REPORT: Fram Ultra stock is spotty around here. NOS still around.

Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
10,647
Location
Virginia
It's a tough guard.....

And deep down you know it.

By the way....

I had a over hour long phone conversation with Andrew about this.... I asked him if 99.8 percent at 15 would be 80 percent at 5 microns and he agreed with that.

That graph the new fools put on there is a blatant lie....

Andrew's test proved what Jay said was accurate.

They are not telling the truth.... That OG Fram ultra was better than the tg stuff they are peddling now.


Now... That doesn't mean the new tg is a bad filter... It's not.

It is a very good filter. Which will work extremely well.

They just took a legit exceptionally high end filter... Cheapened it... Still a very good product.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
10,647
Location
Virginia
Tyman...


Your buddies are lying to you.

That old graph is made up... To justify them cheapening the older product.

Just because someone makes a graph.... Doesn't make it accurate or ever true.
 
Last edited:

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,086
Location
PNW
Tyman...

Your buddies are lying to you.

That old graph is made up... To justify them cheapening the older product.

Just because someone makes a graph.... Doesn't make it accurate or ever true.
What "graph" are you referring to?
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,086
Location
PNW
It's a tough guard.....
And deep down you know it.
By the way....
I had a over hour long phone conversation with Andrew about this.... I asked him if 99.8 percent at 15 would be 80 percent at 5 microns and he agreed with that.
That graph the new fools put on there is a blatant lie....
Andrew's test proved what Jay said was accurate.
They are not telling the truth.... That OG Fram ultra was better than the tg stuff they are peddling now.
Now... That doesn't mean the new tg is a bad filter... It's not.
It is a very good filter. Which will work extremely well.
They just took a legit exceptionally high end filter... Cheapened it... Still a very good product.
I'm sure Andrew would agree that when comparing the ISO efficiency test of different sized oil filters there can be a difference in the efficiency below 20u due to the way the filter loads and builds delta-p as the test nears the end point. The ISO efficiency is the average efficiency of the new filter vs a near fully loaded condition of the filter. A smaller filter will load up faster and have higher delta-p near the end of the test, and therefore potentially slough off more captured debris and hurt the efficiency. Remember all the past talk about the 4 smallest PureOne filters having an ISO efficiency rating of 99% at 40u (printed on the box) instead of all the other PureOne models having a rated efficiency of 99% @ 20u. There's a reason for that ... the size of the filter, and what I just said above.

Yes, Andrew's test verified that Fram was telling the truth about the Ultra's efficiency. So why do you think they would all of a sudden lie about the new Ultra efficiency? If Fram puts the ISO efficiency as "xx% @ yy microns and above" on their website and box, and it's really not do you think the Fram's legal department would go for participating in false advertising in today's market and leave them open to legal action by another large filter manufacture? The large filter companies watch each other, and even test the competitions filters in their own test labs - Fram does this per what Motorking has posted in the past. From Andrew's testing, it seems that Fram was basically the most honest/accurate in their advertised efficiency claims.

Until someone can test the same filter model old and new Ultras on the same test machine we will never know and "debate" it forever.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
13,095
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
If the concern is small particles "sloughing off" in use, there's really no way to beat a multilayer full synthetic media filter (like the OG Ultra, RP, Stratapore, Blue, etc.)-the depth media will trap small particles inside where it would be difficult for them to escape. The minute Fram lied about the older, original efficiency specs from Jay Buckley, & corroborated by Andrew at Ascent, I pretty much lost confidence in all their newer quoted specs. Looks like Fram is learning something from Mann & Hummel, and not in a good way...
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
13,095
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
I'm sure Andrew would agree that when comparing the ISO efficiency test of different sized oil filters there can be a difference in the efficiency below 20u due to the way the filter loads and builds delta-p as the test nears the end point. The ISO efficiency is the average efficiency of the new filter vs a near fully loaded condition of the filter. A smaller filter will load up faster and have higher delta-p near the end of the test, and therefore potentially slough off more captured debris and hurt the efficiency. Remember all the past talk about the 4 smallest PureOne filters having an ISO efficiency rating of 99% at 40u (printed on the box) instead of all the other PureOne models having a rated efficiency of 99% @ 20u. There's a reason for that ... the size of the filter, and what I just said above.

Yes, Andrew's test verified that Fram was telling the truth about the Ultra's efficiency. So why do you think they would all of a sudden lie about the new Ultra efficiency? If Fram puts the ISO efficiency as "xx% @ yy microns and above" on their website and box, and it's really not do you think the Fram's legal department would go for participating in false advertising in today's market and leave them open to legal action by another large filter manufacture? The large filter companies watch each other, and even test the competitions filters in their own test labs - Fram does this per what Motorking has posted in the past. From Andrew's testing, it seems that Fram was basically the most honest/accurate in their advertised efficiency claims.

Until someone can test the same filter model old and new Ultras on the same test machine we will never know and "debate" it forever.
The issue with the NEW Ultra is no one knows what the actual capacity is going to be-there's no way it can hold as much for as long with a thin layer of synthetic media over blend. I'll run them, but 7500 is the absolute limit-which means they're not worth their new inflated price.
 
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Messages
911
Location
Off World
The issue with the NEW Ultra is no one knows what the actual capacity is going to be-there's no way it can hold as much for as long with a thin layer of synthetic media over blend. I'll run them, but 7500 is the absolute limit-which means they're not worth their new inflated price.
Bullwinkle, I respectfully ask. What did Fram lie about? I'm asking constructively. Thanks in advance!
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,086
Location
PNW
The issue with the NEW Ultra is no one knows what the actual capacity is going to be-there's no way it can hold as much for as long with a thin layer of synthetic media over blend. I'll run them, but 7500 is the absolute limit-which means they're not worth their new inflated price.
In case you missed previous discussions, there is a lot more media in the new Ultras. That is to keep holding capacity and flow performance high. I highly doubt Fram is going to still rate the new Ultra at 20K miles when it couldn't do it. Fram and other filter companies rate the holding capacity with the ISO testing, just like they rate the efficiency.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
13,095
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Bullwinkle, I respectfully ask. What did Fram lie about? I'm asking constructively. Thanks in advance!
There was (is?) a member here named Jay Buckley, handle of “motorking”, who was Director of Marketing for Fram in their days under Rank Group (possibly even before), he took several members on tours of their plant in Greenville, OH (I was busy with work, couldn’t make it)-he was the one who provided the 5 micron spec and confirmed the other (now debunked) efficiency specs of the old, full multilayer synthetic OG Ultra. Now Fram gets sold to First Brands/Trico, and suddenly all those old, higher efficiency specs are magically lowered to make the newer, cheaper to produce (yet HIGHER in cost) new Ultra look superior. Jay was around BITOG for years, he had no reason to make up numbers, and actually helped members here with Fram issues and questions. Like I stated above, Fram is learning from Mann-shovel enough crap, maybe people will start to believe it!
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
35,086
Location
PNW
There was (is?) a member here named Jay Buckley, handle of “motorking”, who was Director of Marketing for Fram in their days under Rank Group (possibly even before), he took several members on tours of their plant in Greenville, OH (I was busy with work, couldn’t make it)-he was the one who provided the 5 micron spec and confirmed the other (now debunked) efficiency specs of the old, full multilayer synthetic OG Ultra. Now Fram gets sold to First Brands/Trico, and suddenly all those old, higher efficiency specs are magically lowered to make the newer, cheaper to produce (yet HIGHER in cost) new Ultra look superior. Jay was around BITOG for years, he had no reason to make up numbers, and actually helped members here with Fram issues and questions. Like I stated above, Fram is learning from Mann-shovel enough crap, maybe people will start to believe it!
Which filter model was associated with the 80% @ 5u claim of the OG Ultra? What were the other now debunked efficiency specs of the old OG Ultra you speak of?

As mentioned before, the only way to verify the performance of the new Ultra compared to the old Ultra would be for the same exact filter model number be ISO 4548-12 tested on the same test equipment by the same test operator.
 
Top