10k OCI filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ LoL ... Blinded by your hate for Fram.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Everything about the RP filter is superior. Thicker can, more filter media, the list goes on and on. Besides Frams claim of filter efficiency (which judging by Frams advertising is something I believe may be a sham) everything about it is inferior to the RP.


Wrong ... as usual.
whistle.gif



Go ahead, enlighten everyone how the Fram is better.

Efficiency? Nope, the same as or IMHO most likely lesser than the RP. RP is 99% @ 25 microns. Fram is 99% >20 microns. What the heck does that mean? 99% at 30? 40? 90 microns? Those numbers are all greater than 20! What a farce.

Can thickness? Nope. RP is almost double the thickness.

ADBV? Nope. While made of the same material, the valve is thinner than the RP.

Media? Nope. The Fram has nowhere near the same amount of filter media, and not all synthetic media is created equal.

Cost? The Fram finally gets a point. It is cheaper than the RP, but then again you get what you pay for.

This website is starting to get really old really quick. The Fram ultra is not the best filter ever made. Just face it. It doesn't matter how much you or the other "non paid" spokespersons try and push this filter on everyone here.

Is it a good filter? Sure. Is it the best? No. oh and btw, as long as we are on the subject, that Pureone you so fervently despise has a higher efficiency rating than the FU as well.

It is cheap, available at Walmart and does a reasonably good job. That is where it's merits end.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ LoL ... Blinded by your hate for Fram.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Everything about the RP filter is superior. Thicker can, more filter media, the list goes on and on. Besides Frams claim of filter efficiency (which judging by Frams advertising is something I believe may be a sham) everything about it is inferior to the RP.


Wrong ... as usual.
whistle.gif



Go ahead, enlighten everyone how the Fram is better.

Efficiency? Nope, the same as or IMHO most likely lesser than the RP. RP is 99% @ 25 microns. Fram is 99% >20 microns. What the heck does that mean? 99% at 30? 40? 90 microns? Those numbers are all greater than 20! What a farce.


You obviously have been absent when all that discussion was happening. If a filter catches 99% @ 20 microns, then it's going to catch even MORE particles that are greater than 20 microns. It's a very easy concept to grasp. In case you where sleeping during math classes, 20.0001 microns is greater than 20 microns; therefore, it can be said that for all practical purposes it is rated @20 microns. Motorking has chimed in many times during those discussions and said Fram tests at 20 microns when doing the ISO 4548-12 testing.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Can thickness? Nope. RP is almost double the thickness.


The can thickness on the Ultra is plenty thick, more so than many. It doesn't need to be any thicker. It's way thicker than your beloved PureOne.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
ADBV? Nope. While made of the same material, the valve is thinner than the RP.


Silicone is silicone. You have zero proof one works better than the other. The ADBVs on PureOnes are pretty thin too. In fact, I'd rather see an ADBV be thinner than not because they will flex easier when not so thick.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Media? Nope. The Fram has nowhere near the same amount of filter media, and not all synthetic media is created equal.


You have proof? Have you cut both open and measured the area of both filters? And beside, you've failed to realize that with full synthetic media the 'area' of the media is a bit misleading, as the filtering is really a 3-dimensional fuction. How many miles is the RP rated for? If it's not 15K then it's behind the Ultra. Mileage rating is the only way to judge a full synthetic media.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Cost? The Fram finally gets a point. It is cheaper than the RP, but then again you get what you pay for.


The Ultra is a better value because it filters better than the RP and is less cost, and goes longer OCIs. The things you think make the RP better are things that really don't matter.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
This website is starting to get really old really quick. The Fram ultra is not the best filter ever made. Just face it. It doesn't matter how much you or the other "non paid" spokespersons try and push this filter on everyone here.


Who said it was? You claim the RP is better ... it's not. That's what "gets old", along with your "pitching" of inferior products (ie, Tearolators).
grin.gif


Originally Posted By: jk_636
oh and btw, as long as we are on the subject, that Pureone you so fervently despise has a higher efficiency rating than the FU as well.


No it doesn't ... It's the same, IF the model of PureOne is rated at 20 microns and not 40 microns. I know, I've used PureOnes for year ... until they went "Tearolator".

Originally Posted By: jk_636
It is cheap, available at Walmart and does a reasonably good great job.


Fixed it for ya ... and that's why it smokes a RP. Thanks for the confirmation.
grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
^^^ The Fram Ultra does the same if not better than the RP at less the cost, and is built just as stout. As others have pointed out, the RP efficiency isn't anything to brag about for a full synthetic filter.


Bull corn. Blinded by your allegiance to the Frampire.

Everything about the RP filter is superior. Thicker can, more filter media, the list goes on and on. Besides Frams claim of filter efficiency (which judging by Frams advertising is something I believe may be a sham) everything about it is inferior to the RP.

I can't wait until this OCI is over so I can cut and post an FU next to an RP.

The pictures will speak for themselves.


The pictures will speak for themselves? That goes against everything your clan has been preaching about with the puro fails over the last few months.
I guess it only applies when you guys do the cutting and not the rest of BITOG.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Fram is 99% >20 microns.

In physics, mathematics, and engineering, the meaning of >20 microns is unambiguous. I don't understand why a statement such as 99% at >20 microns creates confusion here over and over and over. 20 mirons plus an infinitesimal is greater than 20 microns.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I would actually be more concerned about the oil at 15k even though all highway not every engine is the same.


I suppose you can reused filter for two OCIs? Even better, one less dry start not replacing the filter.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
RP is almost double the thickness


Everyone needs to get out their ball end micrometers and start measuring can thickness instead of by the hand feel method. There isn't a lot of difference I don't think, a few mils one way or the other. Some, like Mopar, made by Purolator, tout extra strong can seams, the Mopar is glued and crimped I believe.
The RP oil filter is owned and manufactured by the Fram Empire BTW.
 
Thanks for the feedback. I understand that no one will pay for a test with two similar engines in two of the same conditions over 10k miles to see what actually happens and reality may actually say Fram and RP may perform equally for the usable life of the engine. That may or may not be true...something that is hard to back up without constant tests and attempts to drive the same conditions.

I was really hoping the Purolator synthetics would have been able to go up to 15k but I can't find any large testimonies of that. I may still go that way as I have read in many places, running a 15k oil on a 15k filter for 15k is not a good idea...more like run 15k oil on a 15k filter for 7-8k and change one or the other, then run the rest of the way. I've also picked up that I should be fine running 15k oil & 15k filter for 10k fine...of course, watch the engine wear. Have a good night all, and thanks again for the help.
 
Originally Posted By: Trebuin
I may still go that way as I have read in many places, running a 15k oil on a 15k filter for 15k is not a good idea...more like run 15k oil on a 15k filter for 7-8k and change one or the other, then run the rest of the way. I've also picked up that I should be fine running 15k oil & 15k filter for 10k fine...of course, watch the engine wear. Have a good night all, and thanks again for the help.
Negative Ghost Rider. You need to perform a couple of UOAs before you can make that assessment. I have ran M1 AFE (which is theoretically a 10K oil) for 15K with an MC filter (rated for at least 7.5K) and a FRAM Ultra (see the UOAs here). I did not blindly go to 15K and you should not either. I am now running 15K oil on a 15K filter and will post those results in a few thousand miles. But to say that you cannot use 15K oil with 15K filter is inherently wrong, because you are merely guessing.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Fram is 99% >20 microns.

In physics, mathematics, and engineering, the meaning of >20 microns is unambiguous. I don't understand why a statement such as 99% at >20 microns creates confusion here over and over and over. 20 mirons plus an infinitesimal is greater than 20 microns.


It is not unambiguos. It makes a big difference. That is an example of a backdoor marketing campaign. Saying that it filters 99% of particles >20 microns could mean that it filters 99% of particles at 60 microns. Or perhaps 99% of particles that are 50 microns. Anyone with basic deductive reasoning knows that this is false advertising in an attempt to persuade people who might not know any better to buy the filter.

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Good to see jk_636 pushing the Fram made RP filter. Looks like he has switched sides.
smile.gif



This filter is made by Champ Laboratories. I dont care who the parent company is, but it is not made by Fram proper.

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
The Royal Purple can is too thick IMO, there is a certain point where it's not going to make a difference, and then cutting it open is even harder.


Your right. I often here policeman complain that there vest is too thick, or the armor on tanks provide too much protection. Give me a break, this is getting ridiculous.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: jk_636
RP is almost double the thickness


Everyone needs to get out their ball end micrometers and start measuring can thickness instead of by the hand feel method. There isn't a lot of difference I don't think, a few mils one way or the other. Some, like Mopar, made by Purolator, tout extra strong can seams, the Mopar is glued and crimped I believe.
The RP oil filter is owned and manufactured by the Fram Empire BTW.


This is simple deflection. Feel free to measure. I encourage it. Maybe then you can see the fault in your logic. And the fact that Fram is the parent company is irrelevant.

Originally Posted By: Trebuin
Thanks for the feedback. I understand that no one will pay for a test with two similar engines in two of the same conditions over 10k miles to see what actually happens and reality may actually say Fram and RP may perform equally for the usable life of the engine. That may or may not be true...something that is hard to back up without constant tests and attempts to drive the same conditions.

I was really hoping the Purolator synthetics would have been able to go up to 15k but I can't find any large testimonies of that. I may still go that way as I have read in many places, running a 15k oil on a 15k filter for 15k is not a good idea...more like run 15k oil on a 15k filter for 7-8k and change one or the other, then run the rest of the way. I've also picked up that I should be fine running 15k oil & 15k filter for 10k fine...of course, watch the engine wear. Have a good night all, and thanks again for the help.


Purolator has always been very conservative in their filter life estimations. But that isnt a bad thing. If anything it reduces liability. I can tell you from personal experience that after 7k miles, this filter still had plenty of life left. Check out the photos below:







Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix


You obviously have been absent when all that discussion was happening. If a filter catches 99% @ 20 microns, then it's going to catch even MORE particles that are greater than 20 microns. It's a very easy concept to grasp. In case you where sleeping during math classes, 20.0001 microns is greater than 20 microns; therefore, it can be said that for all practical purposes it is rated @20 microns. Motorking has chimed in many times during those discussions and said Fram tests at 20 microns when doing the ISO 4548-12 testing.

jk_636 said:
Can thickness? Nope. RP is almost double the thickness.


Quote:
The can thickness on the Ultra is plenty thick, more so than many. It doesn't need to be any thicker. It's way thicker than your beloved PureOne.


Stop deflecting. The pureone is not a majory variable in this argument. The can doesn't need to be any thicker? Perhaps not but it provides added protection that you just dont get from the Fram Ultra or ANY other filter.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
ADBV? Nope. While made of the same material, the valve is thinner than the RP.


Cut one open and take a look. Feel free to measure. Or are you just running on information that Motorking, 901Memphis or the rest of your Fram led coup leaders have told you?

Quote:
Silicone is silicone. You have zero proof one works better than the other. The ADBVs on PureOnes are pretty thin too. In fact, I'd rather see an ADBV be thinner than not because they will flex easier when not so thick.


The thicker the silicone, the more heat it can stand up to without deformity and as such will continue to function under more severe circumstances where others will fail. There have been many reports of people experiencing start up tick with Fram filters. This may very well be a leading cause.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Media? Nope. The Fram has nowhere near the same amount of filter media, and not all synthetic media is created equal.


Quote:
You have proof? Have you cut both open and measured the area of both filters? And beside, you've failed to realize that with full synthetic media the 'area' of the media is a bit misleading, as the filtering is really a 3-dimensional fuction. How many miles is the RP rated for? If it's not 15K then it's behind the Ultra. Mileage rating is the only way to judge a full synthetic media.


Cut one open and see for yourself. Then make sure that your crow is cooked well done.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Cost? The Fram finally gets a point. It is cheaper than the RP, but then again you get what you pay for.


Quote:
The Ultra is a better value because it filters better than the RP and is less cost, and goes longer OCIs. The things you think make the RP better are things that really don't matter.


Total and utter insanity. The RP is more than capable of 15k mile OCIs. As psychology has taught us, you are just upset because this does not fit into your established schema.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
This website is starting to get really old really quick. The Fram ultra is not the best filter ever made. Just face it. It doesn't matter how much you or the other "non paid" spokespersons try and push this filter on everyone here.


Quote:
Who said it was? You claim the RP is better ... it's not. That's what "gets old", along with your "pitching" of inferior products (ie, Tearolators).
grin.gif



You continue to ignor the well documented proof that my filters are still to this day tear free. Nonetheless, Im still waiting for you to explain how it isnt more superior. Superior parts + superior construction = better than others. Get used to it.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
oh and btw, as long as we are on the subject, that Pureone you so fervently despise has a higher efficiency rating than the FU as well.


Quote:
No it doesn't ... It's the same, IF the model of PureOne is rated at 20 microns and not 40 microns. I know, I've used PureOnes for year ... until they went "Tearolator".


Really? My Pureone model is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns. Too bad Fram cant say the same, and I dont really care what Mr. Motorking says. I could care less what some non website sponsored spokesperson says on this website.

By this time, people who have the ability for objective reasoning and think for themselves have identified that your argument is full of holes and gaps in logic. Instead of deflecting and bring up "tears" (heavy emphasis on quotations) of purolator filters, perhaps you should bring forward evidence to suppot your argument (or lack thereof) as I have.

Just out of curiosity, how many filters do you receive as compensation for your work here on BITOG. I have a feeling that is the driving factor that fuels the fervor for which you continually attempt to coerce people to use Fram Ultras. This is a site for enthusiasts, not shills who may or may not be reimbursed by a non site sponsored company who looks to websites for free advertising.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: jk_636
Fram is 99% >20 microns.

In physics, mathematics, and engineering, the meaning of >20 microns is unambiguous. I don't understand why a statement such as 99% at >20 microns creates confusion here over and over and over. 20 mirons plus an infinitesimal is greater than 20 microns.


It is not unambiguos. It makes a big difference. That is an example of a backdoor marketing campaign. Saying that it filters 99% of particles >20 microns could mean that it filters 99% of particles at 60 microns. Or perhaps 99% of particles that are 50 microns. Anyone with basic deductive reasoning knows that this is false advertising in an attempt to persuade people who might not know any better to buy the filter.


33.gif
... you really don't get it I see. Of course if a filters 99% @ 20 microns it's going to filter even BETTER at 40 or 60 microns, or even 21 microns. Talk about "deductive reasoning".

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Total and utter insanity. The RP is more than capable of 15k mile OCIs. As psychology has taught us, you are just upset because this does not fit into your established schema.


So please post up a link where RP says thier filer is good for 15K miles or more. You think it is just because you think it is? Just like you think there is no media tearing issue with Purolator because you have never had one tear. Dude, what kind of world do you live in? - LoL. Best put down the sauce before you find yourself in Hawaii again.
grin.gif


And the rest of your cockamamie responses are obviously just trolling bait and not even worth replying to anymore. Ever see a rat jump into a pond full of hungry piranhas? This tread is starting to look about like that - LoL.
eek.gif
grin.gif
 
I am not disagreeing with that point. As a matter of fact, I was the one who made it.

But that isn't what Frams website says. I figured you would be familiar with it. I could provide a link if need be.

It reads that it is 99% >20 microns. Not at 20 microns. Not greater than or equal to 20 microns. Only GREATER THAN 20 MICRONS
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I am not disagreeing with that point. As a matter of fact, I was the one who made it.

But that isn't what Frams website says. I figured you would be familiar with it. I could provide a link if need be.

It reads that it is 99% >20 microns. Not at 20 microns. Not greater than or equal to 20 microns. Only GREATER THAN 20 MICRONS


One more time. 20.0001 microns is GREATER THAN 20 microns. You cant say >20 microns and leave out everything between 20.0001 and 50 microns for instance. This has been beat to pulverized bone dust many times on this site.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: jk_636
I am not disagreeing with that point. As a matter of fact, I was the one who made it.

But that isn't what Frams website says. I figured you would be familiar with it. I could provide a link if need be.

It reads that it is 99% >20 microns. Not at 20 microns. Not greater than or equal to 20 microns. Only GREATER THAN 20 MICRONS


One more time. 20.0001 microns is GREATER THAN 20 microns. You cant say >20 microns and leave out everything between 20.0001 and 50 microns, or whatever you think they are deceiving you about.


So is 60.203858673 microns.

Heck for all we know it could be a rock catcher. Something akin to those cheapo air filters you buy at home depot that look like a couple pieces of string crossed against cardboard.

Without a second qualifying number, this figure is useles.

If it read >20 and less than
Shady advertising from a shady company.
 
Last edited:
33.gif
... forget it, you're lost in space. I guess it IS rocket science.
frown.gif
 
^^^ So? Everything I said above still holds true. One last try ... yes or no. Is 20.001 greater than 20?

If so, then saying >20 is essentially saying @20 for all practical purposes. It's hair splitting to say it's not.
 
Originally Posted By: jk_636
It is not unambiguos. It makes a big difference. That is an example of a backdoor marketing campaign. Saying that it filters 99% of particles >20 microns could mean that it filters 99% of particles at 60 microns.

It's an engineering statement. We've never, ever here actually seen evidence of a filter filtering poorer than was claimed. We've seen the reverse (i.e. Motorcraft). Most companies don't even bother claiming efficiency ratings, and some that do let people know how it's done. I have no dog in this fight and have never used a Fram oil filter in my life. I have no reason to doubt their claims, and other manufacturers would jump all over their claims if they were fraudulent. And, there isn't a great deal of marketing speak disclaimers. Go tell a calculus professor your views of > 20 microns while taking his class and see how far you get.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
It reads that it is 99% >20 microns. Not at 20 microns. Not greater than or equal to 20 microns. Only GREATER THAN 20 MICRONS

That's because these are not equivalent statements! Enough mathematical nonsense!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Fa24wrx
Short OCI without changing filter
2
Replies
20
Views
532
wavinwayne
K
Purolator One 5k OCI w/10k on filter.
Replies
6
Views
983
fantastic
Oil fan 47
Run Extra Guard for 10k or Ultra Guard for 20k?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Plawan
O
What's the smallest filtering oil filter on the market?
Replies
14
Views
2K
oil pan 4
Shel_B
VP Filters?
Replies
10
Views
724
OVERKILL
Back
Top