Oh oh, more Ultra drama

[CR94]

My contribution to Ultraconfusion:
My car uses the __10358 cartridge configuration. So does my niece's Corolla. In the past, I used a TG10358, which incidentally came out looking practically new and very clean (except obviously oily) after 25,806 miles. My brother (who changes oil for her) gave me a XG10358 that had been used ~12,500 miles on her car, complete with box. Its code is A92571 = 257th day of 2019. Today I bought my first XG10358. Its code is M30121 = 12th day of 2023.

Other than one being used and one new, the two filters appear identical. Both have brownish pinkish media supported by metal screen. Both boxes say "Made in U.S.A." and "Manufactured for Fram," not "manufactured by ... ".

Printing on the boxes differs , though.
The ©2017 box oddly makes no claim as to efficiency, or to media type, other than the "Ultra Synthetic" product model name.
©2020 box: "Synthetic blend media provides over 99% dirt trapping efficiency."

©2017: Perrysburg, Ohio address
©2020: Cleveland

A few years ago, problems with this model filter were reported on this site, including end caps with center holes too small to fit over the center tube of the cap, and end caps not securely attached to the media or screen. Also, I saw some in Walmart that had absurdly unevenly spaced pleats. The first two of those faults appear to have been corrected by now. The third, lopsided spacing, is somewhat improved, but not as good as on the Chinese-made TG10358 I had.

 

[ZeeOSix]

My brother (who changes oil for her) gave me a XG10358 that had been used ~12,500 miles on her car, complete with box. Its code is A92571 = 257th day of 2019. Today I bought my first XG10358. Its code is M30121 = 12th day of 2023.

Other than one being used and one new, the two filters appear identical. Both have brownish pinkish media supported by metal screen. Both boxes say "Made in U.S.A." and "Manufactured for Fram," not "manufactured by ... ".

Printing on the boxes differs , though.
The ©2017 box oddly makes no claim as to efficiency, or to media type, other than the "Ultra Synthetic" product model name.
©2020 box: "Synthetic blend media provides over 99% dirt trapping efficiency."

Seems the info on the box would most likely over-ride the info on the website if the specific model was different. Same kind of deal I mentioned in an earlier post about the four smallest PureONE spin-ons having much worse efficiency than the larger sized PureONEs.

 

[CR94]

Seems the info on the box would most likely over-ride the info on the website if the specific model was different. Same kind of deal I mentioned in an earlier post about the four smallest PureONE spin-ons having much worse efficiency than the larger sized PureONEs.

There was no claim about efficiency on the earlier XG10358 box, so it could hardly override anything. Maybe they omitted it because they weren't yet confident this small size could meet their usual 99+% claim. Yet the later edition does claim >99% @ 20µ. The ©2012 box of my Chinese TG10358 claims 99%.

 

[wpod]

I became upset a Fram when they took the screen from the bypass valve on the Tough guard filter.

 

[wpod]

And if we’re willing to pay a certain amount for specific materials and construction, why isn’t someone filling that market? HPL has targeted a small niche market for essentially bespoke oils, yet because of their business mindset and production capabilities, they can easily make small batches to satisfy the need, without negatively impacting their overall operations.

Fram or Amsoil or whoever could have their regular TG or EA product lines, and simply make small batches of premium filters by substituting the better media while retaining all other construction aspects of their mass-production filters- ADBVs, end caps, etc. it shouldn’t be a show stopper to have flexibility on this scale.

Sell them on the company website only so you don’t have to fill an entire supply chain…

HPL isn't a conglomerate

 

[Bellavita]

English is so much fun, lol. I call my wife dude sometimes. She hates it, which is why I do it . I'll also say it to my daughter and she just looks at me like "seriously?". When used with people I'm friendly with, it's never meant as demeaning or diminutive, it's always either meant in a teasing fashion, to get a rise, or like a "wut", like saying "seriously?" because somebody's teasing me back or intentionally giving me grief.

Yeah, when it's somebody I'm not friendly with; whom I don't have a rapport with, and it appears to be used in a manner that's not friendly, I'll take exception, which I believe was the case in that thread.



I don't know, that's one of the reasons I was quite puzzled by these two quotes:


The bolded and underlined bit on the 2nd one was particularly eyebrow raising in the context of being in response to my quoting of the statements made by Jay.

Not sure if it was reading between the lines or assuming, but just going by what words were said in those above two quotes. That's what really threw me.

And that makes more sense. It reads like you are saying that it's not full synthetic, because if it was, they'd have labelled it that way. Which of course contradicts what Jay has said, and that's how I took it. I'm guessing you did not intend for that sentence to read like it does?

Yeah, I mean, there are really only the three types of media, and the primary market for the synthetic media filters has always been heavy industry, so this stuff hasn't historically been consumer facing. I have noticed that some brands in the consumer space (Purolator/Wix) do use the term full synthetic, likely to emphasize that to the consumer, but that doesn't seem to be a big focus point for the OG's in this space.

The website language supports the assumption, while the box language doesn't, it's the new First Brands Paradox