www.fram.com
I would buy the old style since I trust it more than the new style.
That's what I was reading here,newer posts.most seem too trust the old metal screen style.but why?
If they say 15,000 that's definitely an old style Ultra.
Because no reinforced media (with wire or nylon mesh backing) ever tear.
If you ever saw the Excel database that Stu_Rock did on the reported torn filters, it showed some of them had very low mileage on them. Of course, if a filter is used in cold weather there will be more dP across the media and therefore a greater risk of tearing the media if the filter has wide spaced pleats and/or the filter media is "brittle" and can't take much side bending from the oil flow dP. The filter bypass valve should prevent damage to the oil filter, if the filter is designed right.
There is still the bypass valve, so if the filter loads up and caused more dP then the bypass valve should start opening to 1) maintain oil flow to the engine, and just as important, 2) to prevent the filter media and center tube from damage due to excessive dP. If an oil filter is designed well, it should be able to withstand the designed bypass valve dP all day long.
The ISO 4548-12 efficiency test (used by Ascent, and many filter makers) determines the over-all efficiency of the filter from brand new to fully loaded (ie, a dP not far off from causing the bypass valve to open). Ascent's test data also showed that the filters he tested did indeed lose some efficiency as the filters loaded up. There were some posts and discussions about it in the long Ascent testing thread.
Fram's website shows the Ultra, Titanium and Endurance all having 99+% @> 20u efficiency, based on the specific filter models they reference the effficiency claim on.
Yes, I remember that, it was based on all the reported incidents on this forum. My issue is with the posters' information. 'Some' of them that had low mileage may have been subjected to cold starts, thick oil, etc. but iirc most didn't post any mileage, I wouldn't know where to start looking for that item, lol. I would assume a wire mesh backing would have alleviated that issue. So more pleats with closer spacing would prevent the side bending from going far enough to tear? Thats what Fram did when they eliminated the wire mesh?
True, the issue was loss of filtration efficiency by sending it into bypass, not damaging the filter.
There probably is, it is a long thread. But maybe time would have a bearing on holding capability? Could particles eventually "lose their grip" over time, with may cold starts resulting in varying dP?
Got it. So the ISO testing Ascent did includes holding capacity & I presume the metal-to-metal leaf spring on some filters. The OG Ultra had a fiber gasket there, that may have helped the overall rating!
Right, but Ascent's testing showed the Ultra exceeding the ratings in the capture of 20u, 15u & 10u particles, which, could be attributed to the gasket at the leaf spring. In fact the poor performance of the other filters could be attributed to lack of positive sealing in that area. My thought is if the filter is used longer, the smaller particles could slough off, but you say ISO parameters include that spec.
Sure, if a filter with wide pleat spacing and brittle media that can't take much side force was subjected to very cold start-up, it could tear the media on the first start-up. Tighter, more evenly spaced pleats reduce the chances of the pleats bending sideways and stressing out the area at the end of the pleats where pleats usually tear. Wide pleat spacing is pretty much always a prime factor in reported torn pleats seen here. Of course wire backed media will give much more added pleat support and keep the pleats from bending, even if there are wider spaced pleats. And of course, full synthetic media needs a backing of some kind because it just doesn't have the rigidity to do it without added backing.
Loss of efficiency due to the bypass valve momentarily opening is momentary efficiency loss. If the bypass valve closes, and the oil is circulated many times again through the filter then it should catch anything that was bypassed. Now if the bypass valve is almost always open, or there is some on-going leakage of dirty oil past the media, then that could reduce the efficiency at all times.
Given enough dP, or even dP pulsations/spikes, it can dislodge already captured debris. This is another good reason to take it easy on the engine RPM until the oil warms up. If someone fires up a very cold engine and starts racing around, it's certainly going to put some dP spikes on the media and also open the bypass valve. To mitigate that, be mellow on RPM until the oil warms up pretty good.
Yes, Ascent's testing included ISO 4548-12 dP vs flow, holding capacity and muti-pass efficiency. It also discussed efficiency loss as the filter loaded up and dP increased. That thread might be worth reading from about post 228 and on.
The Royal Purple and ACDelco preformed very well too, and they don't use a fiber gasket on the dome end cap. But yes, the fiber gasket between the leaf spring and dome end cap on the OG Ultra was a nice touch. The new Ultra and the Endurace are still rated at 99% > 20u on Fram's website, so apparently they thought the fiber gasket wasn't really needed. The other filters performed worse because of like I mentioned before: 1) Have over-all less efficient media, 2) Have some kind of dirty oil leakage going on, or 3) Are not good at retaining already captured debris as they load up and the dP increases across the media. Or a combination of 1), 2) and 3).
I've posted this figure many times before to explain how an oil filter's efficiency can decrease as it loads up and dP across the media increases. Also to explain how ISO 4548-12 calculates the efficiency, which is basically the average of the real time multi-pass efficiency as the filter is loaded up during the test. So in this example, the over-all ISO 4548-12 efficiency at 20u would simply be (90% + 60%)/2 = 75 % @ 20u. So yes, ISO 4548-12 takes into account the loss of efficiency with loading and increased dP. As said earlier, if a filter is rated at 99% @ 20, then by definition it can not be losing much efficiency from sloughing off captured debris.
Thanks for (re)posting this. So when a mfg. says a filter has 99% @ 20u efficiency for 25,000 miles, the 70 in the above chart would be replaced by 25,000 miles, & the 99% figure would be an average across that time/usage span? So in reality you can expect much higher than 99% when the filter is new, & maybe somewhat lower than 99% toward the end of the span? In the above example, the filter was performing above average for 20u at 50% of its life, there is a more drastic drop off after that.I've posted this figure many times before to explain how an oil filter's efficiency can decrease as it loads up and dP across the media increases. Also to explain how ISO 4548-12 calculates the efficiency, which is basically the average of the real time multi-pass efficiency as the filter is loaded up during the test. So in this example, the over-all ISO 4548-12 efficiency at 20u would simply be (90% + 60%)/2 = 75 % @ 20u. So yes, ISO 4548-12 takes into account the loss of efficiency with loading and increased dP. As said earlier, if a filter is rated at 99% @ 20, then by definition it can not be losing much efficiency from sloughing off captured debris.
They would have to come up with a typical conservative "x grams per 1000 miles" generated by the engine to give a filter an "up to miles" use rating. Motorking mentioned 1 gram per 1000 miles, but it might be lower than that - it would be totally up to the filter engineers desiging and making the filters, it's not covered in ISO 4548 in any way. The determination of the holding capacity is in ISO 4548, but once that is determined, then the filter desgner could give the filter an "up to miles" use rating.
If the fitler was rated at 99% @ 20u per ISO 4548-12, that would be the average efficiency over the rated holding capactiy of the filter. So it couldn't get much better than 99% @ 20u when new. Maybe it would be 99.5% when new, and 97.5% when loaded. The average of 99.5% and 98.5% would be 99.0%. The ISO efficiency is always the over-all average efficicy from new to loaded to near holding capacity.
How’s it going?Really? We’re gonna worry about that extra fraction of a percent?
The focus of the discussion is not about that. What if you were using a filter rated at 60% @ 20u per ISO 4548-12, and it was down to 40% @ 20u near the end of it's use rating? Would you be OK with that situation?Really? We’re gonna worry about that extra fraction of a percent?
Hey brotha! Not bad, things could be worse I guess. How’s everything with you?
Hi there! Yes, I’d be ok with that personally. Tons of cars hitting 200k+ mileage on jobber-tier filters.
