Fram Ultra no longer 99% @ 20 microns?

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There was a post where a Fram tech stated 99%@16 microns for the Ultra in a reply to someone here. It makes sense they say 99+@20 microns based on that. IMO the 99 is 98.7 rounded, and the 99+ is a little extrapolation from that. Caused a whole lot of gladiator action on here too the 98.7.

FWIW based on tech email or whatever it was, I propose the Ultra is 99@16 and the TG is fram officially stated 99@20. I don't think it makes any difference in real use. I'm sure they will have it stated again the 99+, be patient all Ultra fans. IMHO and all that.


99% at 20 microns cannot be a roundup from 98.7% if the filter is also 99% at 16 microns.

98.7% refers to beta 75 which is a required efficiency ratio in the ISO test. As is beta 2, 10, 20, 200, 1000 which equate to 50%, 90%, 95%, 99.5% and 99.9%


99 can be a rounded off 98.7. I said they make it 99+@20 probably because it is 99@16. If they have 99% on the Ultra box in large type with an asterisk leading to the back of the box where is says @16, it will look the same to many people who see the TG 99% because most people probably never go to the back of the box. This way they can say 99+ which gives the Ultra an edge.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
There was a post where a Fram tech stated 99%@16 microns for the Ultra in a reply to someone here. It makes sense they say 99+@20 microns based on that. IMO the 99 is 98.7 rounded, and the 99+ is a little extrapolation from that.


FYI ... for high efficiency filters, ISO 4548-12 allows extrapolation above a measured efficiency of 98.7%.


Fine, the battle is over and I am dead in the sand of the arena.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Let me make a call to "corporate" ...

Still shows 99+% (but no micron size) in this snap-shot but looks like the details are missing on the page for the Ultra. Sure it's just an oversight when they revamped the website.








I looked at my 2012 Ultra XG4967 box here and it says 99%, no +, so I thought what the heck is going on here. So I am glad to see it IS 99+% now. So they must have done some more testing and found it to be better than 99@ 20, extrapolated?, is my theory. They also show no filter models tested on my box. On the newer boxes it has three models two of which are ones I can use. Not many people can make that claim.

 

[UncleDave]

So far so good -

We went from this last night




to this today.




Still not so clear to me all XG ultras are covered, but infinitely better than what was up after the change.



UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Still not so clear to me all XG ultras are covered, but infinitely better than what was up after the change.


I explained why earlier. It's because they have used 3 filters (the specific ones they list in the efficiency statement) to validate the efficiency of the whole XG filter line.

Most companies only use one filter, usually the largest filter they make because it typically gives the best efficiency test results. Go look around at other filter maker's websites or on their boxes and you'll see only one filter referenced in their testing claims. Or none at all.

Fram has at least went a step above that and they have used 3 different sized filters in the validation testing to take the size factor out of the results.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Looks like an error in the updated statement. "PH9A" instead of "PH8A".

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Still not so clear to me all XG ultras are covered, but infinitely better than what was up after the change.


I explained why earlier. It's because they have used 3 filters (the ones they list in the efficiency statement) to validate the efficiency of the whole XG filter line.

Most companies only use one filter, usually the largest filter they make because it typically gives the best efficiency test results. Go look around at other filter maker's websites or on their boxes and you'll see only one filter referenced in their testing claims. Or none at all.

Fram has at least went a step above that and they have used 3 different sized filters in the validation testing to take the size factor out of the results.


I heard your explanation - and believe you.

That said I dont have to love how they denote this - I dont think its clear.

They note no XG series filters in the line about 20 microns - they denote the "XG" series in the asterisk * line. that has no micron rating.



UD

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
That said I dont have to love how they denote this - I dont think its clear.

They note no XG series filters in the line about 20 microns - they denote the "XG" series in the asterisk * line. that has no micron rating.


I agree not saying "XG" in the line when it's specifically noted for an XG is confusing, and maybe Fram can change that to be more clear.

Again, you have to put the footnote info along with the flagnoted statement showing the 99%+ info. Typical way Fram and others have done it for years on their websites and boxes.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
I heard your explanation - and believe you.

That said I dont have to love how they denote this - I dont think its clear.

They note no XG series filters in the line about 20 microns - they denote the "XG" series in the asterisk * line. that has no micron rating.


I agree not saying "XG" in the line when it's spcifically noted for an XG is confusing, and maybe Fram can change that up some. Again, you have to put the footnote along with the flagnote notated statement showing the 99%+ info. Typical way Fram and others have done it for years.




Im Ok with a footnote at the top referencing the bottom with a + or asterisk thats standard stuff as you say . (when they actually say something like they do now)

I would prefer the model and rating in one line like - XG(all) 99% efficient @ >20 Microns. (or something like that preferably 99%+ )

As the Stones would say - you can't always get what you want, but Im good for now.


UD

 

[CharlieBauer]

The asterisk line is the footnote for Ultra's capacity not filtering efficiency.

The footnote above it is the relevant one and states the 20 micron level of the ISO test.

The misleading part is they call the Ultra by it's old abbreviation, EG, instead of XG.

Typical errors by marketing people as is the PH9A instead of PH8A.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Looks like Fram already caught the typo on the PH9A instead of PH8A. The website now shows PH8A.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The asterisk line is the footnote for Ultra's capacity not filtering efficiency.

The footnote above it is the relevant one and states the 20 micron level of the ISO test.

The misleading part is they call the Ultra by it's old abbreviation, EG, instead of XG.

Typical errors by marketing people as is the PH9A instead of PH8A.
Thought the EG was the Extra Guard, AKA "orange can", PH series. Pretty sure the Ultra has always been XG, since the early "Xtended Guard" 7000 mile days.

 

[CharlieBauer]

You're right. But in any case, they used "EG" when they should have used "XG" as they did in the footnotes for the other two filters. Should have just copy pasted!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Yeah, the statements can be written a bit more clearly IMO.

 

[Motorking]

Originally Posted By: newtoncd8
Not sure if this has already been discussed, but the Fram site no longer lists the Ultra as capable of 99% @ 20 microns. The Tough Guard (99% @ 20 microns) and Extra Guard (95% @ 20 microns) data are both still listed.

Omission on the Fram marketing team or has there been a change?


It is still 99%, we are correcting the new website asap. Please, no conspiracy theories!