Rethinking idea that Fram Ultra is the best filter

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: dlundblad
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There's nothing wrong with a company doing their own thing, as long as they clarify what they are doing, and/or not doing.
But to help understand relative performances, it helps when most use a common standard. Hence the ISO 4548-12, as one of many.

I used to work in the auto industry (for Ford).
I now work in the HVAC industry.
Those both have internal and external governance for testing protocol.

Until you work in the industry, it's sometimes hard to understand the whys and wherefor's of what is done.

Sometimes industry standards or tests change to reflect the advances in technology.
Sometimes a product changes, in response to a market demand or corporate directive, and then the performance of that product changes accordingly. (like the evolution of the "Ultra" and it's predecessor).


I thought you were a LEO?



I am that also. Like many cops, I have more than one job. Many are also EMS/Firefighters. I chose to use my engineering degree.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Mann Germany apparently lumps full flow W oil filters with hydraulic, which makes sense because full flow oil filters are hydraulic. It could be they want the extended range of the 16889, rather than the beta 75, 10 micron limit of the other multi test often quoted. Now what test does that 80% @ 5 microns come from?

Not trying to argue, but per the test spec summaries shown below there is a difference between the specs depending on what filters are to be tested. If M+H is using ISO 16889 on oil filters meant to be used on IC passenger car engines, then they are technically not using the right test spec.

And yes, I agree they could have "done their own thing" and tried to adopt the ISO 16889 spec to IC engine filters that should have technically been tested under ISO 4548-12 ... maybe they did it to save some costs in the labs. Regardless, they are not following adopted industry standard for IC engine oil filter testing. Those M+H filters are not efficient enough to warrant an ISO 16889 test.

The 80% @ 5 microns came from an ISO 4548-12 test per Jay Buckley (Motorking). ISO 4548-12 can test down to 5 microns as shown in the data measurement table in ISO 4548-12 (also shown below).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
There's nothing wrong with a company doing their own thing, as long as they clarify what they are doing, and/or not doing.
But to help understand relative performances, it helps when most use a common standard. Hence the ISO 4548-12, as one of many.

I used to work in the auto industry (for Ford).
I now work in the HVAC industry.
Those both have internal and external governance for testing protocol.

Until you work in the industry, it's sometimes hard to understand the whys and wherefor's of what is done.

Sometimes industry standards or tests change to reflect the advances in technology.
Sometimes a product changes, in response to a market demand or corporate directive, and then the performance of that product changes accordingly. (like the evolution of the "Ultra" and it's predecessor).

Even if a product like an Ultra used the exact same filter media, the application of the media into different filters (height, width, inlet/outlet flow rates, BP values, etc) are going to cause some small differences in overall efficiency. Fram isn't going to test every single filter to get the 2/20/75 beta data. They will rate a series of filters that are based on a representative filter.

In the HVAC industry, we don't test every single combination of split systems (furnace, condenser, evap coil). We test certain high-volume combinations and then "rate" others based on modeling. That is an industry proven method and actually is accepted by governmental auditing agencies. We can show this to be accurate to a degree that appeases the audit agencies. It's not perfect, but it's close enough.

Same goes for a filter I would guess. Most companies probably test the high-sales-volume units, and then "rate" their other filters based on measurable criteria and project other unit performance accordingly.

Some of you need to just relax the sphincter and learn to worry 'bout other stuff, because filtration is not worth having a stroke over.


Exactly ... good post.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Hmmmm, very interesting. I come back from a brief vacation and FRAM ULTRA is not as good of an oil filter as it was before? It just so happens that I received an email from ROCKAUTO.COM last week with a clearance on certain parts for my truck. One item was a WIX XP 51516 oil filter for $3.14. Naturally, I jumped all over it. I think it's Z06 that doesn't like WIX, or frustrates members from buying them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I think it's Z06 that doesn't like WIX, or frustrates members from buying them.

It's as good as before ... no change, no worries.

I like WIX filters, just not certain ones. People choose a filter based on facts, and there's a reason some people don't like certain filters for various reasons.

You like your "vacation"?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: oshia86
So, what does the build quality tell you? You can determine how well the filter will filter due to your assessment of the filters build quality? Doesn't that fall into the "i think" category?

For the most part, that's true. On the other hand, would you want a filter that falls apart during use? Would you be satisfied with surface rust on the exterior of the filter? Would you be okay if the paint all flaked off during a 3 month OCI?

The latter examples I mentioned wouldn't affect filtration, but if there's no pride in the appearance of the filter, I'm not sure there's any pride in the QC of any of it.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I think it's Z06 that doesn't like WIX, or frustrates members from buying them.

It's as good as before ... no change, no worries.

I like WIX filters, just not certain ones. People choose a filter based on facts, and there's a reason some people don't like certain filters for various reasons.

You like your "vacation"?

I still don't know why I was chosen to go on one. I'll PM you later.
Do you blame me for buying that WIX at that price? I am a die hard FU fan now, but what's this about them being bad? Is there a kink in the FU's armor that I'm not aware of? DO TELL!

 

[ZeeOSix]

BOF ... nothing bad about them, just more fake news. Gotta filter the wheat from the chaff around this place.

You buy what you want based on your own requirements.

 

[dnewton3]

BOF - at that price, I'd certainly jump all over a Wix/NG!
Wix isn't the "best", only because I refuse to get into a rant about what it "best".
Wix is a great filter; one that I trust and seems to have minimal reports of quality issues.


There are many very good filters; best is only in the eye of beholder.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I am that also. Like many cops, I have more than one job. Many are also EMS/Firefighters. I chose to use my engineering degree.

Sure, but they're picking up part-time jobs doing something else; they're not engineers. I know Indiana has unpaid, volunteer cops up there; are you one of these guys?

What's your engineering degree in (level/discipline)?

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Mann Germany apparently lumps full flow W oil filters with hydraulic, which makes sense because full flow oil filters are hydraulic. It could be they want the extended range of the 16889, rather than the beta 75, 10 micron limit of the other multi test often quoted. Now what test does that 80% @ 5 microns come from?

Not trying to argue, but per the test spec summaries shown below there is a difference between the specs depending on what filters are to be tested. If M+H is using ISO 16889 on oil filters meant to be used on IC passenger car engines, then they are technically not using the right test spec.

And yes, I agree they could have "done their own thing" and tried to adopt the ISO 16889 spec to IC engine filters that should have technically been tested under ISO 4548-12 ... maybe they did it to save some costs in the labs. Regardless, they are not following adopted industry standard for IC engine oil filter testing. Those M+H filters are not efficient enough to warrant an ISO 16889 test.

The 80% @ 5 microns came from an ISO 4548-12 test per Jay Buckley (Motorking). ISO 4548-12 can test down to 5 microns as shown in the data measurement table in ISO 4548-12 (also shown below).









I see where it says 10 microns lower limit which is my question, and where I got it is the same place you show. The empty table might go to other numbers, but that doesn't mean anything is put in the box under 5 microns.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
BOF - at that price, I'd certainly jump all over a Wix/NG!
Wix isn't the "best", only because I refuse to get into a rant about what it "best".
Wix is a great filter; one that I trust and seems to have minimal reports of quality issues.


There are many very good filters; best is only in the eye of beholder.

D3, I still don't know why RA sold that WIX at that price, but I wasn't going to Q? them. I'm not that sharp when it comes to the BETA RATIO and such, but if a WIX oil filter does not filter as well as everyone states, why do they sell so many of them? I like the idea of it being a base plate by-pass oil filter, instead of having the oil flow over dirty pleats, then going into the engine. Am I wrong for thinking this way? I know, the FU in my application flows the latter way I explained, but it's a FU with a proven track record. I don't know where my thought process is sometimes; I guess I rely on members like you to help me sift through all of the trash and use the better ones.

 

[oshia86]

Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
Originally Posted By: oshia86
So, what does the build quality tell you? You can determine how well the filter will filter due to your assessment of the filters build quality? Doesn't that fall into the "i think" category?


Yep, it does. I can examine the number of pleats in the filter media, the thickness of the media itself, and the quality of the materials used. It tells me much more than the junk numbers I'm seeing put out. They seem completely worthless, and numbers from different manufacturers don't correlate at all. My point is that without strict regulation on how the test are run, a percentage number is meaningless to me.


Honestly, all of that tells you exactly zilch about how well the filter actually filters. Sure, it's obviously apparently when something is made of premium materials or follows what we know as good design, but you CAN NOT visually tell the difference in a filter that filters 90% at 50 microns and one that filters 90% at 20 microns. To argue the industries standard testing protocol, however honest the company may be, and say "I looked at it" is exactly the opposite of what this forum finds as credible, imo. The end goal here is to buy better filters, right? Not prettier filters?

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: oshia86
So, what does the build quality tell you? You can determine how well the filter will filter due to your assessment of the filters build quality? Doesn't that fall into the "i think" category?

For the most part, that's true. On the other hand, would you want a filter that falls apart during use? Would you be satisfied with surface rust on the exterior of the filter? Would you be okay if the paint all flaked off during a 3 month OCI?

The latter examples I mentioned wouldn't affect filtration, but if there's no pride in the appearance of the filter, I'm not sure there's any pride in the QC of any of it.


Sure, it goes without saying that nobody here wants a filter that falls apart or rusts. I don't believe any mentioned here are known for having those issues though.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I see where it says 10 microns lower limit which is my question, and where I got it is the same place you show.

All 4548-12 is saying is the test is for filters that have an efficiency that's less than 99% at 10u ... which pretty much includes even the most efficient filters used on IC engines. If the filter has better efficiency than that, then ISO 16889 should probably be used.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The empty table might go to other numbers, but that doesn't mean anything is put in the box under 5 microns.

Here's Section 9.3.7 out of 4548-12 that tells what particle sizes should be measured. If the test setup has 6 channels or more, then it goes down to 5 microns. Only time that 5 microns would not be measured is if the test bench only has 5 channel particle counters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I'm not that sharp when it comes to the BETA RATIO and such, but if a WIX oil filter does not filter as well as everyone states, why do they sell so many of them?


Because most people don't understand beta ratios and efficiency specs. And some people don't care about efficiency as much as they care about construction and looks. You like a base end bypass valve, so that feature right there is probably one of the main reasons you bought it - nothing wrong with that. Just how it is in the consumer world.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: oshia86
Sure, it goes without saying that nobody here wants a filter that falls apart or rusts. I don't believe any mentioned here are known for having those issues though.

I exaggerated to make a point. We do, however, see oil filters that demonstrate surface rust, flecking paint, filters that have torn ADBVs, that have very brittle media, have burrs on the threads, poorly opened louvers, and so forth.

Now, I don't need a filter cannister made out of titanium, nor do I need filter seams to be glued and stapled and kevlar sewn all at the same time. I want to see a bit of pride in workmanship. Note that I don't just get annoyed with Purolator for this. I was very dissatisfied with Wix louvers that I saw. And the Fram orange can doesn't impress me, particularly given its price in this marketplace. So, I can be perturbed at any brand when they let something silly slip.

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
I'm not that sharp when it comes to the BETA RATIO and such, but if a WIX oil filter does not filter as well as everyone states, why do they sell so many of them?


Because most people don't understand beta ratios and efficiency specs. And some people don't care about efficiency as much as they care about construction and looks. You like a base end bypass valve, so that feature right there is probably one of the main reasons you bought it - nothing wrong with that. Just how it is in the consumer world.

One of the reasons why I like WIX filters is because my dad used them exclusively on his heavy equipment. He also used BALDWIN. But, there was a reason he used WIX. I don't think he used them because they looked good. I think he knew it was a good filter by trial and error of all the filters that were out there. If I remember correctly, he used ALLIED-SIGNAL filters as well. Which eventually became FRAM, correct? And then Honeywell bought them out, correct? I know a little bit about filtration, growing up around heavy equipment and racing/engine building. IMO, I think these 2 filter applications (heavy equipment & racing) demand more from filtration then most applications out there. Think about it........

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The 80% @ 5 microns came from an ISO 4548-12 test per Jay Buckley (Motorking).


Does it mean they actually measured efficiency with 5 micron and above particles or does it mean the 80% number is extrapolated? Back in 2012, Motorking said this so it sounds it would have been extrapolated:

Originally Posted By: Motorking
We run ISO 4548-12 tests using particle sizes in 10-20 micron range for all claims.


https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2653866

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
The 80% @ 5 microns came from an ISO 4548-12 test per Jay Buckley (Motorking).


Does it mean they actually measured efficiency with 5 micron and above particles or does it mean the 80% number is extrapolated? Back in 2012, Motorking said this so it sounds it would have been extrapolated:

Originally Posted By: Motorking
We run ISO 4548-12 tests using particle sizes in 10-20 micron range for all claims.


https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2653866


That was back in 2012 ... so could be they now measure down to 5 microns. Motorking would have to chime in and clarify.

Send Jay an email to his email address shown in his signature and ask ... he'll probably answer.

Note my posts in that 2012 thread ... that's when I was first learning about and scrutinizing the Ultra.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I see where it says 10 microns lower limit which is my question, and where I got it is the same place you show.

All 4548-12 is saying is the test is for filters that have an efficiency that's less than 99% at 10u ... which pretty much includes even the most efficient filters used on IC engines. If the filter has better efficiency than that, then ISO 16889 should probably be used.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The empty table might go to other numbers, but that doesn't mean anything is put in the box under 5 microns.

Here's Section 9.3.7 out of 4548-12 that tells what particle sizes should be measured. If the test setup has 6 channels or more, then it goes down to 5 microns. Only time that 5 microns would not be measured is if the test bench only has 5 channel particle counters.




I used your quote about the 10 micron test limit. So now you come up with something to say that's wrong too. Maybe the extra counter is the 16889 test calibration as it contains 50 like Mann uses, whereas the other only goes to 40.