The New Fram Ultra......
- Thread starter Sayjac
- Start date
- Status
Just buy another filter brand if you’re that upset with fram for the change.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The problem for some will be that other manufacturers may not make a part # that fits their vehicle if it is somewhat niche. FRAM has such an extensive catalog you were almost guaranteed a match.
In my case, the XG2 is the same as the Ford FL-820S, which is insanely common and available from Fleetguard, AMSOIL, Royal Purple; basically everybody. The same goes for the old Ford FL-1A that fits our Supra boat, which I run a Fleetguard Stratapore on.
Or an eCore center tube with metal end caps. IMO, that's not a bad design if done right. Another way to cut down on buying metal.An Ultra with louvers? SWEET!
Big Boy here, (Do we really need to resort to name calling?)
I did watch the tear down videos. There's no suggestion that one layer was more significant than the other.
So, you are jumping to some sort of conclusion on this "topper" concept.
Also, the official claim is that the 2 layers are: 1) Fully Synthetic, 2) Synthetic blend.
There is no claim that one layer is pure cellulose. That is something you either came up with or are repeating.
I have seen the Donaldson/Cummins material before as well as am knowledgeable about filtration.
Fram is also knowledgeable about Filtration - they've been in the game as long as Donaldson.
You're oversimplifying the depth filtration vs. pore block. They both use depth, one is just more efficient than the other.
And as you are aware they added significant surface area...so...?
I see that you're not saying its a "bad" filter, but you've said a lot to try to draw people to the conclusion that its worse.
And to me that remains to be seen...
If you're worried about efficiency - they claim its better
If you're worried about tearing - they claim the new media is more regid by design
If you're worried about restriction vs. time / dP vs time - they added surface area
I can understand doubting any of that, and I guess that's become the point of this thread.
But short of real data to the contrary I don't see it.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
It wasn't a name call, just an attempt to make some humour and get you to back-down from the clearly defensive position you've taken.
You can clearly see that the cellulose layer is quite a bit thicker than the synthetic "topper" layer.
No, I'm not. You can keep saying I am, but I'm not.
That's fine, the blend media functions basically the same as cellulose (see the Donaldson media on that one) except the fibres are a bit more uniform. it's nothing like a fully synthetic media, it just looks and acts like better cellulose. The Mobil 1 filter has been made of this material forever.
I clearly said, multiple times, that it is cellulose or a cellulose blend/hybrid.
That's great, then why did you say that I said it was a bad filter? I never stated that. More processing of the material presented and less mis-framing of what I've said and we could have avoided this entire exchange, or at least it would be much more productive and less me defending my words from you claiming things I've never said.
Absolutely, that's why people were so excited when they introduced the XG (later to be called the Ultra) with its two layers of synthetic depth filtration media.
I'm really not, that's why I posted both the material from Donaldson and Fleetguard, which backs up what I've stated. The multiple layers of synthetic depth filtration offers a far more refined process of progressively finer filtration, adding considerable depth and holding capacity, that's why it was developed. It was also massively overkill for passenger car applications.
Yes, they added surface area to make up for the loss of the fully synthetic 2nd layer, which reduced flow. They've maintained the synthetic "topper" layer to keep holding capacity in-line with performance targets.
Yet you explicitly stated that I said it was a bad filter, while I've clearly stated quite the opposite.
I've repeated stated that they've cheapened the filter. That's factual. A cellulose or cellulose blend media that doesn't require a screen backing is a less expensive process than using a fully synthetic backing that does. It also requires different construction, whereas using the media they are using now, doesn't. I've said that multiple times now. It's a cost cutting measure, and, for consumer-geared filters, a logical move on their part. That doesn't mean we need to like it.
It's basically on-par with the original, which is fine. As I've said multiple times, you can have extremely efficient cellulose or cellulose blend media, we've had filters of that type for years. The compromise is on flow and capacity, the former they are trying to mitigate with pleat count/surface area, the latter with the synthetic outer layer, or "topper".
The rigid media is actually the problem there. The media we've seen tear has been plenty rigid. Wide/inconsistent pleat space is what results in tears at the baseplate, whether that's an issue with this new design is still to be seen. With the synthetic media, the metal screen backing is potted just like the media, so there's no risk of tearing at all.
They did, but we don't know what it flows compared to its predecessor and we know that cellulose and hybrid/blend media flows worse than synthetic media at the same efficiency, so this has likely been reduced. But, since the original filter was already overkill, this is probably irrelevant. The data that @ZeeOSix has posted from Purolator showed that the PureONE cellulose filters flowed extremely well, despite being high efficiency.
This thread is about the change in construction. I've tried to provide data on both why they've made that change and what they've given up by doing so. The whole point of this site is knowledge, most people don't know the differences between the different media types, which is why I've posted the information I have. The Ultra is still the least expensive and most efficient readily available passenger car filter on the market, the cheapening of the media and construction process doesn't change that. My main critique is that they've turned it into what's essentially a tarted-up PureONE with better holding capacity. It's less "premium" than it was before with the blend media, but it absolutely makes sense why they've gone that route, even if it is disappointing to see.
To add ... more ridged in the sense that it doesn't require a metal screen backing.
But if rigidity is now obtained by using a stiffer media, then there could be concern of wide pleat spacing that could cause media tearing with oil flow delta-p like it does on Purolators if the new media can't take much bending without tearing. Hopefully Fram was aware of that aspect and designed accordingly. Having increased pleat count in the new design will help keep pleat spacing small, as long as Fram can manufacture it so the pleat spacing isn't too large at the seam, like the Purolators (and a few other brands) showed to be the area of tearing. The new Ultra "filter teardown" video posted in this thread made it look like the media tore rather easily. Future C&Ps after cold winter use will show how it does in real world use. That's the only thing I'm concerned about, along with the flow vs delta-p curve.
If there are reports of the new Ultra having media tears, it will be a bad blow to the new design. Are you reading this Fram design and manufacturing engineers?
Last edited:
The real question is...Is Whip City Wrencher on here?!
Yes he is and I will only reveal his true identity in exchange for a free Royal Purple 10-2867 oil filter
So, it is "cheapened," and "we don't have to like it" BUT "I never said it was a bad filter."
Ok.
Time will tell. My money says it will do just fine.
Ok.
Time will tell. My money says it will do just fine.
Agree the whole point of this site is knowledge.
But you are drawing conclusions on the filter media and depth of 2 layers with the visual inspection from a video.
From my perspective there is 30-50x the total depth of what they're attempting to filter. Whether more or less is needed is a very technical question which you have not scratched the surface of.
On the topic of media - we see plenty of instances where pure synthetic media is used and efficiency is not very good.
So, obviously just using synthetic media is not the panacea you think it is.
If you look at the old design they are literally cramming filter media/metal backing in there.
There is a lot of overlap such that your effective surface area isn't even as high as stretching it out might suggest.
So, yes you have lots of depth, but not so much surface area.
Filtration efficiency, holding capacity, and dP over time will be a function of media pore size/distribution, depth, and surface area.
You're entitled to draw your conclusions based on limited information, as a consumer that's the best you can do most of the time. But you've presented a lot of anecdotal information to support the idea that its worse. And I'm presenting the counter argument. Right or wrong I'm open to seeing the filters tested, C&Ps, particle counts, etc. That would be relevant information. But replying to my posts line by line does not replace facts.
For sure the old Fram was never going to tear. But, is there evidence of the TG tearing? I don't think so.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
What part of those statements are you having comprehension problems with?
You can cheapen the construction of something and it still be of excellent quality. BMW famously cheapened the construction of their cooling system components, going to plastic. They were, and still are, amazing cars, but that created some issues, particularly around the E46/E39 vintage. People didn't like the change (for good reason), but it didn't make the cars bad.
For what has to be the 300th time, nobody has claimed that it's not going to be "fine". The Mobil 1 filter has been a cellulose blend/hybrid media for as long as it's been available AFAIK.
I'm not sure what the disconnect is here?
Are you intentionally being obtuse/difficult or are you really having a hard time with this? If the latter, please let me know which bit is problematic for you, specifically, and why you are getting hung-up on it. If the former, I've been as cordial as I can up to this point.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Cellulose (and blend media) don't provide the level of depth that synthetic media does. I think we can agree on that, no? The reason for this is clearly articulated in both the material from Fleetguard and Donaldson. The large fibres in these medias produce greater restriction and result in larger contaminants producing blockages on the surface, which in turn means the media doesn't have the same holding capacity as synthetic media with its extremely fine fibres, nor does it flow as well. Synthetic media flows better, and its layered construction changes how the particulate is deposited/embedded, increasing holding capacity.
The former is readily visible in many of the tear-downs of filters, including my own, that have been posted on this site. Surface loading of cellulose and cellulose blend filters where some of that material ends up sitting in the bottom of the can.
This is the reason for the synthetic "topper" layer, to provide that increased holding capacity of the larger particles.
Can you elaborate on this point? We know the WIX XP has very poor filtering efficiency, that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
Synthetic media is available in just as broad a range of efficiencies as conventional medias, so that's simply a function of media selection.
That's a strawman. Nobody has claimed that synthetic media is a panacea. It provides some benefits (that have been explained numerous times at this point) over conventional medias. That doesn't mean that a manufacturer can't select a less efficient synthetic media for their product.
And we know all of those things are excellent, just like with the same canisters from Donaldson and Fleetguard who didn't change the can size when they changed media, yet indicated much higher efficiency and significantly higher holding capacity. This is in-line with the statements FRAM made when they first released the XG.
I've provided information from two of the leading manufacturers of synthetic depth filtration media. You've provided doubt and the misconstruement of my statements along with claiming statements I've not made. I'm fine with the "what ifs" but your attempt at painting me as the ignorant one in this exchange when you've been nothing but a purveyor of doubt, providing absolutely zero material, is becoming a bit tiresome at this juncture.
If you have data that is contrary to what we are discussing, please, bring it forward. Otherwise, I encourage you to cede the legitimacy of the points made and that on the questions that remain, some of those may be answered in time with filter tear-downs and hopefully some follow-up testing from Ascent Filtration.
No, I haven't. I've provided factual information, from filter manufacturers, that demonstrate why synthetic media is better. That's it.
That doesn't make it a bad filter. That doesn't mean the performance is going to be poor. That doesn't mean they had to make it less efficient (clearly, they didn't), it just means that from a construction standpoint, they've attempted to cut some costs by deleting the multi-layer fully synthetic media and using a cellulose blend in its stead. Since the synthetic media was already overkill, it's a logical compromise.
Well, you are arguing, but you haven't provided any real counter material. You haven't presented anything that demonstrates why synthetic media is inferior to cellulose (or a cellulose blend) which would be the counter-point to the one I've made.
And being argumentative does not a counterpoint make.
The TG doesn't have metal endcaps. It has been the unyielding metal endcap filters, like the PureONE, Motorcraft...etc that have torn at the baseplates.
Last edited:
Wix XP, Puroloator Boss are markedly worse. I would not even consider them over their cellulose/blended media counterparts.
Then Royal Purple, AC Delco Ultraguard Gold are not as good...but are close.
This is based both on manufacturers claims and testing by Ascent Filtration.
So, that's where I'm at...There is data to suggest that the old Fram is the best on filtration efficiency.
I'm not compelled to believe that there is a better filter in terms of filtration efficiency. Before or after the change.
Everything else is just a lot of noise.
This is a great way to tell the difference.
I have one new style without screen XG7317 and it weighs 232g, in the package. I took a portable scale to Wally World and found two XG7317's with the package that mentions the metal screen. Weight was 250g and 254g.
My word! 36 pages of utter despair! 
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The WIX XP has always been a weird one, been discussed on here for years.
The Purolator BOSS is claimed to be 99% at 25 microns. Not spectacular, but considerably better than the WIX XP.
I'd be OK with the Purolator, not with the WIX.
Yes, extremely close. We haven't tested the AMSOIL filter unfortunately, so we don't know how it stacks up. I know Donaldson offers 99% efficiency right down to 5 microns, but I doubt that's where it ranks, it's probably similar to the Ultra.
Yes, agreed.
Exactly. And that's one of the reasons it was so desirable. Offering great holding capacity, efficiency, and flow. From an efficiency standpoint, it was top of the heap, so coupled with those other benefits and its price made it the top pick easily (you'll see I have two of them in my signature).
I'm in agreement. The closest is probably the AMSOIL EaO, but we've got no data to confirm that, so that's just a guess. FRAM was able to simultaneously reduce their cost of production (probably considerably) while retaining the coveted efficiency by switching the 2nd layer of media to a cellulose blend.
My position is simply that this was a compromise on both flow and holding capacity, neither of which likely matter in the context of passenger car applications, which is based on the extensive literature we have access to that compares synthetic media to both cellulose and blend medias. If the filter already flowed far, FAR beyond OEM specifications and its holding capacity was already excessive, some compromises on both of those fronts had no negative impact on the consumer, even if they are quantifiable from a materials selection standpoint.
Everything else is just a discussion about the different materials used, their advantages and disadvantages. Noise? Sure, if that doesn't interest you, but then there's no real reason to participate in the exchange if that's the case. The spurious conclusions or hyperbolic takes on statements made have been my biggest issue. You can discuss the media types, and reason for the changes without going into the weeds, or at least we should be able to. Acknowledging that synthetic media is super to cellulose or cellulose blend in many key areas shouldn't result in somebody immediately skipping the discussion on what that means in the context of this filter, and concluding that the person who brought that information up is saying the product is now "bad".
It seems that the automatic take for some is that if somebody points out that a manufacturer has chosen to swap out a material for one that's less expensive, cheaper to produce and ultimately cheapening the product, even when it is pointed out that the product will perform very close to the same, and entirely the same both in terms of many key metrics and in terms of perception of performance by the end user, that they are immediately cast as some sort of villain and the position taken must be one of defence, ultimately leading to punching at ghosts.
ExxonMobil cheapened Mobil 1 with the shift away from PAO to less expensive bases (Group III, GTL, VISOM) but they still use some PAO, in varying quantities, in their oils to meet their performance targets. They compromised on a few areas, but ultimately the oils were still able to meet the toughest OEM certification requirements in the industry and have demonstrated excellent performance in service. This change is very similar to that one.
Last edited:
I'm certain I won't do this, but I do appreciate your ingenuity in not opening the box, breaking the seal to determine if it's the original authentic Ultra or the replacement. Next up, need to post the weight of all the other applications...or at least the most common ones.
j/k- Status
