The New Fram Ultra

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: diddlyd
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Agreed. However, the frquency and severity varies as well. A failed media in a Purolator Classic is not the norm. You are far less likely to see that happen wiith a quality filter like Purolator than you are OCOD's.


calling bull crud here. show me some solid evidence that proves purolator classics fail less than fram extraguards. fanboys posting here and on youtube is not solid evidence.


FYI - "fanboy" means you like something not dislike it. People saying they dislike Fram filters and/or posting negative videos on YouTube about it are not "fanboys". Also, if the YoutTube video is of a failed Fram filter( or multiple ones )how is that not proof? Pictures and/or video is basically the proof you are asking for is it not? If there are 20 or more videos showing failed Fram filters, and say 5 or fewer showing failed Purolator Classic filters, is that not proof one is better than the other?

I see you played the infamous "give me proof" comment( the last resort for a person trying to defend the indefensible ). Fram filters have an earned repuatation of poor quality while Purolator has a reputation of offering quality filters. A failed Purolator is something that people are surprised by whereas a failed Fram hardly raises an eyebrow. I never said Prolators don't fail at all either; just not as often as Fram. Anything man-made fails. As I said earlier the frequency and severity of those failures is what makes them different.

I suggest you actually look inside the filters yourself and see what we(I) are(am) talking about. IF you already have and still defend Fram I am at a loss for words. Cut open a Fram EG and pick any one of the large number of decent filters selling for the same approx price and do the same( AC, MOPAR, Motorcraft, Wix/Napa, Purolator, Bosch, Hastings, Baldwin, and on and on ). Then compare the quality of the components used as well as construction methods. You can even take it further and compare used to new filters and see how they hold up( just be fair on the OCI length - 1000 proves nothing ). The fact these other filters are built using better components and construction methods in and of itself means you will see fewer failures than a filter not built as well. That is your proof.

I never said that a Purolator Classic wouldn't fail either. Just that it would not be as common as a Fram OCOD failing. BIG difference.

JMHO.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: chainblu
Actually I was surprised this thread made it well into the 2nd page before some wanker started spewing "I hate Fram" drivel.

Uh, we are all very aware of the anti-Fram bias here. Yet someone can't let just one Fram thread carry on peacefully. Which, by the way, had nothing to do with the so called "OCOD".

I, for one, apologize to the OP.



Calling people wankers is not only completely uncalled for but is a rule violation here. Be careful you don't get a time out. They take that stuff seriously here.

I disagree that the new Fram filter the OP talked about has nothing to do with the OCOD. As I talked about in my 1st post though if Fram is comfortable selling the OCOD, with such poor quality components and construction methods, I for one have no faith that the premium filters they make won't also suffer the same lack of quality control. At least compared to other premium filters. It is a valid concern.

Until Fram cleans up their act on the standard filters they offer there is no way I am shelling out the money it would take for their top of the line stuff like the filter the OP talked about. For the same money +/- a buck or 2 you have RP, Amsoil, Mobil 1, K&N, Purolator PureOne, Bosch Distance Plus, etc... available that we know are worth the money.

I don't beleive anyone owes the OP an apology unless they make personal attacks on other members and thus take the thread off track( wink wink

). The mfg of the filter and their other filter lines is a legit topic of discussion. I am not saying the new filter he talked about is as bad as the OCOD. I just don't trust Fram to build a quality filter that offers up value for cost the way other filter mfg's do. Not based on the OCOD's history and the company not fixing the problem(s) to date.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Having used OCOD exclusively for almost a DECADE on our fleet trucks (long time ago) I feel certain that they are are no more likely to fail than another. According to my local AAP they are still a huge seller. I also ran them on boats, motorcycles, and personal cars/trucks.

If someone wants to knock their quality then that's ok, as they are cheaply made in their lower cost lines. We stopped using them a long time ago, but not because they caused problems.

But they worked fine. Not one or even a dozen, but hundreds of them without a single problem of any kind. Some people have a real axe to grind, and that's fine, too.

Final note: beware of "Internet Amplification". It's real.

 

[Jim Allen]

NHHEMI: You are perpetrating the same sort of "stuff" that you so valiantly challenged when Royal Purple was the BITOG whipping boy not so long ago. Shame on you.

Fram's low end filters are no more failure-prone than any other. I don't choose them any more than I would any of the other low-rents for reasons that are very clear to me. But a person saying he hates all Frams and won't buy any because the low cost filters are of marginal quality is like hating all members of a particular family or race because one of them is bad. Sure, you have to judge things on a daily basis and, yes, unlikely as it is, all members of a particular family or race COULD be bad. But to say that you would have to look objectively at all of them and make a judgement on the totality of the evidence.

The so-called OCOD can be highly criticized on a number of features objectively. Moving up the Fram filter foodchain, it becomes harder and harder to find fault in an objective sense. It just seems silly and childish to be so vehemently against something just because it has "Fram" emblazoned on it somewhere. I suppose we could substitute any brand name here. Come to think of it, I may have said more or less the same thing about Royal Purple just a few years ago.

 

[CMMeadAM]

Very well stated! Members of the family have used Fram filters dating back to 1960 with absolutely no failures, and over the years we've used the Tough Guard and now the XG
filters with very good results in filtration and durability.

We agree the anti Fram paranoia is just that....ill founded paranoia.

 

[LeakySeals]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals

The ignorance surrounding Fram will never stop..

sigh...

again...

The Fram Ultra and The Fram Xtended Guard are NOT to be confused with the OCOD. They are a completely different design.

If people have no first hand knowledge they should refrain from perpetuating wise tails.

Thanks.


I will counter your comments with a simple statement( offered up respectfully and not trying to be a jerk ). IMO the ignorance that will never stop is from those who continue to use and defend Fram filters.

Nuff' said.

Nuff' said? You didn't say anything. Hope your not the "sucker" Purolator is targeting with the new ads (the hand crushing the paper, then trying to crush a metal end cap). Purolater borrowed that joke straight from the shady tree mechanic comedy routines on YouTube.

But guess what? The Fram Ultra has no paper anywhere, including the media.

Purolator doesn't care about that fact, they know the "suckers" fall for that paper end cap trick every time. They must surf the web searching for the most commonly spread falsehoods. The new videos say more about Purolator than it does Fram. It says Purolator thinks its customers are suckers, fools that know nothing about filters other than what they google in a forum, or watch on YouTube.

When its oil change time, I'm going to take a video of my hand crushing the Purolator classic's outside shell! Then my hand shaking, struggling to make an indent in the Ultra's shell.

Full disclosure: I use Purolator and Fram XG's depending on what I'm trying to do. I like them both.

PS...your not using RP filters are you? I been on YouTube and they have been autopsied..the "autopsy-er" says lousy, dont use..its paper media falls apart, the glue seam in the media splits open leaving a gap for oil to go right through unfiltered. This guy used Amsoil, the Amsoil literally ate the media, partially dissolved it..

Rather have an end cap that crushes in my hand than media that dissolves..

Or...

Was picking at the media like that, pulling on it the wrong way to perform an autopsy? Like squeezing and paper end cap in your fist maybe?

Hope you understand the point being made.

 

[diddlyd]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


FYI - "fanboy" means you like something not dislike it. People saying they dislike Fram filters and/or posting negative videos on YouTube about it are not "fanboys". Also, if the YoutTube video is of a failed Fram filter( or multiple ones )how is that not proof? Pictures and/or video is basically the proof you are asking for is it not? If there are 20 or more videos showing failed Fram filters, and say 5 or fewer showing failed Purolator Classic filters, is that not proof one is better than the other?

I suggest you actually look inside the filters yourself and see what we(I) are(am) talking about. IF you already have and still defend Fram I am at a loss for words. Cut open a Fram EG and pick any one of the large number of decent filters selling for the same approx price and do the same( AC, MOPAR, Motorcraft, Wix/Napa, Purolator, Bosch, Hastings, Baldwin, and on and on ). Then compare the quality of the components used as well as construction methods. You can even take it further and compare used to new filters and see how they hold up( just be fair on the OCI length - 1000 proves nothing ). The fact these other filters are built using better components and construction methods in and of itself means you will see fewer failures than a filter not built as well. That is your proof.

I never said that a Purolator Classic wouldn't fail either. Just that it would not be as common as a Fram OCOD failing. BIG difference.

JMHO.


inverse fanboy then. and no youtube videos aren't proof, when there seems to be some vocal minority order of fram haters who love to talk about it till the end of time.

anyways, if i pull apart a fram cheapo and a purolator cheapo, i see:

a.) fram has fiber endcaps glued to the filter element to hold it in place. puro has metal. neither of these structures bear much if any load. glue adheres to fiber better than metal though.

b.) fram has a solid and thick outer metal casing. purolator is much thinner and flimsier. the casing is definitely an important load bearing structure.

so complaining about fram being cheaply made is sort of ironic. kinda like standing on your purolator balsa wood 1x6 balcony, looking over at your neighbor's fram weather treated 2x6 oak balcony, and berating him for his cheap screen door frame. that's my analogy and i'm sticking to it.

edit: a perfect example!
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2630222&#Post2630222

 

[fxrider]

There are Millions of Fram OCOD being used every day. there good for the original 3000 mile oci.

 

[tommygunn]

Originally Posted By: diddlyd
a.) fram has fiber endcaps glued to the filter element to hold it in place. puro has metal. neither of these structures bear much if any load. glue adheres to fiber better than metal though.


If thats the case why does FRAM's best filter use metal endcaps?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI

I disagree that the new Fram filter the OP talked about has nothing to do with the OCOD. As I talked about in my 1st post though if Fram is comfortable selling the OCOD, with such poor quality components and construction methods, I for one have no faith that the premium filters they make won't also suffer the same lack of quality control. At least compared to other premium filters. It is a valid concern.


From what I've seen on the inside of the XG, I'd have to say the design and construction is definitely better than the rest of the Fram line. The quality of construction seems as good as I've seen on any other high end filter. If that's due to better quality control or just the fact that the metal end cap design lends to better construction quality due to manufacturing methods, etc is unknown, but I'd think it does has a factor in it all.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: diddlyd

anyways, if i pull apart a fram cheapo and a purolator cheapo, i see:

a.) fram has fiber endcaps glued to the filter element to hold it in place. puro has metal. neither of these structures bear much if any load. glue adheres to fiber better than metal though.


One thing I don't like about "fiber" end caps is that they don't always stay flat like a metal end cap. The ADBV and sometimes the bypass valve is supposed to seal up against the fiber end cap, and if the end cap warps, then that seal is compromised and unfiltered oil could get past the filter.

Originally Posted By: diddlyd

b.) fram has a solid and thick outer metal casing. purolator is much thinner and flimsier. the casing is definitely an important load bearing structure.


I have never seen anyone post about a can failure on a Purolator, and people have actually done thickness measurements on the cans of many different filters and the Purolators aren't really any thinner. They may flex more due to the metal they use more than the actual thickness of the metal.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
NHHEMI: You are perpetrating the same sort of "stuff" that you so valiantly challenged when Royal Purple was the BITOG whipping boy not so long ago. Shame on you.


Actually untrue. Many of the people here who bash on RP have never even used it. THAT was always my biggest gripe. IF you used it and didn't like it or had a bad experience I never said anything to the person other than I am sorry to hear that. I have used Fram and even sold them so I have personaly exprience to back it up. I never said the filter the OP talked about was bad persay either. I have never used them so I couldn't say that with any honesty. What I said is based on their other poor quality filters I don't trust them to make one worth what it costs. Instead I would buy a filter from a company that we know offers quality filters. Why should I deserve a "shame on you" for that?

I have personally had a couple Fram's fail years ago. One was on a used 75 Chevy Malibu I had( 1st car actually )and one on my 88 Ram Sport I bought new. Both times the media literally came apart( basically killed the 350 in the 75 Malibu ). Have not used them since and won't. One failure can happen to anyone but when you hit 2, and read/see about all these others, it is enough for me not to trust that mfg for oil filters. I also saw it happen a few times when I sold auto parts as well as I have posted about here before. Only oil filters I ever saw go bad other than 1 Hastings that looked like something in the machine procees failed.

As I have also posted here before I had mechanics who flat out refused to accept Fram oil filters. Again, I have seen enough with my own eyes to know it is not a filter I want to use. I don't just listen to others and run like a lemming to the sea crying this or that product is bad/good. I have to have some personal experience with it to do so.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals

But guess what? The Fram Ultra has no paper anywhere, including the media.


Never said it did. Never talked about the filters themselves. Just stated based on Fram's history of poor filters I don't trust them to make a good one; period. I certainly wouldn't spend the money for a premium Fram and hope it is worth the money and actually a good filter. Why would I when there are others out there proven to be high quality and worth the money for the same approx price as the Ultra.

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Purolator doesn't care about that fact, they know the "suckers" fall for that paper end cap trick every time. They must surf the web searching for the most commonly spread falsehoods. The new videos say more about Purolator than it does Fram. It says Purolator thinks its customers are suckers, fools that know nothing about filters other than what they google in a forum, or watch on YouTube.


As I have already stated I just picked Purolator as an example for comaprison because they are a known brand and generally thought of to be quality filters. I could have said the same about most any other brand. I have used them and would again for sure however. Not my regular filter though.

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
When its oil change time, I'm going to take a video of my hand crushing the Purolator classic's outside shell! Then my hand shaking, struggling to make an indent in the Ultra's shell.


AGAIN, I was not comparing the Purolator Clasic to the Fram Ultra. READ what I posted. I compared the Purolator Classic to the standard Fram filter. If you want to compare a Purolator line to the Ultra do so with the PureOne or new Synthetic line.

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
PS...your not using RP filters are you? I been on YouTube and they have been autopsied..the "autopsy-er" says lousy, dont use..its paper media falls apart, the glue seam in the media splits open leaving a gap for oil to go right through unfiltered. This guy used Amsoil, the Amsoil literally ate the media, partially dissolved it..

Rather have an end cap that crushes in my hand than media that dissolves..

Or...

Was picking at the media like that, pulling on it the wrong way to perform an autopsy? Like squeezing and paper end cap in your fist maybe?


Yes, I use RP filters. Not sure what filter you saw being autopsied on YouTube but if it had paper( cellulose )media it was not an RP filter. RP filters have a 100% synthetic media that is reinforced by a wire mesh. Not too likely to dissolve.

If Fram floats your boat use it. No sweat off my back. Just commenting in the thread with my views.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: tommygunn
Originally Posted By: diddlyd
a.) fram has fiber endcaps glued to the filter element to hold it in place. puro has metal. neither of these structures bear much if any load. glue adheres to fiber better than metal though.


If thats the case why does FRAM's best filter use metal endcaps?


Because they ran out of weather treated 2x6 oak building diddlyd's balcony.

 

[clarklawnscape]

nhhemi, im misunderstanding you here......youve "had bad experiences years ago w fram", yet youre proud to display that youre willing to pay $65 for 5 quarts of oil. so let me get this straight....$65 for 5 quarts and then $4 for a filter, see where im lost.

 

[DragRace]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
NHHEMI: You are perpetrating the same sort of "stuff" that you so valiantly challenged when Royal Purple was the BITOG whipping boy not so long ago. Shame on you.


Actually untrue. Many of the people here who bash on RP have never even used it. THAT was always my biggest gripe. IF you used it and didn't like it or had a bad experience I never said anything to the person other than I am sorry to hear that. I have used Fram and even sold them so I have personaly exprience to back it up. I never said the filter the OP talked about was bad persay either. I have never used them so I couldn't say that with any honesty. What I said is based on their other poor quality filters I don't trust them to make one worth what it costs. Instead I would buy a filter from a company that we know offers quality filters. Why should I deserve a "shame on you" for that?

I have personally had a couple Fram's fail years ago. One was on a used 75 Chevy Malibu I had( 1st car actually )and one on my 88 Ram Sport I bought new. Both times the media literally came apart( basically killed the 350 in the 75 Malibu ). Have not used them since and won't. One failure can happen to anyone but when you hit 2, and read/see about all these others, it is enough for me not to trust that mfg for oil filters. I also saw it happen a few times when I sold auto parts as well as I have posted about here before. Only oil filters I ever saw go bad other than 1 Hastings that looked like something in the machine procees failed.

As I have also posted here before I had mechanics who flat out refused to accept Fram oil filters. Again, I have seen enough with my own eyes to know it is not a filter I want to use. I don't just listen to others and run like a lemming to the sea crying this or that product is bad/good. I have to have some personal experience with it to do so.


Agree! Some ya'll wanna bash me,doesnt bother me in the slightest I've seen enough instances where fram oil filters have failed,on $12,000 engines to a daily driver engine. There's enough quality filters on the market that myself,mechanics and engine builders prefer, and around my parts,you use one of these Fram filters,I dont care if it's Frams newest,greatest filter yet,you'll never see it around us that build,maintain and work on vehicles for a living,or in our race or street motors,not happening ever.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Few years ago in a hurry I bought a Fram Extra Guard for my LS400, it was in service for 13k/12mo without problem. I also bought a Fram cartridge oil filter for my E430, it was in service for 1 year too at around 12-13k miles. The Fram cartridge oil filter looks okay when new, but it didn't look as good as Mann, Hengst ... after 12-13k miles. After that one try I go back to Mann, Bosch ... filter for my E430, I see no reason to pay more for Fram cartridge oil filter and the quality is not as high as German filters. Last I checked a Fram cartridge filter at O'Reilly, it is now made in China.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: clarklawnscape
nhhemi, im misunderstanding you here......youve "had bad experiences years ago w fram", yet youre proud to display that youre willing to pay $65 for 5 quarts of oil. so let me get this straight....$65 for 5 quarts and then $4 for a filter, see where im lost.


1 - I don't pay $65 for 5 qts of oil( RP I assume you mean based on my signature ). That would be $13 a qt and I would not pay that for any oil unless prices rise to the point that becomes the norm for premium oils( Redline, Amsoil, Schaeffers, etc... ). Regular price I pay at the local speed shop is around $8 now. I recently got RP on sale at PepBoys( came to $5 a qt ). Again, $65 for 5qts is nuts. I would not do that.

2 - Yes, I had bad experiences years ago with Fram filters. I used them in the 80's and had 2 failures. Sold them whiile working parts into the late 90's and saw failures through the job with them. I stopped using them myself personally in the 80's after the failures I had. When I started running RP around 1990 I started using K&N filters on the advice of the guy at the speed shop who taught me a lot about vehicles( performance anyway ).

I don't see your point about the $65/$4?

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: Garak


And I would be interested to see the Ultra up here, and what it's pricing might be like. The Napa Platinum seems to have just shown up here, but I don't have any idea on its pricing yet.


My local Canadian Tire already has a couple of part numbers of the Ultra in stock and they are priced the same as the Extended Guard ones they are replacing, so they are at $12.99.

 

[JGW]

Originally Posted By: DragRace

Those who know,dont use'em,period.