Oil Filter Choice for December 2018

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by goodtimes
You already know the reports I refer too, search for them yourself. You've seen them many times, bad memory, or selective memory? You even claimed they must be a mistake.. So you play some kind of games?
The test you show is one filter, comparing it to itself I guess, and means nothing.
The reply wasn't directed to you anyway.


You always refer to it and make the claim, so you go find and post it up and back up your comments - onus is on you. It probably doesn't even exist. It doesn't matter if the particle count is only on one filter, it's still an ISO particle count that can stand alone ... it's an ISO cleanliness measurement that you can compare to any other ISO cleanliness measurement. Grasping at that Mr. Strawman.

" It probably doesn't even exist."

There is a word starting with L for what you said. I am sure others know what test I am referring to. I know you do.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted by Bond
I would like to see the test good times mentioned. Would like to know both sides of the story. If the more expensive fram ultra preforms poorer than some off brand economy filters, id like to know so I can be sure to not waste money on one again. If on the other hand its not true id like to know so I don't need to feel like a chump for buying into the hype about fram ultra.



I'll see if I can find it later. It went on and on with the posts and denials etc. It's on here. The SAE lab test is correct, but the particle test from real world use is what actually happens "in real use."


Toyota surely does use their own type of cast iron in their liners, not all is the same. Which is a different topic but time is short..

 

[goodtimes]

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4465284/Searchpage/3/Main/273168/Words/%2Bultra+%2Bparticle+%2Bcount/Search/true/re-rockauto-ultrafast-toyota-copy-used-oil-filter-cut#Post4465284

The thread not only exists, the person saying "it probably doesn't exist" was commenting in it. That's a pretty bad state of affairs, accusing, bullying, someone of making up something, well knowing that it isn't made up.

 

[Bond]

Originally Posted by goodtimes
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4465284/Searchpage/3/Main/273168/Words/%2Bultra+%2Bparticle+%2Bcount/Search/true/re-rockauto-ultrafast-toyota-copy-used-oil-filter-cut#Post4465284

The thread not only exists, the person saying "it probably doesn't exist" was commenting in it. That's a pretty bad state of affairs, accusing, bullying, someone of making up something, well knowing that it isn't made up.

Thanks for providing the link. Its unfortunate that this data shows good reason to doubt the filtering efficiency of the ultra in real world use. Maybe l full synthetic filters are subject to this. It makes since that they would be less efficient at filtering out smaller particles as you mentioned the randomness of a cellulose or blend media is likely to be more efficient in real world. I vlualue these long interval filters because i run them the whole 20k. Its actually cheaper in price than buying 3 Motorcraft or fram extra and using 1time each.
Guess it will be soley the blended m1 filters for me from now on. Only a dollar more and probably better in reality at filtering. Definitely m1 is a thicker more solid can

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by goodtimes
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4465284/Searchpage/3/Main/273168/Words/%2Bultra+%2Bparticle+%2Bcount/Search/true/re-rockauto-ultrafast-toyota-copy-used-oil-filter-cut#Post4465284

The thread not only exists, the person saying "it probably doesn't exist" was commenting in it. That's a pretty bad state of affairs, accusing, bullying, someone of making up something, well knowing that it isn't made up.


Yeah, and take note of what I said in that thread. Who knows what happened there ... could have been any number of things that could have skewed the outcome. Going on one test point is is weak. In fact, the other UOAs using an Ultra that had an ISO PC showed much better than this particular one you keep latching onto - another hint that this particular PC was not normal for some reason.

Like I said, there's also the particle count (I posted the link earlier) that shows a Fram TG ran in a motorcycle (wet clutch and shared with transmission system) for 5K miles came up with a cleaner PC than the same virgin oil used in the bike had. So why would your one test data point be any more valid that the other one test data point that I refer?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Bond
I would like to see the test good times mentioned. Would like to know both sides of the story. If the more expensive fram ultra preforms poorer than some off brand economy filters, id like to know so I can be sure to not waste money on one again. If on the other hand its not true id like to know so I don't need to feel like a chump for buying into the hype about fram ultra.

Both sides of what story? The Fram Ultra performs exactly as their data says it performs, what hype are you "buying into" that makes you a chump?

You think their published filtration data is false?


Yeah, the doubters better get a lawyer and threaten a lawsuit against Fram for false advertising of efficiency. Anyone who thinks Fram or any other big filter manufacture is stupid enough to advertise false testing results needs to do a little research on the subject matter in the consumer world ... there are explicit laws against false advertising. And you can bet other filter makers are eyeballing each others claims and even testing the other companies products to verify such claims.

 

[chainblu]

I agree that the particle count on that particular UOA is surprising (disturbing?), it is just one. Are there others? I would need to see a pattern of similar particle counts before drawing a definite conclusion. It could just a an anomaly or could be a real eye opener.

For the record, I don't nor ever have used an Ultra.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by chainblu
I agree that the particle count on that particular UOA is surprising (disturbing?), it is just one. Are there others? I would need to see a pattern of similar particle counts before drawing a definite conclusion. It could just a an anomaly or could be a real eye opener.

For the record, I don't nor ever have used an Ultra.


The UOA ISO particles count on the two Frams in the 2nd and 3rd links below came out better than the 'no name' filter that beat the Ultra (1st link). So people reading this can make up their own mind of just how valid that one test was that goodtimes keeps referring to as "gospel".

No name filter that showed a better PC than an Ultra (the goodtime latched-on example).
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4464853/1

An Ultra that shows a better PC than the two filters in the thread above.
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/4753405

UOA with a PC on a Fram TG (rated 99% @ 20u) used in a motorcycle for 5K miles.
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4107645/Honda_NC700X_Red_Line_10W30

 

[ZeeOSix]

These are snip-its from the 1st and 2nd link ISO particle counts in my previous post.

Both filters were ran ~5K miles per the UOA report.

Snip-it on the left is the "No Name" filter that "beat' the Ultra. Snip-it to the right is another Ultra example. And the motorcycle example was cleaner than the No Name PC too (go read that thread link above). Readers make up your own minds ... but IMO the example off the No Name filter beating the Ultra was a fluke.

 

[goodtimes]

There was another member who posted ISO cleanliness values, the Ultra didn't do very well. Feel free to search for it no more games for me after this exposition of untruthfulness. I have no axe to grind with the Ultra. I know it is popular now to attack people and deny facts, as if it invalidates the facts.

Both these test results on the Ultra have been discussed before and at length here.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by goodtimes
There was another member who posted ISO cleanliness value, the Ultra didn't do very well. Feel free to search for it no more games for me after this exposition of untruthfulness. I have no axe to grind with the Ultra. I know it is popular now too attack people and deny facts, as if it invalidates the facts..


... "exposition of untruthfulness" ... "it invalidates the facts" ...

The two previous posts I made is black and white data and facts as good as yours ... no games. If you have more data to support your claim then post it up.

Originally Posted by goodtimes
Both these test results on the Ultra have been discussed before and at length here.


Yet, you only "lock-on" to the one where a $1.97 no name filter somehow beat the Ultra in a PC. A fluke data point IMO, as a few other PCs show no repeat bad PC correlation.

 

[Bond]

Originally Posted by chainblu
I agree that the particle count on that particular UOA is surprising (disturbing?), it is just one. Are there others? I would need to see a pattern of similar particle counts before drawing a definite conclusion. It could just a an anomaly or could be a real eye opener.

For the record, I don't nor ever have used an Ultra.

It seems this is some of the only real world data anyone has seen on the ultra. Real = not in a controlled environment. Its enough for me to pass on buying it in the future. There are too many other choices out there.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Bond
Originally Posted by chainblu
I agree that the particle count on that particular UOA is surprising (disturbing?), it is just one. Are there others? I would need to see a pattern of similar particle counts before drawing a definite conclusion. It could just a an anomaly or could be a real eye opener.

For the record, I don't nor ever have used an Ultra.

It seems this is some of the only real world data anyone has seen on the ultra. Real = not in a controlled environment. Its enough for me to pass on buying it in the future. There are too many other choices out there.


Read what I posted that shows that PC was basically a fluke. Other Ultra and TG PCs (which I linked to) showed better cleanliness than that $1.41 off brand filter (Rock Auto "Ultra Power"). The data is all there in black and white ... I smell reincarnated troll.

 

[Bond]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Bond
Originally Posted by chainblu
I agree that the particle count on that particular UOA is surprising (disturbing?), it is just one. Are there others? I would need to see a pattern of similar particle counts before drawing a definite conclusion. It could just a an anomaly or could be a real eye opener.

For the record, I don't nor ever have used an Ultra.

It seems this is some of the only real world data anyone has seen on the ultra. Real = not in a controlled environment. Its enough for me to pass on buying it in the future. There are too many other choices out there.


Read what I posted that shows that PC was basically a fluke. Other Ultra and TG PCs (which I linked to) showed better cleanliness than that $1.41 off brand filter (Rock Auto "Ultra Power"). The data is all there in black and white ... I smell reincarnated troll.

Im not as interested in data put out by the manufacturer themselves as I am data produced by an individual that has no real interest in anything except the maintenance of their own machine.
"reincarnated troll".... Lol, i could possibly be reincarnated. I like my life so I must have been an ok guy or gal or fish or bird or something that past life haha. I think trolls are just fictional characters though.
Anyway you can have your filters, its ok if I choose others because that just means more for you, right?
Now moving on.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Bond
Im not as interested in data put out by the manufacturer themselves as I am data produced by an individual that has no real interest in anything except the maintenance of their own machine.


If you read the data I showed debunking the goodtime latch-on, it's pretty clear that the bad PC was a fluke. Anyone who only latches onto the one negative data point without looking at the other data has one-way biased glasses on.

You signed up 2 days ago, and post like you've been here for years, so the reincarnation statement holds. Better go get some of thos awesome Rock Auto "Ultra Power" filters.

 

[Bond]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Bond
Im not as interested in data put out by the manufacturer themselves as I am data produced by an individual that has no real interest in anything except the maintenance of their own machine.


If you read the data I showed debunking the goodtime latch-on, it's pretty clear that the bad PC was a fluke. Anyone who only latches onto the one negative data point without looking at the other data has one-way biased glasses on.

You signed up 2 days ago, and post like you've been here for years, so the reincarnation statement holds. Better go get some of thos awesome Rock Auto "Ultra Power" filters.

Uh hu, sure buddy.
Nah, ill just use the m1 filters 3 times each.
Happy trails

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Bond
Im not as interested in data put out by the manufacturer themselves as I am data produced by an individual that has no real interest in anything except the maintenance of their own machine.
"reincarnated troll".... Lol, i could possibly be reincarnated. I like my life so I must have been an ok guy or gal or fish or bird or something that past life haha. I think trolls are just fictional characters though.
Anyway you can have your filters, its ok if I choose others because that just means more for you, right?
Now moving on.

Originally Posted by Bond
Uh hu, sure buddy.
Nah, ill just use the m1 filters 3 times each.
Happy trails

You're not a fish, a bird or anything like that. It was clear who you were a while ago, Bond.

You're been put on that happy trail numerous times but you circle back.

 

[JHZR2]

Drama = lock time.