Oh oh, more Ultra drama

Nayov said:
Pic of box and date code . Also, I took a cursory look and saw no others like.......
Click to expand...
One member @blufeb95 said this thread, "No grippy paint has always been a thing on larger filters for HD applications." Topic is a relatively large/long application. Until other applications seen without sure grip, I'm open to a one-off possibility. Also, I don't recognize that as a standard Fram date code format. Standard Fram date code is inked on can itself (not sticker), has a capital letter followed by 6 digits. 'Perhaps' more evidence of a one off.
 
Sayjac said:
One member @blufeb95 said this thread, "No grippy paint has always been a thing on larger filters for HD applications." Topic is a relatively large/long application. Until other applications seen without sure grip, I'm open to a one-off possibility. Also, I don't recognize that as a standard Fram date code format. Standard Fram date code is inked on can itself (not sticker), has a capital letter followed by 6 digits. 'Perhaps' more evidence of a one off.
Click to expand...
Looking at the application guide, this new filter is recommended for use on GM V6 applications where the 10575 was previously recommended, I'm not sure why they're doing this exactly, the filter is about a half inch longer and has no grippy paint that's the current distinction I can see between the 10575 and 12750. I'm guessing there's no grippy paint because it's being made in a factory where application specific and HD filters are made that don't use the grippy paint since the tapping plate doesn't look like a typical Fram, I just remembered that even smaller application specific filters like the PH8172 that's a stubbier PH3614 for small engines also don't have the grip paint.
 
Come on guys were are up to 7 pages of nothing... we need to hit 10 by the end of the day... You can do it..... 🍿
 
OVERKILL said:
Soooooo, it appears the Titanium verbiage was either always "blend" or was changed well in advance of the Ultra changing. We have roughly a year where the filter existed but we have no idea what the website said.

As @bbhero alluded to, and given the incorrect verbiage in the e-mail, we may just be dealing with the Moron side of the force. If the Titanium was cooked up after First Brands took over and the folks doing the branding didn't have a clue about the media in either filter, well, the Ultra filter, box and website description were all existing products, so they were left alone. The Titanium, if these cookers thought the Ultra had blend media (and they appeared to, based on that e-mail) then it makes sense (kinda) that they'd use that language in describing the Titanium that was using the same media.
Click to expand...
More forensics, lol. Trico Group bought Fram March 2019 ... before the Titanium ever showed up. Seems First Brands took over from Trico around Aug 2020.

https://www.aftermarketnews.com/tri...ired Fram,Burkhart, president of TRICO Group.

https://garagewire.co.uk/news/company/trico/trico-group-renamed-as-first-brands-group/

Here the Wayback Machine shows the Ultra on Aug 6, 2018 ... says "2-ply synthetic, metal screen reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency" ... @20u of course per footnote. Was the Titanium actually the same exact media as the Ultra when it came along, or it's own unique "synthetic blend" media? Many here say the cut open and inspection of the Titanium media (unused filter) looks just like the OG Ultra media in every way.

https://web.archive.org/web/2018080.../oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter/

If Trico had all the information about the OG Ultra media at hand (Re: your bold text above) before the Titanium came along, why would they all of a sudden think the Titanium had synthetic blended media instead, and go with that "synthetic blend" media description on only the Titanium and not also on the Ultra at the same time they both existed? The OG Ultra and Titanium media description has been different between the two ever since the Titanium came out. If Trico kicked off the Titanium from the start, they would have to have know what media was used in the design and production. Is the mystery level high enough yet, lol?

Ponder this ... was Fram already working on the Titanium products line with AAP before Trico acquired Fram? ... who knows for sure. If not, and Trico (not First Brands at that time) kicked off the Titanium from the start, why would Trico call the media something different then the already established Ultra "synthetic" media if that same media was used in the Titanium? Doesn't seem to add up, and just saying it's all just a big "mistake by the Moron side of the force" seems a bit of a stretch.

BTW, the email about the new Ultra media would have come from the crew under First Brands, not Trico ... could or could not have been the same people when Trico acquired. Regardless of who was working there at the time, all the engineering information should have been documented (unless Fram flushed some of it in vein from the Trico acquisition and firings, hummm) ... doubt it was all relayed by "word of mouth" through the different acquisitions, should have been documentation on the product lines. Could be Fram before the aquisitions were sloppy and didn't keep very good engineering records, but it's just an oil filter company, not a NASA space program or a fighter jet program, lol. Product configuration and design details on a few oil filter model lines shouldn't be that hard to handle IMO.

Bottom line, the new Ultra is what it is ... like it or not. But the forensics is interesting and that's all it is at this point.
 
Last edited:
Nayov said:
Pic of box and date code . Also, I took a cursory look and saw no others like.
Click to expand...
Thanks. So it was intentional by Fram to remove the sure grip. That is a shame.

I didn't understand what you meant by this comment: Also, I took a cursory look and saw no others like.
 
Re-addressing the email from Fram/First Brands on the new Ultra media, wrt to why the efficiency info there could be different than the efficiency test done by Ascent. The oil filter Fram referenced was XG10060, which is smaller that the Ascent tested XG10575 - go to Fram website to see the size difference. The filter size (amongst other factors) can make the test results come out different. Recall the 4 smallest PureONE spin-on oil filters, and what Purolator showed for their efficiency (Sayjac knows all about this). While all other PureONEs were rated at 99% @ 20u, the four smallest PureONEs were rated at 99% @ 40u ... it was right on the box. Think about that ... same exact PureONE media, yet the four smallest sized filters were rated WAY worse than the bigger sized PureONEs. And Purolator references their largest spin-on for ISO efficiency for a reason (info below will show why).

Why is that? It all stems back to the efficiency decrease impact caused by the delta-p across the media as the filter loads up. The ISO 4548-12 efficiency is based on the average of the beginning (new filter) efficiency and the ending (fully loaded) efficiency. So a smaller oil filter with the same test flow rate and debris loading during the test can cause more delta-p level over the test period and cause the overall efficiency to decrease.

Other factors as mentioned before in this thread, is the fact that two different labs were used with most likely different test flow rates and debris loading rates. Different test equipment and different equipment operators. Possible equipment accuracy and calibration differences - bottom line, not the same lab equipment. Fram most likely used the same lab and equipment to test both new and old XG10060 filters (they have their own ISO test lab) to run their efficiency tests, so it's not really correct to try and say their numbers are "wrong" (or "lies" by some) based on a different filter model/size tested by a totally different test lab (ie, Ascent). The ONLY way to actually verify Fram's claim would be to test the same filter model/size in the same lab, just like Fram did. So until an independent test like that can be done in the same lab by the same operator, there is no real proof to claim that the efficiency numbers of the old vs new media on the referenced XG10060 are inaccurate solely based on a different sized filter (the OG XG10575) ran in a different lab.
 
Last edited:
DuckRyder said:
It's not a shame. That coating is an abomination and whoever thought of it should be keelhauled on a cigarette boat during an ocean race at speed in rough water...
Click to expand...
Except for the fram titanium.
Why go halfway.
Just cover the whole thing with black grippy paint 👍
 
Bill7 said:
Thanks. So it was intentional by Fram to remove the sure grip. That is a shame.
Click to expand...
No real evidence just yet that this will happen to all Frams. Like mentioned, this Fram without grip coating could be a specialty model, not like the main line filter models made by Fram. Time will tell, like everything in the world, lol.
 
ZeeOSix said:
More forensics, lol. Trico Group bought Fram March 2019 ... before the Titanium ever showed up.

https://www.aftermarketnews.com/tri...ired Fram,Burkhart, president of TRICO Group.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my point, lol. The Ultra, and its branding, was a pre-existing product, while the Titanium was cooked-up under Trico/First Brands. If they were erroneously referring to the OG media as synthetic blend in public communication, it's not outside the realm of possibility that this same description carried over to the Titanium. Engineering may never have spoken to Marketing on the matter (and this seems likely based on that e-mail).
ZeeOSix said:
Here the Wayback Machine shows the Ultra on Aug 6, 2018 ... says "2-ply synthetic, metal screen reinforced media provides 99%+ filtration efficiency" ... @20u of course per footnote. Was the Titanium actually the same exact media as the Ultra when it came along, or it's own unique "synthetic blend" media? Many here say the cut open and inspection of the Titanium media (unused filter) looks just like the OG Ultra media in every way.

https://web.archive.org/web/2018080.../oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter/
Click to expand...
Yes, the description for the Ultra was always synthetic up until the most recent change, which I mentioned.

We DO have a period where we don't know what the website said about the Titanium for about a year. But it's most likely that it has always said blend.

And yes, the Titanium dissections we've seen have all indicated that the media looks like the same pink microglass media as found in the OG Ultra. This is where Trico/First Brands description gets into the Moron side of the Force lol.
ZeeOSix said:
If Trico had all the information about the OG Ultra media at hand (Re: your bold text above) before the Titanium came along, why would they all of a sudden think the Titanium had synthetic blended media instead, and go with that "synthetic blend" media description on only the Titanium and not also on the Ultra at the same time they both existed? The OG Ultra and Titanium media description has been different between the two ever since the Titanium came out. If Trico kicked off the Titanium from the start, they would have to have know what media was used in the design and production. Is the mystery level high enough yet, lol?
Click to expand...
Assuming for the moment that the media IS the same, there are two possibilities:
1. They intentionally tried to make it sound "lesser" than the Ultra so it didn't cannibalize Ultra sales
2. The Titanium may have been close enough in construction to the Ultra that the media didn't really play into the "design" element. If the only other differences are the can coating and the base plate, this could very well have been an "abbreviated" development and at some point along there the description of the media got screwed up (or it was wrong from the start) and nobody knew enough to correct it (baked on, lol).
ZeeOSix said:
Ponder this ... was Fram already working on the Titanium products line with AAP before Trico acquired Fram? ... who knows for sure. If not, and Trico (not First Brands at that time) kicked off the Titanium from the start, why would Trico call the media something different then the already established Ultra "synthetic" media if that same media was used in the Titanium? Doesn't seem to add up, and just saying it's all just a big "mistake by the Moron side of the force" seems a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...
Could just be bad communication, we saw some pretty bad communication from them after the acquisition, I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that it was also that bad internally.
ZeeOSix said:
BTW, the email about the new Ultra media would have come from the crew under First Brands, not Trico ... could or could not have been the same people when Trico acquired. Regardless of who was working there at the time, all the engineering information should have been documented (unless Fram flushed some of it in vein from the Trico acquisition and firings, hummm) ... doubt it was all relayed by "word of mouth" through the different acquisitions, should have been documentation on the product lines. Could be Fram before the aquisitions were sloppy and didn't keep very good engineering records, but it's just an oil filter company, not a NASA space program or a fighter jet program, lol. Product configuration and design details on a few oil filter model lines shouldn't be that hard to handle IMO.

Bottom line, the new Ultra is what it is ... like it or not. But the forensics is interesting and that's all it is at this point.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's definitely interesting! Lots of questions, few clear answers. Would Jay know if they were working on the Titanium before the acquisition? If you are chatting with him, might be another question to pose.
 
I had to pick up few things at WM so thought I'd check the filter aisle. I found several other "large" Fram filter applications without the sure grip. While I could not find the topic filter, I found the TG and PH3786, also the PH and XG3976A without the suregrip. Those look like the HD/(diesel?) applications mentioned So, now leaning toward what member @blufeb95 posted as the possible reason, and topic new filter application as one of them. Other regular vehicle filters I saw still have sure grip on the box and filters. Until/unless I see a change in those filters, not willing to make the leap the topic change is across the entire line. I'll take a wait and see.
blufeb95 said:
..... I just remembered that even smaller application specific filters like the PH8172 that's a stubbier PH3614 for small engines also don't have the grip paint.
Click to expand...
The PH8170 is an OPE filter made for Fram was rebadged with a Fram name an orange color, never had suregrip. It even has/had metal endcaps and a coil compression spring. While I'm less sure about the PH8172 OPE, I'd be willing to speculate, very similar situation. In other words, I wouldn't put the OPE applications in the same category as the current Fram vehicle (PC) oil filter applications. But having seen several other large Fram filters, I do tend to agree with your HD filter possibility for the topic filter.
 
Last edited:
OVERKILL said:
Yeah, that's my point, lol. The Ultra, and its branding, was a pre-existing product, while the Titanium was cooked-up under Trico/First Brands. If they were erroneously referring to the OG media as synthetic blend in public communication, it's not outside the realm of possibility that this same description carried over to the Titanium. Engineering may never have spoken to Marketing on the matter (and this seems likely based on that e-mail).
Click to expand...
But the media description didn't carry over ... that's my point. If the Titanium was kicked off by Trico from the get-go, why didn't they use the same media description as the OG Ultra at that time if it was the same exact media? Fram never refered to the OG Ultra as "synthetic blend", anywhere ... so how could that media description carry over to the Titanium?

OVERKILL said:
We DO have a period where we don't know what the website said about the Titanium for about a year. But it's most likely that it has always said blend. And yes, the Titanium dissections we've seen have all indicated that the media looks like the same pink microglass media as found in the OG Ultra. This is where Trico/First Brands description gets into the Moron side of the Force lol.
Click to expand...
Or just an assumption? I'm pretty sure the Titanium media has always been described as "synthetic blend" since it was obviously not released until after Trico bought Fram. bbhero's box photo show that "synthetic blend" media description - bet the copyright date on that box is 2020, when the Titanium came out. I just can't readily believe it was all just a big "mistake in advertising". Maybe the media was slightly different per AAPs inputs for some reason. At any rate, the Titanium is a very efficient wire back filter.

OVERKILL said:
Assuming for the moment that the media IS the same, there are two possibilities:
1. They intentionally tried to make it sound "lesser" than the Ultra so it didn't cannibalize Ultra sales
2. The Titanium may have been close enough in construction to the Ultra that the media didn't really play into the "design" element. If the only other differences are the can coating and the base plate, this could very well have been an "abbreviated" development and at some point along there the description of the media got screwed up (or it was wrong from the start) and nobody knew enough to correct it (baked on, lol).

Could just be bad communication, we saw some pretty bad communication from them after the acquisition, I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that it was also that bad internally.
Click to expand...
Or could be Aliens ... 😄 :alien:

OVERKILL said:
Yep, it's definitely interesting! Lots of questions, few clear answers. Would Jay know if they were working on the Titanium before the acquisition? If you are chatting with him, might be another question to pose.
Click to expand...
That would be interesting to find out ... if I have contact I'll ask him about that.
 
Last edited:
ZeeOSix said:
But the media description didn't carry over ... that's my point.
Click to expand...
I meant in the internal communication, not on existing public facing media (boxes, website...etc), which pre-dated the acquisition. The e-mail that we are discussing, it referred to the OG has having blend media, which we know it didn't. That didn't happen in a vacuum, so if that's how that media was being referred to by Trico/First Brands internally, despite being erroneous, if that carried over to the labelling for the Titanium, that sorta makes sense.
ZeeOSix said:
If the Titanium was kicked off by Trico from the get-go, why didn't they use the same media description as the OG Ultra at that time if it was the same exact media? Fram never refered to the OG Ultra as "synthetic blend", anywhere ... so how could that media description carry over to the Titanium?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking they cooked that description up somehow internally, erroneously, because that would also explain why they called it a blend media (the OG Ultra) in that e-mail.
ZeeOSix said:
Or just an assumption? I'm pretty sure the Titanium media has always been described as "synthetic blend" since it was obviously not released until after Trico bought Fram. bbhero's box photo show that "synthetic blend" media description. I just can't readily believe it was all just a big "mistake in advertising". Maybe the media was slightly different per AAPs inputs for some reason. At any rate, the Titanium is a very efficient wire back filter.
Click to expand...
Well, the media doesn't look any different, and blend media has a specific look to it (it looks like cellulose, because it has cellulose in it).
ZeeOSix said:
Or could be Aliens ... 😄 :alien:
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO:
ZeeOSix said:
That would be interesting to find out ... if I have contact I'll ask him about that.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks!
 
DuckRyder said:
It's not a shame. That coating is an abomination and whoever thought of it should be keelhauled on a cigarette boat during an ocean race at speed in rough water...
Click to expand...

This^^^^^^^

Genuinely made me laugh.

Definitely top 3 best and funniest post of this year to date.

Well done Duckryder… well done.
 
ZeeOSix said:
Re-addressing the email from Fram/First Brands on the new Ultra media, wrt to why the efficiency info there could be different than the efficiency test done by Ascent. The oil filter Fram referenced was XG10060, which is smaller that the Ascent tested XG10575 - go to Fram website to see the size difference. The filter size (amongst other factors) can make the test results come out different. Recall the 4 smallest PureONE spin-on oil filters, and what Purolator showed for their efficiency (Sayjac knows all about this). While all other PureONEs were rated at 99% @ 20u, the four smallest PureONEs were rated at 99% @ 40u ... it was right on the box. Think about that ... same exact PureONE media, yet the four smallest sized filters were rated WAY worse than the bigger sized PureONEs. And Purolator references their largest spin-on for ISO efficiency for a reason (info below will show why).

Why is that? It all stems back to the efficiency decrease impact caused by the delta-p across the media as the filter loads up. The ISO 4548-12 efficiency is based on the average of the beginning (new filter) efficiency and the ending (fully loaded) efficiency. So a smaller oil filter with the same test flow rate and debris loading during the test can cause more delta-p level over the test period and cause the overall efficiency to decrease.

Other factors as mentioned before in this thread, is the fact that two different labs were used with most likely different test flow rates and debris loading rates. Different test equipment and different equipment operators. Possible equipment accuracy and calibration differences - bottom line, not the same lab equipment. Fram most likely used the same lab and equipment to test both new and old XG10060 filters (they have their own ISO test lab) to run their efficiency tests, so it's not really correct to try and say their numbers are "wrong" (or "lies" by some) based on a different filter model/size tested by a totally different test lab (ie, Ascent). The ONLY way to actually verify Fram's claim would be to test the same filter model/size in the same lab, just like Fram did. So until an independent test like that can be done in the same lab by the same operator, there is no real proof to claim that the efficiency numbers of the old vs new media on the referenced XG10060 are inaccurate solely based on a different sized filter (the OG XG10575) ran in a different lab.
Click to expand...

So the XG7317 which is what all Honda's use, most Acuras, and Nissan's use - would that be classified as a small or medium size filter?
Just trying to gauge if my size would be in the 99%@20u or 99%@40u category?
 
Bill7 said:
So the XG7317 which is what all Honda's use, most Acuras, and Nissan's use - would that be classified as a small or medium size filter?
Just trying to gauge if my size would be in the 99%@20u or 99%@40u category?
Click to expand...
It's more near medium sized. But keep in mind that Fram bases the efficiency on the avg of 3 different filter model/size efficiencies. Not just on the biggest filter they make, so their method is the better way to do it. I wouldn't worry about the XG7317.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
What happened to Fram Ultra?
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
billt460
BISCUT
Fram Ultra 2014 BMW X3 (N22) 6k OCI
Replies
4
Views
289
BISCUT
Panda87
Fram Ultra XG2, HPL 5w-40, 1.2k mi C&P
2
Replies
31
Views
450
Panda87
irv
FRAM filters, for the most part, no longer good?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Hootbro
T
What's going on at fram?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
Fishstyx
Back
Top Bottom