Remember This Fram Video?
- Thread starter Zee09
- Start date
According to Linked IN he is now at Dana.
dnewton3
Staff member
Ahhhhh.... the OG Ultra. How we miss thee!
The GOAT!!
I prefer the new XG with that "Perfect Seal Gasket", the *sprayed on* synthetic layer and the blended media backing for support. Clearly a superior product in every way. 
One comment about the OG XG, it's always been a given and repeated by the previous Fram rep that it had/used Two ply "full synthetic" wire backed media. I'm sticking with that description vs topic vid.
*Description by member @bullwinkle.
One comment about the OG XG, it's always been a given and repeated by the previous Fram rep that it had/used Two ply "full synthetic" wire backed media. I'm sticking with that description vs topic vid.
*Description by member @bullwinkle.
"x3 models listed Or Equivelant TG or XG " doesn't mean ALL of those filter lines. It just means the three mentioned in the asterisk, in this video, that was ISO tested. I think that's what can be confusing & the wording sounds like the whole line of TG or XG's which is not the case. Unless you run one of the mentioned three filters you'll never know what the efficiency is. I won't long for these filters anymore, I'll just simply use the next best other options available. Fresh reminder that there's some truth to "It used to be built better" when hearing some complaints about our consumer products though.
Thanks, we needed that 500th reminder from you.
This has been explained before. They test a range of filter sizes and average that to take out any filter size factor. The XG10575 that Ascent tested wasn't in the list of 3 filters that Fram references for the ISO 4548-2-12 test, and look where that one came in with efficiency. If the same exact media is used for all sizes of filters, then the filter size factor (ie, the total media area in the filter) isn't going to have as much impact on the overall efficiency because the media doesn't shed debris much as the dP increases. On a filter with media that sheds a lot of debris with dP it's going to impact the efficiency on smaller sized filters.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yeah, and interestingly, if you take it apart, the two distinct layers actually pull apart into two additional layers, so it's really 4 layers IMHO.I prefer the new XG with that "Perfect Seal Gasket", the *sprayed on* synthetic layer and the blended media backing for support. Clearly a superior product in every way.
One comment about the OG XG, it's always been a given and repeated by the previous Fram rep that it had/used Two ply "full synthetic" wire backed media. I'm sticking with that description vs topic vid.
*Description by member @bullwinkle.
Fram claims the new Fram Ultra with the new media still has the same efficiency and "up to" mileage rating (ie, holding capacity). Of course it uses more media area to help achieve that. It would be interesting to see an Ascent ISO test on one to see if their claim is still accurate or not. Certainly Fram did ISO testing on it ... they have their own ISO test lab.
I like my OG ULTRA’s not the one above.I prefer the new XG with that "Perfect Seal Gasket", the *sprayed on* synthetic layer and the blended media backing for support. Clearly a superior product in every way.
One comment about the OG XG, it's always been a given and repeated by the previous Fram rep that it had/used Two ply "full synthetic" wire backed media. I'm sticking with that description vs topic vid.
*Description by member @bullwinkle.
The one in the Fram video (6+ years ago) is still the good version of the OG Ultra.
Patman
Staff member
I spent a lot of time trying to convince people that Fram made great filters when the Ultra came out. And just when everyone was starting to believe it, Fram pulled out the rug from under us and started making garbage filters
It took a long time here too for some to believe it was a good filter ... some didn't believe Fram's efficiency claims, and of course the Fram brand haters really didn't believe it. After Ascent did his independent official ISO 4548-12 testing and showed how it compared to the others he tested that seemed to make people realize how good it was.I spent a lot of time trying to convince people that Fram made great filters when the Ultra came out. And just when everyone was starting to believe it, Fram pulled out the rug from under us and started making garbage filters
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
- Joined
- May 5, 2018
- Messages
- 21,043
This video was from 3 years ago and it has the Fram explanation we heard here prior for dumping the wire mesh. I'm not a fan of this guy as we had some minor run ins 
but this was during the changeover.
WcW and Bitog was mentioned...another video that popped up on me.....
but this was during the changeover.WcW and Bitog was mentioned...another video that popped up on me.....
As mentioned, the one in video is the OG XG, just with an inaccurate description of the media type. And I too much prefer the OG XG to current XG. Not even close. My preference description for the current XG was with severe tongue in cheek mode or put another way, /S. So yeah, an attempt at humor about the current XG vs the OG version.
Yeah, that's not what the description of the asterisk is saying. The "or equivalent" is saying the TG or XG of the three models listed only. Also still doesn't "Take out any size factor" for YOUR individual filter you may need to use. Really high efficiency filter will make a low efficiency one look good when it's "averaged" out. That's not good way of doing it. Test each filter & put the specs for buyers to see for crying out loud. Not this average of three referenced filters.
110% right
That's your on-going misconception. This has been explained before, and even Motorking when he was here representing Fram explained it. We even got Fram to clarify their efficiency statement on their website on most models.
For those who understand oil filter efficiency, it should be evident that if you efficiency tested the smallest, middle and largest sized filter (all using the same exact media), and the average of those 3 came out to 99% @ 20u, then all sizes between the smallest and largest filter would also be 99% @ 20u. And as I've mentioned before, there is no way that M+H has ISO 4548-12 tested every filter model they make. They most likely have tested a handful and then used an efficiency model to predict what the other sizes would be. Plus I think M+H may use different media on different sized filters even in the same filter line.
Last edited:
