Where's the documented proof ?

[Merkava_4]

Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?

Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns ?

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty !

 

[MolaKule]

Whoaa! Is the smog getting real thick in Clovis?

 

[jhellwig]

Go google it yourself.

 

[SatinSilver]

 

[901Memphis]

First off your information is incorrect. Fram lists their Ultra at 99%+ efficient at 20 microns based on ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns.

http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx


Second the Wix doesn't test under ISO 4548-12 but lists a beta ratio which is expressed at 50% @ 20 microns.

Wix simply may not care to test their filter or publish it properly.

If the numbers are true it's most likely based on the fact that Wix uses 1 layer of synthetic media, while FU uses two layers, so its more efficient from the get go.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
Second the Wix doesn't test under ISO 4548-12 but lists a beta ratio which is expressed at 50% @ 20 microns.


It's true they don't reference what test spec their beta ratios are based on ... at least not on their website. They could use ISO 4548-12. Has anyone called their Tech Dept and ask what test spec they base their beta ratios on?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
First off your information is incorrect. Fram lists their Ultra at 99%+ efficient at 20 microns based on ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns.

http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx


99%+ filtration efficiency2

Yep ... per flag note 2:

"2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."

 

[steveh]

Fram is only listing efficiency on 3 part numbers.

 

[Merkava_4]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99%+ filtration efficiency2

Yep ... per flag note 2:

"2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."


With all due respect and in the interest of complete politeness, that don't prove nothing to me.

Nadda, zilch, zippo.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: steveh
Fram is only listing efficiency on 3 part numbers.


Better than Purolator that just references their largest oil filter for the ISO test (L/PL/PSL 30001).

If you look at the sizes of those 3 filters that Fram references, they pretty much cover the small to large range of filters.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: steveh
Fram is only listing efficiency on 3 part numbers.
Better than Purolator that just references their largest oil filter for the ISO test (L/PL/PSL 30001). If you look at the sizes of those 3 filters that Fram references, they pretty much cover the small to large range of filters.

+1 - rather than show all of them, it would **seem** they covered the range to show that no matter what size filter is chosen they have similar ratings. Puro's 14610 always dug under my skin a little (it fits my BF750); the 14610 is 99.9% efficient at 40 microns, but a similar filter, the 14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns.

Why the urgent need for "documented proof"? You do not use oil or filters long enough to warrant the slightest concern...

 

[earlyre]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
...If the numbers are true it's most likely based on the fact that Wix uses 1 layer of synthetic media, while FU uses two layers, so its more efficient from the get go.



I think you just talked me into giving Fram Ultra's a try, if for no reason other than it never clicked in my head that Fram Ultra would be abbreviated as F.U!

I can just see it in my sig now, "2009 Mercury Sable PP 5-w20, FU3600"

...though I Guess that's why they used the XG part numbers.(yes I know it'd actually be an XG3600, but that's not as funny)

 

[Rand]

Hes high on smog and came to bitog to troll today? not sure.

Not sure why he is suddenly demanding proof in such a Troll-lololol fashion otherwise. If its that important phone fram and ask them.
No one here works for them. We can only go by their published information.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99%+ filtration efficiency2

Yep ... per flag note 2:

"2 FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns."


With all due respect and in the interest of complete politeness, that don't prove nothing to me.

Nadda, zilch, zippo.


Well that's the test they all use, at least the ones that bother anyway, so if that's not good enough you'll need to invent your own test. Have at it, and be sure to provide us all some "documented proof" while your at it.

Or: (My alternate post)

You are just trolling.

 

[901Memphis]

Documented proof? How about all the amazing used oil analysis that use Fram Ultras?

Trace
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3322851/2006_Toyota_Sequoia,_M1_5w-30,

 

[steveh]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: steveh
Fram is only listing efficiency on 3 part numbers.
Better than Purolator that just references their largest oil filter for the ISO test (L/PL/PSL 30001). If you look at the sizes of those 3 filters that Fram references, they pretty much cover the small to large range of filters.

+1 - rather than show all of them, it would **seem** they covered the range to show that no matter what size filter is chosen they have similar ratings. Puro's 14610 always dug under my skin a little (it fits my BF750); the 14610 is 99.9% efficient at 40 microns, but a similar filter, the 14459 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns.

Why the urgent need for "documented proof"? You do not use oil or filters long enough to warrant the slightest concern...
I use the 14610 on my Nissan. So I always wanted to know if the Fram 7317 is 99%@ 20 microns or not.

 

[Hermann]

Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?

Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns ?

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty !


Dude, get a grip on reality, it's just a oil filter

 

[901Memphis]

Originally Posted By: steveh
I use the 14610 on my Nissan. So I always wanted to know if the Fram 7317 is 99%@ 20 microns or not.


motorking works for Fram, wait to see if he replies here.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: steveh
I use the 14610 on my Nissan. So I always wanted to know if the Fram 7317 is 99%@ 20 microns or not.
... http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-extra-guard-oil-filter.aspx shows the Extra Guard line of oil filters as having 95% @ 20 microns ISO 4548-12, a good filter when you consider they blend in glass fibers mixed with the basic cellulose media. (Tough Guard TG7317 has 99% @ 20 microns, and the Ultra version about the same.)

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: earlyre

I think you just talked me into giving Fram Ultra's a try, if for no reason other than it never clicked in my head that Fram Ultra would be abbreviated as F.U!
I can just see it in my sig now, "2009 Mercury Sable PP 5-w20, FU3600"
...though I Guess that's why they used the XG part numbers.(yes I know it'd actually be an XG3600, but that's not as funny)


All Purolator tearing-media oil filters should have FU in the parts name for truth in labeling. (Oh No He Di..unt)