Which was the point I was trying to make.
Contenders as alternatives to the XG7317
- Thread starter ltslimjim
- Start date
Came across like a "bad thing".
i see. I was referencing their website. That’s the confusing part about product changes and boxes or websites being inaccurate.
FWIW every FS7317 and other Titanium filters that I have checked at AAP to date still have wire backed media, old stock who knows? That being said one of the key distinctive elements of the Titanium is that it uses a thicker "perfect seal" gasket that has always been promoted as being exclusive to that filter versus the Ultra and it has always been highlighted on the box (literally in orange).
@ltslimjim check out the Champ XL PH2867XL which is commonly had from Rock Auto.
Champ XL
I ordered 12 of these filters off Amazon. Seem like a well made filter, the louvers are open well. Seems like Champ labeled Mobil1 filter. The only thing I’m leery of is the production date. When the other 11 come in, I’ll see what the date codes are on them. Any reason not to run them?
bobistheoilguy.com
Only way to know would to actually look at them to see if the wire backed meida can be seen through the holes in the center tube.
Did the Titanium box ever say it had wire backed synthetic media?
Not that I recall, I do have an old Titanium box from two years ago that I keep certain sockets in at my shop out in the middle of cow country. I'll have to check it and get back to you after I go out there this weekend.
True it does not have to be.
But it's tg filter media. . Which is still very good filter media. 74 percent at 10 microns is really quite good.
The older filter media was real full synthetic media that was more efficient.
99.6 percent at 15 microns.
Yep....
It sure did....
I have a real OG Fram Ultra aka Titanium oil filter in my possession right now...
That's from Andrew's ISO test, but we would have to see the same model of the new Ultra tested the same exact way to know what's changed in performance between old vs new Ultra.
Would also need to do the same model TG to see performance difference in the medias.
The new one is a tg... It's a cheapened product. That doesn't mean it's a bad filter. .. That's patently not true.
It's still a very, very good filter.
Yeah someone get the same exact size new fram filter vs the old one and have Andrew test it.....
Anyone gonna donate the money for that ?
Highly doubtful.
Fram stated on the old Titanium boxes I used 4967, 3387a, and another regular routine filter size used in many applications.
And the old ones were exactly what Jay said they were.....
80 percent at 5 microns....
There's no dancing around it. ..
Now if it was say 75 percent or say 60 percent at 15 microns.... Then it would NOT have verified what Jay said. .
The old OG Fram Ultra filters were exceptionally well made products. 10 out 10.
The new ones are still very, very good... 9 or 9.3 out of 10.
I just bought two Fram Force filters for my car 6607 and my wife's car 4386. I guarantee that they are very good filters too.
It's still a very, very good filter.
Yeah someone get the same exact size new fram filter vs the old one and have Andrew test it.....
Anyone gonna donate the money for that ?
Highly doubtful.
Fram stated on the old Titanium boxes I used 4967, 3387a, and another regular routine filter size used in many applications.
And the old ones were exactly what Jay said they were.....
80 percent at 5 microns....
There's no dancing around it. ..
Now if it was say 75 percent or say 60 percent at 15 microns.... Then it would NOT have verified what Jay said. .
The old OG Fram Ultra filters were exceptionally well made products. 10 out 10.
The new ones are still very, very good... 9 or 9.3 out of 10.
I just bought two Fram Force filters for my car 6607 and my wife's car 4386. I guarantee that they are very good filters too.
Last edited:
Not really. Fram shows the new Ultra efficiency is still at "99%+ @ 20μ", where as the TG was never shown as that. Also, the up to max mileage rating (ie, holding capacity) is still different between the TG (15K) and XG (20K), so it's not the "same filter".
Jay never said what filter model that reference efficiency was for. At that low of a micron size, the size of the filter could be a factor. Per the preliminary info from Fram, the same filter model showed an increase in efficiency at 15 and 10 microns.
To say the new Ultra is worse efficiency is just a guess, and could never be proven unless the same filter model number of old vs new design was ISO tested on the same lab equipment by the same operator. Throw a same model TG in there too for good measure.
In fact, it could be that the new Ultra with twice the media area could have less delta-p vs flow rate, and that could also be a factor why it shows better efficiency below 20μ in the same model per Fram's testing.
Recall that the PureOne was shown to be very efficient (99.9% @ 20μ) and had a low delta-p vs flow, and it wasn't depth filtering full synthetic media. Instead, it was cellulose (or a blend). But PureOnes had way more media area than most other filters in the same physical size. The avgerage sized PureOnes had around 150 to 180 sq-in of media. Putting lots of media area in a filter gives many benifits.
@ZeeOSix I agree with your approach. Very logical and would iron out the details.
Curious, when you say PureOne, are we talking the older Yellow cans or the current Blue? is it still that efficient today? I am considering them, but for the price may stick to the Ultra.
At the same time, some contenders are emerging as alternatives. Would love to see a new Ultra vs Old; with a TG thrown into the mix.
In lieu of that, I suppose it’s rough estimates on these filters for the ones that publish efficiency ratings of larger or somewhat better estimates from the “average” reported ratings of multiple sizes.
I saw an older NapaGold 1356 listing on Amazon that claimed 99% at 23micron based on 3 filters tested:
“Laboratory Test Performance per ISO 454812: 18 Grams Dirt (NAPA Gold # 1515), 99% Efficient At 23 Microns (Based On NAPA Gold # 1515, 1356, 7060)”
^Not sure how up to date an Amazon listing would be or the sizes of those filters, but that’s likely better than 95% at 20 Wix lists them at. So, why not update their Beta ratings to reflect that? Would it really drop to 95% between 20 and 25? It even includes the 1356 among the 3 tested filters.
EDIT- the Napa website listing says the same as the Amazon, but also for the 7356.
Curious, when you say PureOne, are we talking the older Yellow cans or the current Blue? is it still that efficient today? I am considering them, but for the price may stick to the Ultra.
At the same time, some contenders are emerging as alternatives. Would love to see a new Ultra vs Old; with a TG thrown into the mix.
In lieu of that, I suppose it’s rough estimates on these filters for the ones that publish efficiency ratings of larger or somewhat better estimates from the “average” reported ratings of multiple sizes.
I saw an older NapaGold 1356 listing on Amazon that claimed 99% at 23micron based on 3 filters tested:
“Laboratory Test Performance per ISO 454812: 18 Grams Dirt (NAPA Gold # 1515), 99% Efficient At 23 Microns (Based On NAPA Gold # 1515, 1356, 7060)”
^Not sure how up to date an Amazon listing would be or the sizes of those filters, but that’s likely better than 95% at 20 Wix lists them at. So, why not update their Beta ratings to reflect that? Would it really drop to 95% between 20 and 25? It even includes the 1356 among the 3 tested filters.
EDIT- the Napa website listing says the same as the Amazon, but also for the 7356.
Last edited:
Nice find. Probably an M1 clone. Which would mean 99% at 30micron. The PH2867XL on RA is currently listed for just $3.38! If I wasn’t desiring that efficiency at 25micron or better, I’d consider it for the value alone. Again, assuming it’s the same media as the M1.
EDIT: I see in the Champ XL thread that Champ claims they are 99% at 20micron. Would like to see that confirmed. Interesting!
Last edited:
Cool proof pic bbhero. I didn't follow the AAP Titanium intro that closely, mostly because I thought and still think the inlet hole shape deal, a gimmick. So, would not pay more for AAP Titan than the "OG (and by far the best) Ultra" made by Fram.
That said, if you're still finding the Titanium with OG Ultra media and don't mind the price premium, buy it. I still believe as new stock moves in, they too will move to new Ultra media type. Just can't see First Brands continuing to make the OG media type with tooling, for a significantly less sales volume (than OG) 'made for AAP' OF.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
We've been TOLD, in an e-mail that had numerous errors about the construction of the old filter, that the new was was supposedly more efficient. I would like to see it actually tested by @Ascent Filtration Testing to see how it compares.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
You beat me to it. True multi-layer depth filtration media cannot be compared on a surface area basis with cellulose or a synthetic blend media.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Looks like the AMSOIL filter for your application is the EA15K13 (99% @ 20 microns):
However, it appears they don't have stock on it right now
However, it appears they don't have stock on it right now
Similar threads
