Fram Ultra - beating a dead horse.

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by MichaelRS
... And why would anybody want to run their oil or their filter to the very last mile of its useful life? To save less than 80 bucks a year on an oil change or two? ... But if you change your oil and filter under 7,000 miles, hopefully UNDER 5.5K in my case, the Fram Ultra seems like a GREAT filter, with ALL the benefits of Royal Purple but without the price. ... I'm not interested in getting a great filter that's good up to 7,000 miles because I'm not interested in cutting it that close. I like a decent filter with a good good buffer in it's service life, but I feel that I've really been wasting my money on the Royal Purple for oil and filter changes under 6k. And being old school I'm uncomfortable just changing the oil but not the filter.
- people whom seek out their best ROI will run their lubes and filters out. And you said it clearly yourself "very last mile of its useful life". The key being "useful". I suspect you're under two distinct misconceptions: 1) there is a linear slope differentiating the performance of wear protection in an OFCI (out to 15k miles max) 2) the useful life of oil and filters means shorter is always better Neither of these is true. - It's true the Fram Ultra is a great filter. So are many others. What seems expensive or inexpensive to you will have different valuations to others. However, for your planned OFCI (under 7k miles or less), just about ANY filter will do a decent job. - Any normal filter has a "buffer" much greater than you seem to give credit for. And that goes for oils, also. I have run "normal" MC and Purloator filters out to 15k miles, using ST dino oil, and got great UOA results. This is true for just about anyone bold enough to actually step out of their bubble and allow the paradigm shift to "wake" them. I routinely run conventional oils out to 10-15k miles, all on the same filters, and never have any issues. This is supported by UOAs, PCs, visual observations under the valve covers, etc. I am not saying the premium products cannot outperform normal everyday products; they certainly can. It's just that your self-imposed limit of 7k miles or less is WELL within the capability of "normal" products. And, you're not going to see any significant alteration of wear rates or cleanliness by using super-duper products for "normal" exposure limits. You've been wasting your money on the RP filters at 7k miles. But you'll also be wasting money on the Ultra at that OFCI, also. Why not actually start some experiments and see for yourself, rather than bench racing this Ultra thread to death (as has been done a bazillion times already; a fact you're already noted)? Why not run some UOAs and PCs with your current products, then change one product at a time, and see how they stack up? Why not actually do, rather than ask? I believe you'll be shocked to realize how capable "normal" products are, even further than you give them credit for.
 
Messages
15,223
Location
N.H, U.S.A.
Originally Posted by RazorsEdge
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Royal Puple doesn't make filters, and their passenger car oil is way down in the bottom third of the ratings.
Funny, I know plenty of people that have used Royal Purple including myself with no issues so I'd like to see these so called "ratings" that your referring to and I want solid data.
I should have said "rankings" and it wasn't done on engine wear data but "casual" ranking of their API starburst PCMO referencing PQIA and UOA data. Where it is I forgot. I've Been a member here for well over a decade and read the discussions over the years.. I just know to chuckle and pass this oil by at Walmart or AZ. UPDATE: I just looked at RP Dexos data on PQIA for 0W20 and they are using new DP that looks competitive with the Top Three So I moderate my unabashed bashing. Good to see! PHYSICAL TESTS (click for test details) - a Standard Royal Purple TBN, mg KOH/g (ASTM D2896) 9.07 Viscosity @ 100ºC, cSt (ASTM D445) 6.9 to <9.3 8.60 Viscosity @40ºC, cSt (ASTM D445) 45.27 Viscosity Index (ASTM D2270) 171 Viscosity @-35ºC mPa s (cP) (ASTM D5293) 6,200 Max 5,949 Volatility, mass % loss, 1 hr, @ 250ºC (ASTM D5800) 15 Max -c 10.9 ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS (click for test details) - a, b Additives Calcium, ppm 1,203 Magnesium, ppm 847 Phosphorus, ppm 600 to 800 -d 769 Zinc, ppm 831 Molybdenum, ppm 69 Barium, ppm <1 Boron, ppm 235 Silicon, ppm 8 Potassium, ppm <5 Manganese, ppm <1 Titanium, ppm 35 Copper, ppm <1 Sodium, ppm <5 Vanadium, ppm <1 Contaminants Silver, ppm <1 Aluminum, ppm <1 Chromium, ppm <1 Iron, ppm 2 Nickel, ppm <1 Lead, ppm <1 Antimony, ppm <1 Tin, ppm <1
 
Last edited:
Messages
61
Location
Orange County CA
Thread starter
Thank you all for your replies. Some nicer than others. Probably should have been more clear in my OP that I was not disparaging anybody they way they want to do anyting. That's why I was asking WHY for this or that. The major complaint everybody seems to have is too thin housing on the Fram filter. Where that's located in a 2002 Sienna I don't think that would be too much of an issue as far as road debris is concerned. Or at least not in metropolitan areas where you're mostly on the blacktop as I am here in Orange County California For some reason I actually thought the Fram ultra was over $5 cheaper than the Royal Purple. I recently recently priced it and found that wasn't so. So there's really no advantage for me to get that over the Mobil 1 extended performance, which I've come to like and trust as the filter I like second best after Royal Purple for the price. Anyway, thank you all for your comments. Even the snarky ones. Even they generally containd some useful information.
 
Messages
61
Location
Orange County CA
Thread starter
Originally Posted by kschachn
And to the OP, yes this is definitely beating a dead horse. It is actually beating a horse that has been dead quite a while and has been subsequently beaten so much there's nothing left to beat. You certainly have drawn some of the usuals out of the woodwork and no doubt will draw out the rest given more time. Where do you get any kind of connection to 7,000 miles with any filter? Isn't the Fram Ultra designed for much longer OCIs? Isn't any premium filter? I guess I don't understand your question.
On my 2002 Sienna the manufacturer recommended OCI is 7,500 or standard driving conditions with CONVENTIONAL oil. However, in hindsight, due to the sludging problems with a number first generation Sienna's, Toyota rolled that back to 5,000 miles. I've use Castrol 10-30 high-mileage in my car since I got it in 2012 with 136000 miles on it. It now has 207k. So I was using the 7,000 as a personal point of reference based on my car with conventional oil. Even though I split the difference between conventional and synthetic with high mileage. And based on the test results I get from Blackstone the TBN in that oil starts to give up the ghost to the point where it mattered somewhere around 5,500. And the rate to which my oil gets dirty they don't think it's worth switching to full synthetic for a longer oci's
 
Messages
214
Location
iowa
f.u is 7.62 with a sub/save from amazon....i understand some don't need or want to go that route, but at that price i don't think it can be beat. if it can please let me know...
 
Messages
22,082
Location
Dallas,Tx USA
Thin cans have always kind've freaked me out too,especially when I can smush them with my bare hands. I remember how fragile the yellow Purolator cans were. I like the thicker cans of the oem and Wix filters.
 

4WD

Messages
13,502
Location
Texas
M1 and the XP are heavy as tanks - but the filtration is not quite what the XG is - probably not gonna effect when the transmission fails or the front end craters - and the car is junk though, LoL I have used them all.
 
Messages
10,426
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
I've always said I would run my wife's xB until the engine blows up or something important rusts off the body. At nearly 16 years old (bought Feb.'05) it doesn't look like either are happening anytime soon! Thanks to regular underbody washes, M1 EP, and Ultra.
 
Messages
527
Location
Saint Nazianz, WI
Originally Posted by MichaelRS
And why would anybody want to run their oil or their filter to the very last mile of its useful life? To save less than 80 bucks a year on an oil change or two?
Here are the reasons that I believe are why people do this: 1. Bragging rights, it means a lot on the internet. 2. They care too much about what other people think. 3. They are brutally cheap and think that they must get every penny out of their investment in a $10 oil filter. I would happily run a Fram Ultra for 6000 miles on my Subaru and swap it out and think nothing of it. $10 is not a big deal for me, for some people a $30,000 vehicle is not a big deal but a $10 oil filter is something you would think that they would want to be clutching on to when they die and would write it into their will so it could be buried with them unabled to be pried out of their cold, dead hands.
 
Messages
1,962
Location
Seattle-ish, WA
Originally Posted by Ignatius
Originally Posted by MichaelRS
And why would anybody want to run their oil or their filter to the very last mile of its useful life? To save less than 80 bucks a year on an oil change or two?
Here are the reasons that I believe are why people do this: 1. Bragging rights, it means a lot on the internet. 2. They care too much about what other people think. 3. They are brutally cheap and think that they must get every penny out of their investment in a $10 oil filter. .
What an obnoxious and ignorant post. You could just read the thread above and see other reasons are that tossing it early is a waste, and in some difficult-to-service applications, it save genuine time and money. All laid out and explained, documented for those who care to read the issue and not just snobbishly tar people with a different practice or view point.
 
Messages
866
Location
Indy
Originally Posted by Ignatius
Originally Posted by MichaelRS
And why would anybody want to run their oil or their filter to the very last mile of its useful life? To save less than 80 bucks a year on an oil change or two?
Here are the reasons that I believe are why people do this: 1. Bragging rights, it means a lot on the internet. 2. They care too much about what other people think. 3. They are brutally cheap and think that they must get every penny out of their investment in a $10 oil filter. I would happily run a Fram Ultra for 6000 miles on my Subaru and swap it out and think nothing of it. $10 is not a big deal for me, for some people a $30,000 vehicle is not a big deal but a $10 oil filter is something you would think that they would want to be clutching on to when they die and would write it into their will so it could be buried with them unabled to be pried out of their cold, dead hands.
Though slightly emotionally stated, I identify with this position. I feel it is silly to run a $5, $10, or $15 DISPOSABLE item into the ground to save a couple pennies per day. Oil filters are disposable, and recyclable for that matter. Engines however, for the vast majority of us, are not disposable. Every single material in an oil filter is recyclable, and though it still costs certain resources to do so, if your conviction is waste management and conservation, I would imagine you likely go to the lengths necessary to recycle your oil and filter properly. I'm betting you simply heave your spent oil filters into the nearest waste bin though, Oro_O. I may be wrong, I'm likely not. I don't interpret the above post as ignorant, by definition. Nor snobbish or obnoxious, simply an opinion regarding the true economics regarding a consumable product. I personally change oil and filters before most would as well, be it 5k in the wife's car, 3k in my daily driver XTerra, or once a year in the Marauder, usually with less than 1500 miles. And I use nice, higher than average priced filters. And my engines look like this at 235k.

0CB19F80-EA19-48D0-AB9F-57470841F525.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,435
Location
Virginia
Maybe my eyes are bad or deceiving me... But those are the best looking cam lobes I have seen yet... They look extremely good.
 
Messages
866
Location
Indy
Originally Posted by bbhero
Maybe my eyes are bad or deceiving me... But those are the best looking cam lobes I have seen yet... They look extremely good.
Thank you. They are in fact nearly perfect. And my wife tows a horse trailer with this thing.

C3C2ECBD-55D0-44A1-81AA-2BDFEB9CF822.jpeg
 
Messages
1,017
Location
Iron Asylum
I changed the oil (Schaeffers) and filter (Fram Ultra) in the Ford Escape early simply because I forgot to write the mileage down ...„ Point being is I don't personally care how much I spend on oil and filter and how early I decide to change them out. I'll always change my oil and filter @ 5000 miles regardless of how long the oil filter/oil are rated for.
 
Messages
8,435
Location
Virginia
Yeah man that is really impressive... Like really impressive. Best cams I have seen thus far. I wish I could see my cams in my VQ motor... At 290k miles plus though that car of mine still runs really good... And no real leaks either.
 
Last edited:
Messages
24,508
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by bbhero
I wish I could see my cams in my VQ motor... At 290k miles plus though that car of mine still runs really good... And no real leaks either.
Should be able to see a few cam lobes through the oil fill cap hole with a good flashlight.
 
Messages
12,238
Location
Indiana
It's a good filter, but it sounds like you (as well as many many here) would be just fine with an Extra Guard. My only disclaimer is that yes, the Ultra becomes cheaper if you run it 3-4x (it's rated for 20k now?) and just change your oil.. if you're into that sort of thing.
 
Last edited:

dnewton3

Staff member
Messages
8,459
Location
Indianapolis, IN
Originally Posted by 69Torino
... I personally change oil and filters before most would as well, be it 5k in the wife's car, 3k in my daily driver XTerra, or once a year in the Marauder, usually with less than 1500 miles. And I use nice, higher than average priced filters. And my engines look like this at 235k.
There are generally two topics we concern ourselves with in regard to lubes; wear control and cleanliness ... Wear rates will be a tad higher at the front end of an OCI. They will actually go lower as the OCI matures even out to 15k miles; proven in both the Ford/Conoco SAE study (2007-01-4133) and the reams of my UOA database (16,000 UOAs and still going). Shorter OCIs do not, in any manner, in any field data, make for less wear. So let's take the wear topic off the table. We turn to cleanliness. As long as the oil add-pack is still strong, the anti-agglomerates and dispersants and detergents will all keep the engine clean. Referencing your internal engine valve-train photo; that looks quite nice. But I had a value-train that looked just as good around 200k miles in our old Villager, using only dino oils and OCIs at 10k miles. Sure, I had some light varnish under the value cover, but there was zero sludge and my visual wear indicators were as good as yours. Shorter OCIs do not assure a lack of sludge any more than longer ones assure sludge. Engine cleanliness is not only a factor of the OCI duration; they are also a factor of the add-pack, the oil flow in the engine, the oil temps in the engine, etc. Some of the Toyota engines back a while ago had terrible sludge issues, even with 5k mile OCIs. Other engines can easily run 2x that distance, and not have any sludge issues, even on lowly dino oil and "normal" filters. (I know, because I have visual proof in my 1995 Villager which had 240k miles on it when we got rid of it, and our 2005 Grand Marquis that has 270k miles on it, and still is in use after being sold to an acquaintance.) Here's how people look at cleanliness, and then I'll discuss how it actually happens. Your engine, any engine, contributes contamination at some prescribed rate that is unique to it's design, and individual manufacture. Generally, regardless of what products you use, and how you drive in a normal manner, the "contamination rate" does not change much. So, as long as your products selected have the capacity to deal with the contamination relative to the OCI, the outcome is essentially the same. I like to use analogies to illuminate my point, so here goes ... Consider an elderly couple; grandparents. They have a cleaning service come into their home once a week to dust, mop, do laundry, etc. Once a week is sufficient to sustain a "clean" home. Now, if you have the maids come 3x a week, it's not going to change the rate of contamination; the amount of dirt, dust, debris, dirty dishes, dirty clothes all stays the same. If once a week is enough to sustain a healthy home, then cleaning it more frequently does NOT improve the living standards in a tangible manner. But what happens if the grandkids come over for a weekend? Now the rate of "dirt" start to increase. Kids produce more dirty dishes, more laundry, drag in more mud, etc. Now's the time that "more" cleaning would be beneficial; you can make a reasonable argument for a need for "more" cleaning based on the uptick in contamination rate. So it goes for engines. They produce and ingest contamination at a fairly consistent rate. Adding "more" of something (either super duper filters, or high-priced lubes) does not really "clean" more. As long as the basic products have the capacity to "clean", adding more capacity goes unused UNLESS the rate of contamination changes. Here is an example with fictitious numbers for illustration: If your engine produces/ingests 2 grams of contamination ( combined soot/insolubles/silica) for every 1k miles it drives, then you want a lube and filter than can "hold" that contamination in suspension in the oil, and trapped in the filter (a combination thereof). If your oil has the capacity to hold 10 grams of small contamination, and the filter can hold 10 grams of large particles, then your total holding capacity is 20 grams. You should be able to safely drive 10k miles easily. If you change oil at 5k miles, you're not "cleaning" the engine any better; you're just wasting product capacity. My point is that most folks do NOT understand about wear, or cleanliness, in relation to engines/trannies/diffs. They have a distorted view that is not supported by factual reality. The "more is always better" mentality is a flawed one. To be fair, there is always going to be a point where any product fails. Use any oil and filter for too long, and you'll get more wear and more sludge. But that tipping point is typically FAR, FAR further than most people think. Changing oil and filters frequently has never proven to reduce wear or reduce sludge, as long as the "safe" level of condemnation is understood.
 
Last edited:
Messages
866
Location
Indy
I am blessed to have cars that are nice to oil, a Hyundai Lambda, (non GDI), a Ford 4.6 DOHC, and a Mazda 1.6 in our ‘92 Capri. Just sold our Freestyle with 308k on it, the Duratec also an engine that doesn't slaughter oil. The XTerrra I just purchased I am leery of, due to the small oil capacity and higher oil temps. I have had the valve covers off to replace gaskets and regretfully did not take pictures. At 134k it looks like it has twice the miles as it should. It's stained with varnish, not sludged, but still not as visually attractive as my other engines. When I bought the XTerra, the owner provided me with years of service records, and it had gotten Valvoline Maxlife every 3k-3.5k for many years at the Big O Tire shop in town. So I do understand that some engines are simply easy on oil and some have a tendency to destroy it quickly. I worked on a lot of 2.7 V6's at Chrysler. What a nightmare.
 
Top