
Blend medias will absorb water and distort, like we see with the new Ultra media because it has a cellulose blend layer now. The OG Ultra was 100% multi-layer microglass according to Jay, which makes sense, hence it needing the wire backing and us never seeing one distort. Conceptually, this is like Donaldson's Synteq media and the old Fleetguard Stratapore media.
Last edited:
No, the Fram website says the new Ultra is still 99+% for particles greater than 20u ... just like the old Ultra did.
Comments have already been made why Ascent's testing could show better than Fram's efficiency claims. It's not surprise to me that it tested better. I'm betting Fram wants to be on the conservative side in their claims to keep the lawsuit lawyers away. You can bet these big filter companies that have their own ISO test lab capability are cross testing each others oil filters. Fram does it with their competitors.
Like already said ... when's the last time you saw a "full synthetic" oil that was actually 100% full synthetic?
Give it a rest Zee….
They lied… or didn’t know what they were talking about….
And whether you like it or not…
They cheapen a exceptionally great product …. 10 out of 10…
Into a still very good one… 9.2 out of 10.
Still worthy of buying.
But it’s cheapened. That’s a fact.
LoL ... dude? Didn't you get bent when someone called you that a while back.
Never said or claimed the info in the email was accurate or not based on Ascent's testing. Just gave reasons why they may not completely line up. There are factors involved with the ISO testing that can lead to different filter sizes of the same exact media showing different efficiency.
No, it's not weak. Fram has NEVER said that their media in the Ultra was "full synthetic" or 100% synthetic". If it was, don't you think they would use one of those terms? Does Cummings and Feetgaurd and others use the term 100% or Full Synthetic?
Last edited:
LoL ... what did they lie about? That's a pretty bold statement without solid proof. See my comments above about how ISO testing can skew the results on different filter sizes, and/or how the flow rate and debris loading rate is setup for the testing. Even when the decision is made to stop the test run due to delta-p level can impact the end results. I've made that distinction may times in these discussions ... Ascent would tell you the same thing.
And don't tell me to "give it a rest", not really appreciated ... I never say that to anybody here. I will however debate the subject matter all day long, or until the thread gets locked.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, it's the same thing, right? Sue me.LoL ... not the way they express it. I go for accuracy.
OK, but people are using that e-mail as a basis for the claim that the new filter is more efficient than its predecessor. My opinion is that there is enough wrong with that e-mail that all we really have to go on is that FRAM maintains the same efficiency claim (99+% or >99% or 99%+ at 20 microns), so we know that it hasn't been altered in a way that would affect that.
You are reaching here, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. Filters aren't made like oil and there is no "Group III" filter media. Jay did say it was a full synthetic microglass media, are you saying he was lying? Because ultimately that's what you are implying by continuing to harp on this point.
Donaldson refers to Synteq as full synthetic media in their media comparison where they also talk about blend media:
They also just refer to it as synthetic filter media in other documents:
Cummins just refers to it as Synthetic media:
Last edited:
LoL ... dude, it was a joke. Got my "dude" in to be square, lol. Yeah, it's the same thing.
How do you know that same exact model filter Fram tested didn't show the increase in efficiency compared to the OG Ultra in the same model/size? You would have to do the same exact test with the old vs new on the same model of filter. I keep saying that the size and test operation setup between labs can give different results, but nobody seems to absorb that fact. There are all kinds of factors that could result in what Fram said about the efficiency increasing below 20u.
I'm not saying he was lieing ... that's a "reach" meant in the nicest way (got one of those in there too). Don't know why you'd think he was lieing. All I said is that Fram NEVER uses the words "100% synthetic" or "Full synthetic" ... regardless if they meant it was or not. It's really not hard to understand the logic. And how do you know Cuimmings not using "100%" or "full" really means it is?You are reaching here, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. Filters aren't made like oil and there is no "Group III" filter media. Jay did say it was a full synthetic microglass media, are you saying he was lying? Because ultimately that's what you are implying by continuing to harp on this point.
Donaldson refers to Synteq as full synthetic media in their media comparison where they also talk about blend media:
Cummins just refers to it as Synthetic media:
Nobody has even mentioned that he might be lying except for what's been brought up in this thread - and nobody has actaully claimed he was. I'm sure he wasn't, but again Fram never called it full synthetic. Why not? And they still call it the "Fram Synthetic" right on the website, box and filter, even though it's a synthetic blend. Ponder that.
Who cares what the old Ultra media was ... it's no more. If it was full synthetic or almost full synthetic and called so, it's gone now.
Last edited:
LoL ... what did they lie about? That's a pretty bold statement without solid proof. See my comments above about how ISO testing can skew the results on different filter sizes, and/or how the flow rate and debris loading rate is setup for the testing. Even when the decision is made to stop the test run due to delta-p level can impact the end results. I've made that distinction may times in these discussions ... Ascent would tell you the same thing.
And don't tell me to "give it a rest", not really appreciated ... I never say that to anybody here. I will however debate the subject matter all day long, or until the thread gets locked.
They lied Zee…
Get a grip…
Or maybe…. There’s a 10 to 20 percent chance they were just ignorant.
Which could maybe have been the case…
The old real Ultra was 80 percent at 5 microns….
The new one is 74 percent at 10…
Still very good. No doubt.
Jay told everyone on here this. 80 percent at 5 microns.
Was Jay lying? It seems like you are saying that.
I hope you aren’t implying that.
I would be interested to know the date code and country of origin? Where was it sourced from?
To be accurate, that would be creme brulee metallic.
Here we go again ... "get a grip". You're really being insulting ... maybe you don't thinks so, but you are.
You have absolutley zero proof they lied, because you have zero test data on the same filter model/size in the same exact lab with the same operator and test setup as done on the new Ultra model/size. Just seems this won't sink in.
If you could actually comprehend what I write you wouldn't even make that comment.
