Laws of Phisics -- Fram Ultra

[Tony10s]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: bbhero
But I really like the Fram Ultra.


Man, don't say that ... you'll just be labeled a fanboy that doesn't know what he's talking about!

An Ultra fanboy ... kinda has a funny sound to it, doesn't it ... like a super-duper fanboy.

All kidding aside, just because someone has confidence running a particular filter due to it being a well-made filter with synthetic media and good efficiency doesn't make him or her a fanboy. I also like the FRAM Ultra, but I also like other filters as well (synthetic, cellulose/synthetic blend, and cellulose filters) ... like Purolator Synthetic, Mobil 1, Wix/NAPA Gold, Hastings/Baldwin, NAPA Silver, etc. ... and the OEM filter for my car is well constructed. So, I don't think I could really be considered a fanboy of any particular brand.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
I said it before and I'll say it again, I have no idea what the efficiency rating of WIX filters are nor do I care. I've seen them perform and protect first-hand for 14 years. Whatever the rating is, it works well.


It just so happens that all those WIX filters you use everyday at work are way more efficient than the XP is. Next time your filter tech guy comes around selling his products, ask him if he would recommend running oil filters that are 50% @ 20 microns on all that multi-million dollar equipment. There is a reason all those heavy-duty commercial type filters are high efficiency an usually very large in size so they can have big holding capacity

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Who is this place that has ISO 4548-12 certified test equipment that you use as a source?


Some place that cares what other filter makers are selling and claiming their performance specs are. Many places have the ability to do their own ISO 4548-12 testing.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Tony10s

An Ultra fanboy ... kinda has a funny sound to it, doesn't it ... like a super-duper fanboy.

All kidding aside, just because someone has confidence running a particular filter due to it being a well-made filter with synthetic media and good efficiency doesn't make him or her a fanboy.


I'm glad someone has enough brain power to figure that one out.

I've used many different brand oil filters, and I gravitate to the ones that are the best performers, are well constructed, reliable and don't cost a ton for what you get out of them. Just like many members here, they do the same thing and you can see by reading posts here which filter(s) stand-out that meet those requirements ... sans the fanboyism stuff of course (ie, guys who still swear Purolators are just fine and never had a failure issue ... yeah, right). LoL

 

[Oil Changer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It just so happens that all those WIX filters you use everyday at work are way more efficient than the XP is.


You must have a definitive source for this information, can you provide so I can verify?


Quote:
There is a reason all those heavy-duty commercial type filters are high efficiency an usually very large in size so they can have big holding capacity


What is the reason? Don't make statements, provide evidence. I have already provided an example showing the opposite is true.

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Who is this place that has ISO 4548-12 certified test equipment that you use as a source?


Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Some place that cares what other filter makers are selling and claiming their performance specs are. Many places have the ability to do their own ISO 4548-12 testing.


What is the name of this "some place"? Please provide the contact information for which you have had direct contact with. That should be a simple request since there are "many". I would like to verify.

 

[Oil Changer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm glad someone has enough brain power to figure that one out.


Are you singling out certain individuals or are you referring to the entire forum membership?

Quote:
I've used many different brand oil filters, and I gravitate to the ones that are the best performers, are well constructed, reliable and don't cost a ton for what you get out of them.


Which brands, what application, and what was your scientific method for determining which were the "best performers"?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It just so happens that all those WIX filters you use everyday at work are way more efficient than the XP is.


You must have a definitive source for this information, can you provide so I can verify?


Look up their specs on the WIX website, or where every you can find the accurate filtering specs (ask your filter supplier guy).

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Quote:
There is a reason all those heavy-duty commercial type filters are high efficiency an usually very large in size so they can have big holding capacity


What is the reason? Don't make statements, provide evidence. I have already provided an example showing the opposite is true.


Go read up on "wear vs particle size" technical papers ... there are many out there you can find on the 'net. You can believe the info or not, it's based on testing. Bottom line is that big rigs, commercial equipment run by-pass filers for a reason to filter down to 5 microns or so for a reason.


Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Who is this place that has ISO 4548-12 certified test equipment that you use as a source?
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Some place that cares what other filter makers are selling and claiming their performance specs are. Many places have the ability to do their own ISO 4548-12 testing.


What is the name of this "some place"? Please provide the contact information for which you have had direct contact with. That should be a simple request since there are "many". I would like to verify.


It really doesn't matter ... they tested it and come up with a conclusion I've been told, and I'm sure you wouldn't believe it anyway. I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone else that they concluded the XP could be more efficient based on what they found and think is what's going on. I've given all the info there is already.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I'm glad someone has enough brain power to figure that one out.


Are you singling out certain individuals or are you referring to the entire forum membership?


That was a blanket statement ... pretty self explanatory IMO.

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Quote:
I've used many different brand oil filters, and I gravitate to the ones that are the best performers, are well constructed, reliable and don't cost a ton for what you get out of them.
Which brands, what application, and what was your scientific method for determining which were the "best performers"?


Hey, I was a big PureOne fanboy due to their high efficiency and good flow rate (despite the internet rumors of them being "too restrictive" ... they aren't) until they started tearing. I've used WIX and NAPA Golds and they are a solid filter at 95% @ 20 microns - also ACDelco full synthetic (which they don't make anymore) and Amsoil. The WIX XP is not even close to their standard cellulose filters, that's why is has a big red flag on it, at least from me - just the fact there, as many sources say that 50% @ 20 microns is not a "mis-print".

Just because I, or anyone else, likes the Ultra for what it is shouldn't be frowned on by you or anyone else just because it says "Fram" on the side. In fact, there is a huge majority of members here who recognize the Ultra for the great filter it is. If it said "WIX" or even just "Oil Filter" (no brand) on the side I'd be talking about it to. Read my signature, it's not rocket science.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Just because I, or anyone else, likes the Ultra for what it is shouldn't be frowned on by you or anyone else just because it says "Fram" on the side. In fact, there is a huge majority of members here who recognize the Ultra for the great filter it is. If it said "WIX" or even just "Oil Filter" (no brand) on the side I'd be talking about it to. Read my signature, it's not rocket science.

I used Fram Extra Guard in my LS400 for a full year up to 17-18k miles more than 1 OCI without any problem.

I used Fram Extra Guard(5" long) in my S2000 for full year about 5500 miles, again no problem.

I don't mind being frowned on by anyone.

Currently I have several Wix filter for S2000 and Accord, also several Fram Ultra too.

The only problem with Fram Extra Guard is lack of filter media, Tough Guard has better and modre media and Ultra is a much better filter(spin-on) for the money.

E430 and V70 use cartridge filter and I only buy German filters for those 2 cars.

 

[ISO55000]

fredfactoryISO55000, what do you think of 4548-12 testing? I've always thought it was a good multi-pass test. Fram and many other manufacturers use and quote it. (Wish everybody did for complete comparison purposes.) [/B]

Finally got the latest versions ( took longer than expected because my dyslexia got the better of me and they were searching for a standard not yet created, LOL)

so this is 4548-12 edition 2000-02-15 and 16889 edition 2008-06-15 for reference.

This will take a day or 2 to digest and compare but one thing is clearly stated for the world to see ( just short of 100 pages for both with a lot of detailed testing parameters to review line by line)

9.1.1 "ensure the test fluid CANNOT by-pass the filter element being evaluated.....

9.1.2 "subject the test filter to a fabrication integrity test....... using MIL-H-5606 fluid.......

9.1.3 Basically if it fails 1 or 2 the test is disqualified.

That alone eliminates any claim of any "defect" or "design flaw" or accidental bypass affecting the result in any filter tested to that standard.

So, on the basis of factual information cited to the source ( which is the governing authority) all claims of a manufacturers defect and/or other factors being present affecting the test result that are not there by design are false on their face.

There's one other thing but I am going to print, study and highlight before I comment.

Unlike 16889, 4548-12 specifies suitable test oils as aircraft grade hydraulic oils ( not engine oils)because an individual oils chemistry will skew the ability to filter in random areas.

Also the test time is not standard so if company A tests for 30 minutes and company B tests for 60 then the test is useless for cross comparison.

Also as indicated in Annex B, the test is discretionary for which set is reported.

Gonna take as lot more study and comparison but anyone who uses 4548-12 for a cross comparison of filter performance without knowing all the details of the test parameters for both filters is standing on cracked ice because the test is not suited for cross comparison in its pristine state.

 

[Oil Changer]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Look up their specs on the WIX website, or where every you can find the accurate filtering specs (ask your filter supplier guy).


We've been down that road and we both know it will be a waste of time. You claim to be the who's who when it comes to filtration technology, I was hoping you could answer. Guess not.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Go read up on "wear vs particle size" technical papers ... there are many out there you can find on the 'net. You can believe the info or not, it's based on testing. Bottom line is that big rigs, commercial equipment run by-pass filers for a reason to filter down to 5 microns or so for a reason.


The reason is simple, by-pass allows for an extended OCI. Not relevant, most of these new trucks come with multiple filters now anyway. By-pass is old-school.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It really doesn't matter ... they tested it and come up with a conclusion I've been told, and I'm sure you wouldn't believe it anyway.


It must matter, you use it as the anchor for your entire efficiency argument. If this "someone" is an entity I can verify and they are indeed legit, why wouldn't I believe it?

Quote:
I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone else that they concluded the XP could be more efficient based on what they found and think is what's going on. I've given all the info there is already.


I'm not trying to get you to convince me of anything. I can make up my own mind; I'd just like for you to back up your claims but you don't/can't. If they are in possession of all the proper test equipment, why do they have to "think" they know what is going on?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Look up their specs on the WIX website, or where every you can find the accurate filtering specs (ask your filter supplier guy).


We've been down that road and we both know it will be a waste of time. You claim to be the who's who when it comes to filtration technology, I was hoping you could answer. Guess not.


Really? ... I want you to go find where I said I was the "who's who". I said people know who's who, and that includes knowing who's a troll and a smoke blower vs. not.

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Go read up on "wear vs particle size" technical papers ... there are many out there you can find on the 'net. You can believe the info or not, it's based on testing. Bottom line is that big rigs, commercial equipment run by-pass filers for a reason to filter down to 5 microns or so for a reason.


The reason is simple, by-pass allows for an extended OCI. Not relevant, most of these new trucks come with multiple filters now anyway. By-pass is old-school.[/quote]

That's part of it, but the studies also talk about wear from particles. You can't get particles out unless they are filtered out, and the more efficient the filtering the better.


Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It really doesn't matter ... they tested it and come up with a conclusion I've been told, and I'm sure you wouldn't believe it anyway.


It must matter, you use it as the anchor for your entire efficiency argument. If this "someone" is an entity I can verify and they are indeed legit, why wouldn't I believe it? [/quote]

I meant it really doesn't matter to you, because you've said many times efficiency doesn't matter to you. Even if the XP doesn't leak internally and is air tight with an efficiency of 50% @ 20 microns then it's still what it is ... bad.

Quote:
I'm not going to try and convince you or anyone else that they concluded the XP could be more efficient based on what they found and think is what's going on. I've given all the info there is already.


I'm not trying to get you to convince me of anything. I can make up my own mind; I'd just like for you to back up your claims but you don't/can't. If they are in possession of all the proper test equipment, why do they have to "think" they know what is going on? [/quote]

I've told you many times, you'll just have to believe it or not ... doesn't matter to me. Maybe someday the entity that claimed the XP leaks internally will divulge it, but I doubt it due to "legal" reasons.

Just go use XPs and be happy man ... life it too short to beat this dead horse.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000

This will take a day or 2 to digest and compare but one thing is clearly stated for the world to see ( just short of 100 pages for both with a lot of detailed testing parameters to review line by line)

9.1.1 "ensure the test fluid CANNOT by-pass the filter element being evaluated.....

9.1.2 "subject the test filter to a fabrication integrity test....... using MIL-H-5606 fluid.......

9.1.3 Basically if it fails 1 or 2 the test is disqualified.

That alone eliminates any claim of any "defect" or "design flaw" or accidental bypass affecting the result in any filter tested to that standard.

So, on the basis of factual information cited to the source ( which is the governing authority) all claims of a manufacturers defect and/or other factors being present affecting the test result that are not there by design are false on their face.


Doesn't mean the maker of the filter necessarily did testing correctly to totally ensure it meet the internal leakage test of 9.1.1. Does the spec say exactly how a test to verify that - or is it left up to the "testers" to figure out, which means no real solid test procedure. As the secret lab found, you have to get pretty inventive to prove there is not internal leakage ... I explained how that was done already.

9.1.3 is obviously paraphrased by you ... what are the exact words?

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000

This will take a day or 2 to digest and compare but one thing is clearly stated for the world to see ( just short of 100 pages for both with a lot of detailed testing parameters to review line by line)

9.1.1 "ensure the test fluid CANNOT by-pass the filter element being evaluated.....

9.1.2 "subject the test filter to a fabrication integrity test....... using MIL-H-5606 fluid.......

9.1.3 Basically if it fails 1 or 2 the test is disqualified.

That alone eliminates any claim of any "defect" or "design flaw" or accidental bypass affecting the result in any filter tested to that standard.

So, on the basis of factual information cited to the source ( which is the governing authority) all claims of a manufacturers defect and/or other factors being present affecting the test result that are not there by design are false on their face.


Doesn't mean the maker of the filter necessarily did testing correctly to totally ensure it meet the internal leakage test of 9.1.1. Does the spec say exactly how a test to verify that? As the secret lab found, you have to get pretty inventive to prove there is not internal leakage ... I explained how that was done already.

9.1.3 is obviously paraphrased by you ... what are the exact words?


There's a new thread in town so why don't you migrate you and your claims over there.

I am fully professionally capable and qualified to answering you in any level of detail required.

I know this subject in exacting detail and am prepared to answer all questions without my cigarette smoking man and in full view of the world for all to see.( facts speak for themselves- they don't need a marketing agent)

Get in the octagon and lets dance

 

[901Memphis]

A Wix 51515 was tested and determined that leaks at the interface of the adapter that sits between the adbv and canister. Obviously it's very difficult to pinpoint where the particles are getting by. Maybe Wix intended this for the purpose of having longer filter change interval.


Whether or not you want to believe it I don't care but people deserve to know why the efficiency is what it is... And it's Barely 50% @20 microns FYI.

Yes the media is capable of 90%+ efficiency at 20 microns when using a higher quality anti drain back and bypass valve setup of the correct size.

Cross testing of the cartridge with a separate canister, adbv and bypass valve pretty much prove there is a leak Somewhere since the media is capable of higher efficiency.

I don't see how the ISO test would know that a filter was leaking since 50% @20 microns isn't much worse than oem standards.

And I am not bashing Wix I use the Wix/NG myself occasionally but only because they are 95% efficient. I just wanted people who obviously get hung up on low beta ratios to have an explanation as to why they are what they are which is the reason why I spent so much time digging and finding answers.

Also I know some people accuse others of being a shill but facts are I agree with ZeeOSixs signature, I like good products and does my best to research high quality things.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ And what doesn't make sense is for a full synthetic oil filter to have such a bad efficiency. Every other full synthetic on the market is in the high 90% range at 20 microns.

I mean if WIX wanted the XP to be "long use filter", they could have done that with regular old cellulose media with 50% @ 20 microns rating. Honda tells owner's right in the service schedule to use their OEM filter for over 10K miles over a 2x OCI use. The XP is a full synthetic that is only rated for 10K I believe, so for full synthetic media it doesn't make much sense. That's why I believe the experiment results done in Batman's cave showing evidence that there is internal leakage in the XP causing the poor efficiency. Batman's lab basically proved ISO 4548 test requirement 9.1.1 shown above.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ And what doesn't make sense is for a full synthetic oil filter to have such a bad efficiency. Every other full synthetic on the market is in the high 90% range at 20 microns.

I mean if WIX wanted the XP to be "long use filter", they could have done that with regular old cellulose media with 50% @ 20 microns rating. Honda tells owner's right in the service schedule to use their OEM filter for over 10K miles over a 2x OCI use. The XP is a full synthetic that is only rated for 10K I believe, so for full synthetic media it doesn't make much sense. That's why I believe the experiment results done in Batman's cave showing evidence that there is internal leakage in the XP causing the poor efficiency. Batman's lab basically proved ISO 4548 test requirement 9.1.1 shown above.


stop obfuscating and trying to use a sales pitch to make your point. You have yet to present a single datapoint to prove batman is not wonderwoman, much less any point.

The more you say it doesn't make it true.

What you "believe" has no weight or force, only facts subjected to falsification carry any weight.

You seem very good at arguing logical fallacies against a not fully familiar audience to "sell" and "convince" people to accept your position- lets see how well you fare against someone who has superior knowledge and experience and has no qualms proving it because I left Zorro at home and can take anyone too any level with my own knowledge.

I welcome the challenge.

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ And what doesn't make sense is for a full synthetic oil filter to have such a bad efficiency. Every other full synthetic on the market is in the high 90% range at 20 microns.

I mean if WIX wanted the XP to be "long use filter", they could have done that with regular old cellulose media with 50% @ 20 microns rating. Honda tells owner's right in the service schedule to use their OEM filter for over 10K miles over a 2x OCI use. The XP is a full synthetic that is only rated for 10K I believe, so for full synthetic media it doesn't make much sense. That's why I believe the experiment results done in Batman's cave showing evidence that there is internal leakage in the XP causing the poor efficiency. Batman's lab basically proved ISO 4548 test requirement 9.1.1 shown above.


stop obfuscating and trying to use a sales pitch to make your point. You have yet to present a single datapoint to prove batman is not wonderwoman, much less any point.

The more you say it doesn't make it true.

What you "believe" has no weight or force, only facts subjected to falsification carry any weight.

You seem very good at arguing logical fallacies against a not fully familiar audience to "sell" and "convince" people to accept your position- lets see how well you fare against someone who has superior knowledge and experience and has no qualms proving it because I left Zorro at home and can take anyone too any level with my own knowledge.

I welcome the challenge.



Do you have any access to any tests for passenger car filters in your career? Maybe you can get a filter tested with your connections in the field?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Do you have any access to any tests for passenger car filters in your career? Maybe you can get a filter tested with your connections in the field?


Good point ... I can put ISO55000 in touch with an independent test lab that does ISO 4548 testing. Maybe that independent lab could recreate the secret lab's test results.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ And what doesn't make sense is for a full synthetic oil filter to have such a bad efficiency. Every other full synthetic on the market is in the high 90% range at 20 microns.

I mean if WIX wanted the XP to be "long use filter", they could have done that with regular old cellulose media with 50% @ 20 microns rating. Honda tells owner's right in the service schedule to use their OEM filter for over 10K miles over a 2x OCI use. The XP is a full synthetic that is only rated for 10K I believe, so for full synthetic media it doesn't make much sense. That's why I believe the experiment results done in Batman's cave showing evidence that there is internal leakage in the XP causing the poor efficiency. Batman's lab basically proved ISO 4548 test requirement 9.1.1 shown above.


stop obfuscating and trying to use a sales pitch to make your point. You have yet to present a single datapoint to prove batman is not wonderwoman, much less any point.

The more you say it doesn't make it true.

What you "believe" has no weight or force, only facts subjected to falsification carry any weight.

You seem very good at arguing logical fallacies against a not fully familiar audience to "sell" and "convince" people to accept your position- lets see how well you fare against someone who has superior knowledge and experience and has no qualms proving it because I left Zorro at home and can take anyone too any level with my own knowledge.

I welcome the challenge.


Logical observations have a lot of weight in a discussion like this. The thing is, that observation aligns pretty well with the test results of possibly why the XP isn't a very efficient full synthetic oil filter.

Cough up some big coin and send a couple of XPs to the ISO lab to prove it's a false theory. Yes, it's just a hersay theory ... so why are you and OC so [censored] bent over all this. Are you guys WIX shills popping in. Well, I know OC isn't since he's been a member here for longer than me, but you just showed up. Did the Pres of WIX assign you this assignment? LoL

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Do you have any access to any tests for passenger car filters in your career? Maybe you can get a filter tested with your connections in the field?


It wouldn't even need to go that far, it's almost like no one believes that Wixs own beta ratios are accurate. Just having an independent lab say yes the Wix XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns would be great.