The New Fram Ultra......

[bbhero]

Of course not ... but what's that got to do with anything or how it relates to the new media that doesn't need a screen backing? The Ultra came out 8-10 years ago and from then until now with the media it had, it needed a screen backing ... simple as that. That was then, this is now.

Nothing wrong with it unless: 1) It has structural problems not found by Fram by testing, or 2) The flow vs delta-p performance is much worse. Without actual test data #2 can't be verified, but as I mentioned earlier it couldn't be rated at 99% @ 20u and 20K miles if the flow performance and holding capacity was much worse.

I'm not really worried about the new media. Future C&Ps will show if there are any structural integrity issues, especially filters ran over the cold winter time when the oil is much thicker at start-up and warm-up.

Zee... it's a tough guard filter media with a hard synthetic blend backing.

It will work extremely well. No doubt in that being the case.

Though like Duckryder has noted the efficiency is less 74 percent at 10 microns... Not 80 percent at 5 microns like the old filter material.

It's a cheaper made product selling for the premium price point.

A TG with gold paint and the cool "name".

 

[4WD]

Bottom line: If the new version filters as well, or better than the old, then the mesh is not necessary. But I'm conceding you are correct in that if the old media was not rigid enough on its own, then sure, the mesh would serve a purpose.

So if the new media is a technical advance, then you are right again, it was necessary before. But if not, then they could have engineered it before without the mesh. In that case, the mesh really wasn't necessary to achieve the desired filtering efficiency. So why do it? I suspect if that's the case, it was to make us all feel that the filter is stronger and will withstand greater pressure.

In my Rubicon

https://www.fram.com/parts-search/XG11665/

 

[ZeeOSix]

Zee... it's a tough guard filter media with a hard synthetic blend backing. It will work extremely well. No doubt in that being the case.

I'd think it's more like a layer of full synthetic on top of the TG hard synthetic blend media. The media construction is shown in the YT videos in this thread.

Though like Duckryder has noted the efficiency is less 74 percent at 10 microns... Not 80 percent at 5 microns like the old filter material.

There is no test data verification except word of mouth that it meets 80% @ 5u, but I'd guess it probably did based on Ascent Filter Testing graph extrapolation. Like said, if AFT did the same ISO testing on a new XG10575 to compare we would know more on how the old vs new media compares in flow vs delta-p, efficiency, hockey stick curve and holding capacity.

It's a cheaper made product selling for the premium price point.

A TG with gold paint and the cool "name".

Maybe ... but I'm not convinced of that yet.

 

[bbhero]

I'd rather just get a Fram Force filter from AAP because at least it's a straight forward product. It's a tough guard... And that is a very good filter.

I'd think it's more like a layer of full synthetic on top of the TG hard synthetic blend media. The media construction is shown in the YT videos in this thread.


There is not verification except work of mouth that it meet 80% @ 5u, but I'd guess it did based on Ascent Filter Testing graph extrapolation. Like said, if AFT did the same ISO testing on a new XG10575 to compare we would know more on how the old vs new media compares in flow vs delta-p and efficiency, hockey stick curve and holding capacity.


Maybe ... but I'm not convinced of that yet.

It's a tough guard.... Internally.... A TG...

With pretty Gold paint and the cool name. ..
IF.....

That filter material looked exactly like the OLD filter material.... With the whiz bang synthetic blend backing....

That would be cool. And it would make sense.


This... Does not look like that at all.

It appears and seems to be a TG...

Thus..... All the "new" and added filter media...

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's a tough guard.... Internally.... A TG...

With pretty Gold paint and the cool name. ..
IF.....

That filter material looked exactly like the OLD filter material.... With the whiz bang synthetic blend backing....

The TG is not dual layer media. There wasn't much efficiency difference between the TG and old Ultra media. But I don't think the new Ultra media is exactly the same as the TG because the new Ultra is still a 20K rated filter while the TG is still a 15K rated filter.

 

[Obi Wan Noobi]

I'd think it's more like a layer of full synthetic on top of the TG hard synthetic blend media. The media construction is shown in the YT videos in this thread.

Here is the rub: it used to be spun micro-glass. I wonder what they're using now?

 

[bbhero]

The TG is not dual layer media. There wasn't much efficiency difference between the TG and old Ultra media. But I don't think the new Ultra media is exactly the same as the TG because the new Ultra is still a 20K rated filter while the TG is still a 15K rated filter.

They are using TG filter media in that cool name pretty gold paint filter.

Ask yourself a couple of common sense questions...

If that "new" filter media was so great...

Why the necessity for adding so many more pleats???

Why the vastly different appearance ???

 

[ZeeOSix]

They are using TG filter media in that cool name pretty gold paint filter.

Ask yourself a couple of common sense questions...

If that "new" filter media was so great...

Why the necessity for adding so many more pleats???

Why the vastly different appearance ???

BB ... so you think the media in the new Ultra is exactly the same as the current TG? That's what it sounds like ... ??

The media area most likely went up to keep the flow vs delta-p performance near the same and to keep the 20K mile rating holding capacity.

 

[bbhero]

Ahh it's possible....

IF it's TG filter material. Not that is bad or horrible...

It's not. No doubt. That material or Force material is really quite good. No doubt.

If it's not that TG or Fram Force filter material. . It surely looks vastly different.And not the same quality has the previous filter material. Therefore the necessity of adding so much more filter pleats.

And the word of mouth... Was from Jay Buckley who was extremely involved with Fram testing. Someone who we seemingly trusted at the time... That 80 percent at 5 microns was quite likely accurate given Andrew's testing results.

Again...

Why the difference in appearance ?

Vastly different...

Why not....

They get rid of the metal backing...

Use the same filter material that was in there.

And utilize the new hard synthetic blend backing.

 

[Addicted2jeepz]

First and foremost, I'm not worried about the new design, I have faith in Fram and it makes sense to me to remove it if no longer needed.

Now... Just wanted to say that I have (2) XG10575 that I bought from Blain's Farm and Fleet last week. They have them with $3 off for rewards members, so they cost under $8 each. They both have the new box, but I just opened them up and shined a light in them. 1 has the metal screen, 1 does not.
Date codes:
A11863 = wire backing
A11682 = NO wire backing

I also bought (1) XG3614 the same day for $6.50, it has the new box but has the wire backing.
A11692 = wire backing

 

[ZeeOSix]

Now... Just wanted to say that I have (2) XG10575 that I bought from Blain's Farm and Fleet last week. They have them with $3 off for rewards members, so they cost under $8 each. They both have the new box, but I just opened them up and shined a light in them. 1 has the metal screen, 1 does not.
Date codes:
A11863 = wire backing
A11682 = NO wire backing

I also bought (1) XG3614 the same day for $6.50, it has the new box but has the wire backing.
A11692 = wire backing

Strange that the one without wire backing was made 18 days before the one with wire backing.

 

[bbhero]

I do believe this current redesign filter will perform extremely well. I have really no doubt about that being the case.

My first point of contention is that they did cheapen the product. I don't care about the backing being metal or synthetic blend material. That is a change that does make sense.

The obviously different filter material is obviously a cheaper filter material. As evidenced by the 74 percent at 10 microns "new" filter media vs 80 percent at 5 microns with the old filter media.

Will that make any real world difference ?

No. It will not in all extremely high likelihood.

If someone can actually find and buy and cut open a really new TG filter that would be good to see.

But where are they for sale ??

Not at Napa. Not at AAP. Not at AZ. Not at O Reilly's. Not at Federated Auto parts. And I don't believe they are at Wally World anymore. They were clearance sold out of there awhile ago.

I guess Rockauto may have them. Then whatever they have is typically old stock.

When Fram made the Ultra they did hit a home run. Of note was in the years following that Ultra filter being made changes did happen with the EG and TG filters. More filter media added to certain models aka the EG or TG 8s filters or EG or TG 16s, or the EG and TG 7317s, or the EG and TG 3506s and that made those look far better upon cutting them open. No more warped or shabby looking EGs or TGs. They really looked far better than they did before. Like the saying goes... High tide raises all boats. That did appear to be the case with Fram filters.

 

[Addicted2jeepz]

Strange that the one without wire backing was made 18 days before the one with wire backing.

Agreed, possibly multiple lines? Or they had more to use up after a trial run of the new style?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Need to see a TG and a new Ultra of the same model side-by-side and close ups of the media. IMO, it doesn't look the same ... new Ultra media is more fuzzy looking on the outside and TG media is more smooth looking. They are not the same media, and can't be if the TG is single layer and the new Ultra media is dual layer (which it is based on YT video posted in this thread).

 

[OVERKILL]

That may be, but the new material appears to filter even better and doesn't require it. Therefore I think it was unnecessary unless the new filter media was not yet developed, which may be the case.

The "new" media is using a traditional pore-block cellulose or cellulose hybrid backing, which doesn't require a metal support screen, faced with some manner of synthetic (depth filtration) media. The synthetic media by itself absolutely requires some sort of backing because it is soft. But, depth filtration media has the advantage of flowing better for a given filtration rating as well as for a given surface area. This is how glass media filters are able to offer both better filtration and higher flow.

You can increase the flow of traditional (cellulose) media filters by increasing the surface area (which FRAM seems to have done) as evidenced by the PureONE test data that @ZeeOSix referenced, but within the confines of a typical filter canister, a fully synthetic media, without a cellulose component, will have the ability to out-flow a blend or hybrid media. Whether that's in any way consequential to the application? Well, that's a whole other discussion.

It's quite possible to maintain the same level of filtration efficiency with a cellulose blend, nobody is arguing that. But they've likely sacrificed a bit of flow in doing so, that's why they increased pleat count/surface area, to try and counteract that.

This change allows them to assemble the Ultra in the same way they've assembled the other filters, improving production efficiency. It's a logical move from a production perspective, but I don't for a second believe it has resulted in a superior product, simply one that offers comparable filtration performance.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The obviously different filter material is obviously a cheaper filter material. As evidenced by the 74 percent at 10 microns "new" filter media vs 80 percent at 5 microns with the old filter media.

That could depend on which filter model it is. As shown per the info from Fram engineering on the XG10060 model in post #57, the efficiency went up on particles less than 20u (at 10 and 15 microns). So who really knows for sure.

The XG10575 that Andrew tested is larger in size than the XG10060, which might have made numbers come out different - but a visual extrapolation of Andrew's test data looks like the old Ultra XG10575 would hit 80% @ 5u. Need to compare the ISO efficiency between an old vs new filter on the same exact filter model in the same ISO test lab for a better comparison.

 

[Obi Wan Noobi]

It's a logical move from a production perspective, but I don't for a second believe it has resulted in a superior product, simply one that offers comparable filtration performance.

Will you continue to use their filters?

 

[OVERKILL]

Will you continue to use their filters?

I'll probably switch to another fully synthetic media filter, like AMSOIL. As I mentioned previously, Fleetguard does make a few passenger car sizes with their synthetic media, but I doubt they make one that fits the 6.4L (though I haven't checked admittedly). I bought a case of the Donaldson ones years back when I owned two Windsors, they were great filters.

 

[OVERKILL]

I'll probably switch to another fully synthetic media filter, like AMSOIL. As I mentioned previously, Fleetguard does make a few passenger car sizes with their synthetic media, but I doubt they make one that fits the 6.4L (though I haven't checked admittedly). I bought a case of the Donaldson ones years back when I owned two Windsors, they were great filters.

Looks like I'm wrong, Fleetguard DOES make a filter that crosses to the PH2 (if you search for the XG2 they say they don't have a cross, lol):
https://catalog.cumminsfiltration.c...artflag1=5&forPartNumber=LF3681&criteria=part

The LF16002

Vague filtration data, 100% at 30 microns, lol.

They don't make a synthetic media cross for the smaller 5.7L truck filter.

Donaldson makes a traditional (cellulose) filter, but no Synteq version.

Perhaps @NashNative can provide us some better filtration data for the LF16002?

 

[jake wells]

Looks like I'm wrong, Fleetguard DOES make a filter that crosses to the PH2 (if you search for the XG2 they say they don't have a cross, lol):
https://catalog.cumminsfiltration.c...artflag1=5&forPartNumber=LF3681&criteria=part

The LF16002

Vague filtration data, 100% at 30 microns, lol.

They don't make a synthetic media cross for the smaller 5.7L truck filter.

Donaldson makes a traditional (cellulose) filter, but no Synteq version.

Perhaps @NashNative can provide us some better filtration data for the LF16002?

They offer a standard and synthetic filter for my truck
LF782 and LF3554