First Fram in 25 years or more....

Status
Not open for further replies.
4

440Magnum

Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,856
Location
Texas
Bought an Ultra for my Ram 1500 yesterday. Boy it hurt me to the core to pay money for something with the F-word brand on it... but there's no denying that the Ultra looks like a well-designed and well-built filter, and a great value for the dollar. I did linger over a Royal Purple and a Purolator Synthetic for a long time before breaking down and trying the Fram... but I've already used a few RP's and know I like them a lot. Got to give the F-word its due and see how it works for me. Next filter tried out will be a Puro synthetic.

For the bypass location obsessed- both the RP and Puro for the Chrysler 4.7 (2008 and later) application are dome-end, the Fram looks like its base-end. I'm not one who cares about that, but I know some put stock in it.
 
I am not sure if I am jealous about the huge selection of oil filters with different life expectancies etc.

Or if the way the UK/Europe works, avoid the dodgy no names and make sure it is a big name like Hengst, Bosch, Mann or Purolater and not worry any more about it.
 
Originally Posted By: bigjl
I am not sure if I am jealous about the huge selection of oil filters with different life expectancies etc.

Or if the way the UK/Europe works, avoid the dodgy no names and make sure it is a big name like Hengst, Bosch, Mann or Purolater and not worry any more about it.



I generally like the "big name" approach... but the problem with that is that "Fram" is about the biggest name of all, and they spent 30 years (and still do, IMO) making questionable products in their entry-level line. "Big name" is good unless its the "big name" that people buy in the millions just because its cheap, not good. And on the other hand, some of the "small names" (for example, Royal Purple, Amsoil, etc.) in the oil filter world are actually built to very high specs by the biggest "name" in the business, but one you never see on the box (Champion Labs).

Yeah. I'm a dweeb.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
the biggest "name" in the business, but one you never see on the box (Champion Labs).
Champion Laboratories: the biggest filter company you've never heard of.
grin2.gif
 
I think the Fram Ultra is just as good as the RP, Napa Platinum, Mobil 1, Purolator Synthetic etc... and it's a screaming good deal for $8.97 (most sizes) at Walmart.
 
Originally Posted By: pbm
I think the Fram Ultra is just as good as the RP, Napa Platinum, Mobil 1, Purolator Synthetic etc... and it's a screaming good deal for $8.97 (most sizes) at Walmart.


If you believe this guy's downstream filter paper test is a valid measure of filtration performance, then it actually performs third best (after Royal Purple and Amsoil filters):

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/comparison.html

But yeah, it wins the performance per buck side of the contest hands-down since its on the order of $5 cheaper than the RP. But on the other hand, $5 every 10,000 miles is hardly a significant part of the cost of owning a vehicle.
 
Last edited:
When was the testing performed? Prior to 2012, anything "XG" likely referred to the 97% @20 Xtended Guard, not the 99% @20 Ultra you have.
 
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
When was the testing performed? Prior to 2012, anything "XG" likely referred to the 97% @20 Xtended Guard, not the 99% @20 Ultra you have.


As I mentioned in another thread, that study is (already) getting dated. It also doesn't include any of the Purolator Synthetic (PLSxxxx) part numbers, which would be the other very interesting filter to stack up against the rest in today's market. Doing a bit of spec-based extrapolation would make you think that the current Ultra would actually do better than the XG in that single-pass test. But I'd rather actually see the test.
 
Yep, a solid filter for sure. And a decent value at ~$9 especially when used for extended oci's to ~15k or two ocis.

As for linked GMC patch test, excepting the excellent pics, results posted here before are now pretty well panned. Same media filters like Fram Orange Can/High Mileage and Wix/Napa Gold show different results. Also lower rated efficency filters like Puro Classic show better results than P1 and ProSelect rated same as Napa Gold. ISO testing trumps patch test. http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/gradesheet.htm

As for bypass location, based on several dissections here including one linked below and Fram test lab visit information unless a 'very' recent change, the Ultra's use a dome end bypass, quite similar in design to other Fram filters.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2713128

Even those here not especially fond of other Fram oil filter designs, like the Ultra.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
When was the testing performed? Prior to 2012, anything "XG" likely referred to the 97% @20 Xtended Guard, not the 99% @20 Ultra you have.


As I mentioned in another thread, that study is (already) getting dated. It also doesn't include any of the Purolator Synthetic (PLSxxxx) part numbers, which would be the other very interesting filter to stack up against the rest in today's market. Doing a bit of spec-based extrapolation would make you think that the current Ultra would actually do better than the XG in that single-pass test. But I'd rather actually see the test.

Yeah, wish there was new testing to know what I'm doing is safe. I'm into a second use on the guinea pig Camry. Has 9k on it now, Total use will be approx 14k. If I pick up a tick or anything suspicious will post something.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Even those here not especially fond of other Fram oil filter designs, like the Ultra.


Yep ... I've been thinking of giving one a try when my PureOnes are used up. Everything I see and read about the Ultra is good.
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Yep, a solid filter for sure. And a decent value at ~$9 especially when used for extended oci's to ~15k or two ocis.

As for linked GMC patch test, excepting the excellent pics, results posted here before are now pretty well panned. Same media filters like Fram Orange Can/High Mileage and Wix/Napa Gold show different results. Also lower rated efficency filters like Puro Classic show better results than P1 and ProSelect rated same as Napa Gold. ISO testing trumps patch test. http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/oilfilter/gradesheet.htm

As for bypass location, based on several dissections here including one linked below and Fram test lab visit information unless a 'very' recent change, the Ultra's use a dome end bypass, quite similar in design to other Fram filters.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2713128

Even those here not especially fond of other Fram oil filter designs, like the Ultra.


You can usually see the Fram dome-end bypass by looking in the threaded hole- their plastic "finger" retainers are obvious. RP uses a coil spring dome-end that was obvious in my application. Puro uses their own stamped steel spring that isn't visible but the VALVE is visible in my application. No visible bypass at all in the Fram Ultra... FOR THIS APPLICATION (2008-up Mopar 4.7). Now if they changed their dome-end bypass to something a little less obvious, it might be hiding down there and I missed it. But it looks like a perfectly smooth media end cap to me.

As for the test- I would NOT discount it just because the "advertised" higher efficiency media didn't seem to perform as well. But it does still contain some subjectivity- for example it looks to me like the XG-5 actually had a cleaner post-filter paper than the Amsoil filter.
21.gif
 
^^^^'If' your Ultra application is thread end bypass it is totally different than all the other Ultra dissections posted here and the dissected Ultras I saw at the Fram test labs back in September. When you finish with it perhaps you can post pics. Haven't seen any 'recent' Fram oil filters including Ultra or XG before it with thread end bypass.

As for the the GMC oil filter test, based on the same media showing very different results and results in direct conflict with ISO testing I see little test validity or reliability. I certainly wouldn't accept a patch test over ISO testing done under controlled conditions. As I said though, excellent pics.

All that said, doesn't change that the Ultra has solid construction and a high ISO test efficiency. That's the more important to me than some random guy's patch test.
 
Strange that the Ultra would have a base end bypass valve. Any way you can click a photo of the bypass valve setup?
 
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Here's another link to a dissected Ultra thanks to 2010_FX4. It has excellent pics of an XG2 including both sides of the Ultra's dome end bypass.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2796948&page=1


Hmmm... Looking at it again and comparing to those photos, the disk of the bypass valve is probably what I thought was just a smooth end-plate. Its a pretty large diameter disk compared to the one in the Pure One I'm used to looking at.

So I'll sit corrected- its probably dome-end just like the P1, P1S, and RP filters for this application. The filter on the 4.7 installs at about a 45 degree dome-end-down angle, FWIW.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Even those here not especially fond of other Fram oil filter designs, like the Ultra.


Yep ... I've been thinking of giving one a try when my PureOnes are used up. Everything I see and read about the Ultra is good.


I've been very much in the "don't like Frams" camp for decades, but the Ultra is definitely a different animal. The ONLY thing not to like is that the spring retainer clips for the bypass valve are plastic, versus a completely different all-metal disc spring on the Purolators and a coil spring on the RP for this application.

Once I'd settled on P1 as my "go to" filter a few years ago, I hadn't done a lot of comparison shopping until just a few months ago. The RP filters really do seem to be built to a very high standard by Champion. Very thick base plate and shell like the M1 filters, synthetic media with significant "depth" or thickness, and with screen former backing, synthetic rubber ADBV, and so forth. But the Fram Ultra is right up there with it in most regards, as is the Purolator Synthetic. The PS still has the thinnish Purolator can, but I have yet to see a report on here of a burst Purolator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
New Alternative to Fram Ultra (New design)?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
8K
ZeeOSix
A
is fram's extra guard 95% efficiency worrysome? or is it fine for low OCI?
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
5K
ZeeOSix
O
Fram 3614 series for OPE?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Hall
P
Should I use PH7317 Fram oil filters or throw them out?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
ARCOgraphite
T
FRAM Ultra Bypass Valve Pressure Test
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Mewbs
Back
Top