Rethinking idea that Fram Ultra is the best filter
- Thread starter CharlieBauer
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
I find it interesting that at 9:52 in the following video, the Xtended Guard had a filter effeciency listed at 97%. Every indication on this forum indicates the Ultra was just renamed from Xtended Guard. What's up with that? Jay? The TG had an efficiency listed at 99%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecpkvsnKKNg
and the 2nd :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cttLaWepdL0
There are even comments on the first video wondering why the efficiency changed. Now, we are seeing they just list 99% (99% of what exactly?). Something is fishy...
Those videos are from 2011. The "Xtended Guard" (now called the Ultra) has went through changes from then to now to be the efficiency now listed at 99+% for >20 microns.
I find it interesting that at 9:52 in the following video, the Xtended Guard had a filter effeciency listed at 97%. Every indication on this forum indicates the Ultra was just renamed from Xtended Guard. What's up with that? Jay? The TG had an efficiency listed at 99%.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecpkvsnKKNg
and the 2nd :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cttLaWepdL0
There are even comments on the first video wondering why the efficiency changed. Now, we are seeing they just list 99% (99% of what exactly?). Something is fishy...
Those videos are from 2011. The "Xtended Guard" (now called the Ultra) has went through changes from then to now to be the efficiency now listed at 99+% for >20 microns.
Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
"I think..." is the key. Nobody had any real truths on apple to apple comparisons on the different filter brands. Instead people just reference what's labelled on the box, what is on the website, or what they are told from some "support" (AKA marketing) person within the company that just reads from their script. They change the label on the box (which maybe they changed the parameters in the test somehow, and it is still completely different than another filter manufacturer is doing), people believe it like the gospel. I take the numbers that they reference with a grain of salt, but instead use the build quality of the filter itself as the ultimate judge.
If they are referencing ISO 4548-12 the can just "change the parameters in the test". If they reference ISO 4548-12 they better be able to back-up that they indeed followed the test procedure or be liable for false advertising.
"I think..." is the key. Nobody had any real truths on apple to apple comparisons on the different filter brands. Instead people just reference what's labelled on the box, what is on the website, or what they are told from some "support" (AKA marketing) person within the company that just reads from their script. They change the label on the box (which maybe they changed the parameters in the test somehow, and it is still completely different than another filter manufacturer is doing), people believe it like the gospel. I take the numbers that they reference with a grain of salt, but instead use the build quality of the filter itself as the ultimate judge.
If they are referencing ISO 4548-12 the can just "change the parameters in the test". If they reference ISO 4548-12 they better be able to back-up that they indeed followed the test procedure or be liable for false advertising.
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.
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.
Fram changed the mileage rating multiple times since the Calrecycle paper came out-the original "Xtended Guard" was only rated 7000 miles, then the Ultra was originally 10K, then 15K, now 20K. BTW-these rating numbers are MEANINGLESS on a sludged up, poorly maintained engine-it would be possible to jam up an Ultra when trying to clean a dirty engine-they only mean something on an engine that was clean in the first place. My biggest personal concern is the proliferation of unknown manufacturer filters (Chinese made, mostly) and trying to use them for OEM OLM intervals of 9-10K-and you KNOW that the quickie lubes of the world are using them to save a buck or two-just like the downsized VO-88 that VIOC is using on the Transit, 2/3 the size of the (still small) VO-105 they used to use.
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.
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
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.
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
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.
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
Maybe it should have been developed by someone other than the industry that's making the filters. Just sayin it would likely have a lot less B. S. mixed with the laundry and something that compared apples to apples!
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.
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
Maybe it should have been developed by someone other than the industry that's making the filters. Just sayin it would likely have a lot less B. S. mixed with the laundry and something that compared apples to apples!
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
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.
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
No, I think the test guidelines themselves have validity. I'm not convinced, however, that filter manufacturers are using the same test calibration techniques, test rigs, etc. The fact that Fram's ratings seem to change all the time makes me believe that a manufacturer can easily alter their specifications based on altering the testing environment in such a way that higher numbers are achieved while continuing the meet the guidelines and/or requirements in ISO 4548-12. No specification document is perfect, and unless there is some sort of independent third party, the results are meaningless. It's reason's like this that Energy Star came about to audit energy claims. The reported claims by manufacturers are independently audited to ensure complete compliance, and to ensure each system is tested in the exact same way. IMO - This level of oversight will never happen with oil filters.
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.
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
No, I think the test guidelines themselves have validity. I'm not convinced, however, that filter manufacturers are using the same test calibration techniques, test rigs, etc. The fact that Fram's ratings seem to change all the time makes me believe that a manufacturer can easily alter their specifications based on altering the testing environment in such a way that higher numbers are achieved while continuing the meet the guidelines and/or requirements in ISO 4548-12. No specification document is perfect, and unless there is some sort of independent third party, the results are meaningless. It's reason's like this that Energy Star came about to audit energy claims. The reported claims by manufacturers are independently audited to ensure complete compliance, and to ensure each system is tested in the exact same way. IMO - This level of oversight will never happen with oil filters.
If the media has been updated, that’s fine. Was it done when they changed name from Extended Guard to Ultra Synthetic? The packaging has changed. The XG prefix hasn’t changed.
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Maybe it should have been developed by someone other than the industry that's making the filters. Just sayin it would likely have a lot less B. S. mixed with the laundry and something that compared apples to apples!
ISO 4548-12 was not developed by the companies who make the filters. It's a standard that was developed and approved by the whole industry - on an international level, not some specific filter making company. It's a standard meant for any filter maker in the world to use to give some kind of standardized efficiency rating so it is apples-to-apples. It's the companies that don't use it that become questionable why not.
Maybe it should have been developed by someone other than the industry that's making the filters. Just sayin it would likely have a lot less B. S. mixed with the laundry and something that compared apples to apples!
ISO 4548-12 was not developed by the companies who make the filters. It's a standard that was developed and approved by the whole industry - on an international level, not some specific filter making company. It's a standard meant for any filter maker in the world to use to give some kind of standardized efficiency rating so it is apples-to-apples. It's the companies that don't use it that become questionable why not.
Originally Posted By: SnowmanCO
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
No, I think the test guidelines themselves have validity. I'm not convinced, however, that filter manufacturers are using the same test calibration techniques, test rigs, etc. The fact that Fram's ratings seem to change all the time makes me believe that a manufacturer can easily alter their specifications based on altering the testing environment in such a way that higher numbers are achieved while continuing the meet the guidelines and/or requirements in ISO 4548-12. No specification document is perfect, and unless there is some sort of independent third party, the results are meaningless. It's reason's like this that Energy Star came about to audit energy claims. The reported claims by manufacturers are independently audited to ensure complete compliance, and to ensure each system is tested in the exact same way. IMO - This level of oversight will never happen with oil filters.
Have you ever seen and read ISO 4548-12? It's very stringent on how the test rig and measurement equipment needs to be calibrated, and how the test is supposed to be ran. If all companies followed the procedure correctly then it's meant to give a valid comparison of oil filters tested per the spec. That's how test specs is supposed to work.
The reason a filters efficiency rating changes is because of improvements and changes ... not playing with the test spec.
Believe me, the efficiency claims made by filter makers are also "audited" by other filter makers. You think Fram, Purolator, Mobil 1, etc or any other big filter maker is not going to verify that other filter makers claims in their advertising are true or not and get their lawyers involved when they find their competition is advertising false claims.
If you want to spend $1500 per filter, you can have the Southwest Research Institute run the ISO 4548-12 on any filter you choose. If you find that their test doesn't match a filter makers claims, then get your lawyer involved.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
So you think ISO 4548-12 has no validity? That's an international test spec that's been created and approved by the whole filter industry, and used since the year 2000.
No, I think the test guidelines themselves have validity. I'm not convinced, however, that filter manufacturers are using the same test calibration techniques, test rigs, etc. The fact that Fram's ratings seem to change all the time makes me believe that a manufacturer can easily alter their specifications based on altering the testing environment in such a way that higher numbers are achieved while continuing the meet the guidelines and/or requirements in ISO 4548-12. No specification document is perfect, and unless there is some sort of independent third party, the results are meaningless. It's reason's like this that Energy Star came about to audit energy claims. The reported claims by manufacturers are independently audited to ensure complete compliance, and to ensure each system is tested in the exact same way. IMO - This level of oversight will never happen with oil filters.
Have you ever seen and read ISO 4548-12? It's very stringent on how the test rig and measurement equipment needs to be calibrated, and how the test is supposed to be ran. If all companies followed the procedure correctly then it's meant to give a valid comparison of oil filters tested per the spec. That's how test specs is supposed to work.
The reason a filters efficiency rating changes is because of improvements and changes ... not playing with the test spec.
Believe me, the efficiency claims made by filter makers are also "audited" by other filter makers. You think Fram, Purolator, Mobil 1, etc or any other big filter maker is not going to verify that other filter makers claims in their advertising are true or not and get their lawyers involved when they find their competition is advertising false claims.
If you want to spend $1500 per filter, you can have the Southwest Research Institute run the ISO 4548-12 on any filter you choose. If you find that their test doesn't match a filter makers claims, then get your lawyer involved.
Originally Posted By: MParr
If the media has been updated, that’s fine. Was it done when they changed name from Extended Guard to Ultra Synthetic? The packaging has changed. The XG prefix hasn’t changed.
If you had the history trail of the initial Extended Guard design to the Ultra of today, you'd see how it changed as it was updated over the years. bullwinkle already mentioned the basic changes over the years. There was no need to change the "XG" model designation.
If the media has been updated, that’s fine. Was it done when they changed name from Extended Guard to Ultra Synthetic? The packaging has changed. The XG prefix hasn’t changed.
If you had the history trail of the initial Extended Guard design to the Ultra of today, you'd see how it changed as it was updated over the years. bullwinkle already mentioned the basic changes over the years. There was no need to change the "XG" model designation.
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
The current Fram Ultra is 99%+ at 20 microns, and 80% at 5 microns.
Where did the 80% at 5 microns number come from? Was it actually tested with 5 micron particles or was the 80% efficiency extrapolated?
The current Fram Ultra is 99%+ at 20 microns, and 80% at 5 microns.
Where did the 80% at 5 microns number come from? Was it actually tested with 5 micron particles or was the 80% efficiency extrapolated?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Have you ever seen and read ISO 4548-12? It's very stringent on how the test rig and measurement equipment needs to be calibrated
In another thread, Motorking stated that all major filter manufacturers use ISO-4548.
Yet we have the confusion about Mann's testing which you've pointed out in another thread.
Have you ever seen and read ISO 4548-12? It's very stringent on how the test rig and measurement equipment needs to be calibrated
In another thread, Motorking stated that all major filter manufacturers use ISO-4548.
Yet we have the confusion about Mann's testing which you've pointed out in another thread.
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Have you ever seen and read ISO 4548-12? It's very stringent on how the test rig and measurement equipment needs to be calibrated
In another thread, Motorking stated that all major filter manufacturers use ISO-4548.
Yet we have the confusion about Mann's testing which you've pointed out in another thread.
Well, apparently M+H doesn't for some reason - or has "modified" ISO 4548-12 with some ISO 16889 DNA.
Why not email M+H and ask them why they use a morphed ISO 4548-12 and why they reference ISO 16889 that is really meant for filters that are beta 75 (98.7%) and above.
M+H is "doing their own thing" it seems which is not what companies should do when there's a specific test standard that was invented to be used for comparison purposes.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Have you ever seen and read ISO 4548-12? It's very stringent on how the test rig and measurement equipment needs to be calibrated
In another thread, Motorking stated that all major filter manufacturers use ISO-4548.
Yet we have the confusion about Mann's testing which you've pointed out in another thread.
Well, apparently M+H doesn't for some reason - or has "modified" ISO 4548-12 with some ISO 16889 DNA.
Why not email M+H and ask them why they use a morphed ISO 4548-12 and why they reference ISO 16889 that is really meant for filters that are beta 75 (98.7%) and above.
M+H is "doing their own thing" it seems which is not what companies should do when there's a specific test standard that was invented to be used for comparison purposes.
^ See my reply in the other thread.
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
^ See my reply in the other thread.
Already saw and replied. IMO, M+H is "doing their own thing" ... and not actually following approved test standards meant to test their passenger car filters for IC engine use. They are referencing test spec ISO 16889 meant to test hydraulic oil filters that are way more efficient than full flow filters used on passenger car IC engines. That makes them the odd-ball in reporting filter efficiency IMO.
^ See my reply in the other thread.
Already saw and replied. IMO, M+H is "doing their own thing" ... and not actually following approved test standards meant to test their passenger car filters for IC engine use. They are referencing test spec ISO 16889 meant to test hydraulic oil filters that are way more efficient than full flow filters used on passenger car IC engines. That makes them the odd-ball in reporting filter efficiency IMO.
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?
dnewton3
Staff member
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.
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.
Last edited:
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?
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
