Fram Ultra PICS & Fram comparison - fits Honda

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Zee,
I was able to get flow numbers for the XG10060, this is the later model LS filter, exactly the same as the XG3506 except the 3506 has 13/16ths threads and the XG10060 has 22mm threads
For 30w Oil at 180 deg F

XG10060
Flow - (Psid)
3 - (1.7)
6 - (3)
8 - (4.1)
9.7 - (5.2)

Hope this helps and let me know if you have further questions.


Jay - thank you for the data!

Obviously, SAE 30w oil at 180 deg F (82 deg C) will be a little thicker than the oil Purolator used on the PL14006 flow test. Purolator test engineer said in the SuperBusa thread (linked below again): "The test stand was set at 203 degrees F. Note the higher temp will lower the viscosity of the oil even more. So at 212 degrees F the differential pressure of the filter will be even slightly lower. The test oil used is very close to the same viscosity of 11.3cST at the tested temp."

So I'm thinking the viscosity of their test oil was ~11.0 cSt (centistokes).

Using this viscosity chart on BITOG,
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/viscosity-charts/

I'd estimate the 30w oil FRAM used was probably ~10.0 cSt at 82 deg C (180 F) ... a little less viscous.

So comparing the "Flow vs PSID" data between the FRAM XG10060 data you gave above and the PureOne PL14006 (both filters are for the same LS engine application),

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...451#Post1619451

it looks like the FRAM XG showed just a slightly higher PSID at the same GPM flow points ... but that is to be expected because the viscosity of FRAM's test oil was a little higher.

So, my logical thought at this point is that the XG and PureOne basically flow the same in this particular filter application.
thumbsup2.gif


Thanks again for the help Jay.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: David1
Im sure the Fram Ultra is a good filter, by far the best FRAM filter has to offer. However what I do not like is for years FRAM put out videos saying You didnt need metal end caps and they were following strict OEM guidelines.

However I do have to say the Fram Ultra is impressive.

I wonder why they didn't add the screen to the bypass valve like the did the TG.

Its not a bad deal for the $.....

Perhaps I might try one
smile.gif



You're beating a dead horse, friend. The reason the Ultra has metal ends caps is to weld the wire support cage to it. There is nothing wrong with fiber end caps. They are not made of cardboard. What about the filters that have no end caps at all? Are they inferior?
 
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: David1
Im sure the Fram Ultra is a good filter, by far the best FRAM filter has to offer. However what I do not like is for years FRAM put out videos saying You didnt need metal end caps and they were following strict OEM guidelines.

However I do have to say the Fram Ultra is impressive.

I wonder why they didn't add the screen to the bypass valve like the did the TG.

Its not a bad deal for the $.....

Perhaps I might try one
smile.gif



The ultra needs metal end caps due to the media. That's it. I've cut apart filters with the fibre end caps and the end cap came off in chunks. So the end cap is irrelevant and doesn't in any way affect the filters performance.
I ran filters 10000 miles,cut them open and the cardboard end cap wasn't compromised in any way.
Get over it.

If FRAM were to put metal end caps on their bottom feeder OCOD it would then have to raise the price.
If someone wants a much better filter WITH metal end caps, AND less money then the OCOD, buy a Puro Classic.
thumbsup2.gif



Uh, no they wouldn't. They could undersell everyone, if they wanted. There's a reason they only charge $9 for their premium "synthetic" filter when everyone else's equivalent sells for $12-$15. They charge the price they do because they can, just like any dominant player in any market.
 
Originally Posted By: jfking106
Originally Posted By: David1
Im sure the Fram Ultra is a good filter, by far the best FRAM filter has to offer. However what I do not like is for years FRAM put out videos saying You didnt need metal end caps and they were following strict OEM guidelines.

However I do have to say the Fram Ultra is impressive.

I wonder why they didn't add the screen to the bypass valve like the did the TG.

Its not a bad deal for the $.....

Perhaps I might try one
smile.gif



You're beating a dead horse, friend. The reason the Ultra has metal ends caps is to weld the wire support cage to it. There is nothing wrong with fiber end caps. They are not made of cardboard. What about the filters that have no end caps at all? Are they inferior?

What about the Puro Classic? Metal end caps and costs less than the OCOD!
banana2.gif
 
^^^ Metal end caps doesn't necessary equate to higher cost. Who knows, maybe it lowers the cost.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ Metal end caps doesn't necessary equate to higher cost. Who knows, maybe it lowers the cost.

Maybe, maybe not. The only way my truck will see an OCOD is in the bed after target shooting at it.
 
Originally Posted By: jfking106
Originally Posted By: David1
Im sure the Fram Ultra is a good filter, by far the best FRAM filter has to offer. However what I do not like is for years FRAM put out videos saying You didnt need metal end caps and they were following strict OEM guidelines.

However I do have to say the Fram Ultra is impressive.

I wonder why they didn't add the screen to the bypass valve like the did the TG.

Its not a bad deal for the $.....

Perhaps I might try one
smile.gif



You're beating a dead horse, friend. The reason the Ultra has metal ends caps is to weld the wire support cage to it. There is nothing wrong with fiber end caps. They are not made of cardboard. What about the filters that have no end caps at all? Are they inferior?


No. They aren't inferior. The whole insinuation that is absurd. And obvious that those so dead set against fibre end caps have no idea what its for,and condemning based on that shows their lack of understanding.
Its fine. Buy whatever,but to condemn something that isn't failing based on it being fibre instead of metal shows alot about the poster,and perhaps their agenda.
I've driven many vehicles and used frams. Our work vans have over 400k using fram filters. And whatever oil was cheap and they are gong strong. So to insinuate that a fram filter with a fibre end cap will shorten engine life is sheer absurdity,and shows exactly where the posters head is at who actually believes that nonsense. It makes me laugh when the haters look for whatever reason they can find to hate fram. Just proves its an agenda and not data. Tells alot about just how well those circuits upstairs are working too.
 
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Zee,
I was able to get flow numbers for the XG10060, this is the later model LS filter, exactly the same as the XG3506 except the 3506 has 13/16ths threads and the XG10060 has 22mm threads
For 30w Oil at 180 deg F

XG10060
Flow - (Psid)
3 - (1.7)
6 - (3)
8 - (4.1)
9.7 - (5.2)

Hope this helps and let me know if you have further questions.


Wanted to make an update on this subject. I found this handy viscosity calculator on BITOG.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/viscosity-calculator/

So using the avg kinematic viscosity points of 100.0 cSt @ 40 deg C and 11.0 cSt @ 100 deg C for SAE 30w oil, I calculated that the viscosity at 180 deg F (82 C) is 18.3 cSt. I had guessed wrong in my previous post about this data.

I don't have a real feel for how much more viscous that is, but it's a little more than the 11.3 cSt that was used on the PureOne bench test. So that means the Ultra could actually flow a little better than the PureOne if the same viscosity was used in both tests.

Recap of the data:

FRAM Ultra - XG10060
Data from FRAM

Flow (GPM) - (PSID)
3 - (1.7)
6 - (3.0)
8 - (4.1)
9.7 - (5.2)

Purolator PureOne - PL14006
Data from Purolator

Flow (GPM) - (PSID)
3 - (1.1)
6 - (2.3)
8 - (3.2)
9.7 - (4.0)- estimated

Conclusion - both good flowing and efficient oil filters.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Looking at this again.

18.3 cSt is in medlevel 50 grade territory.

11 cSt is in midlevel 30 grade territory.

If the Ultra will flow 9.7 GPM on 18.3 cSt oil with a 5.2 psid, that is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the Puro flowing 9.7 GPM @ 4 psid on 11 cSt oil. I'm not sure how this could be translated accurately.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Looking at this again.

18.3 cSt is in medlevel 50 grade territory.

11 cSt is in midlevel 30 grade territory.

If the Ultra will flow 9.7 GPM on 18.3 cSt oil with a 5.2 psid, that is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the Puro flowing 9.7 GPM @ 4 psid on 11 cSt oil. I'm not sure how this could be translated accurately.


Yeah, I saw that too ... and I agree I don't know if you could accurately translate the Ultra's "Flow vs PSID" analytically from 18 to 11 cSt. Don't know if it would be a "significant" change in PSID or not between flowing 11 cSt vs. 18 cSt viscosity oil. Only REAL way to compare is to test both with the same viscosity oil at same flow rates.

In any case, both the PureOne and the Ultra flow very well IMO.
thumbsup2.gif
 
Thanks for doing this, makes me feel good I'm using the Fram Ultra. Although, I should probably leave them on for 2 OCI's since I only usually go 5K.
 
Originally Posted By: panthermike
Thanks for doing this, makes me feel good I'm using the Fram Ultra. Although, I should probably leave them on for 2 OCI's since I only usually go 5K.

Why buy an ultra for 5k. Any budget name brand filter will easily run that mileage in a cleanish engine. Fram advertises 15000 miles. You can expect that if they advertise 15000 miles they've engineered some headroom in there so 15000 miles is truly the minimum on a clean engine m
Let me guess. You're using a synthetic too. Peace of mind right.
Funny
 
to bad you didnt show the High Mileage one.. but very very nice post with pics

Reason I say that Is I just put a 7317HM in my Honda just for the Hellofit.
 
The high mileage fram is similar to the Honda oem except the goop that conditions the oil. I think if it stays put it is a good idea. The filter efficiency is lower than some, but it's not really necessary.
 
Thank you very much for posting these. I think the OEM is actually okay, and the Ultra looks very nice. I have a ton of OEM Filtechs, but would not hesitate to use the A02's.

Originally Posted By: skyactiv
You should have used a decent camera.

A 10 year old 3.1 megapixel point & shoot would do a better job than your cellphone.


As for you, I hope your car develops an oil leak you can never find.....
 
Originally Posted By: robcrx
I may have to try these Fram Ultra filters !
How much do they cost for a 1990 CRX Si ?


In Canada, who knows. At Walmart in the US it would be ~$9.
 
Originally Posted By: robcrx
I may have to try these Fram Ultra filters !
How much do they cost for a 1990 CRX Si ?


On sale at CDN TIRE, $ 9.99... right now !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
FRAM Ultra Bypass Valve Pressure Test
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Mewbs
A
is fram's extra guard 95% efficiency worrysome? or is it fine for low OCI?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
dnewton3
Fram XG9972 and CH9972 oil filters contrasted
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
Bellavita
F
Fram XG7317 on 2024 Impreza
Replies
9
Views
660
NO2
B
Supply Chain Observations For Oil Filter Cartridges
Replies
10
Views
2K
tnt_motorsports
Back
Top