What makes Fram Ultra spin-on filters better?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: BlindBaby
I have run the Fram Ultra, Wix, Hastings, Baldwin and MANY other filters with no trouble. That being said, I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but many here tout Fram's efficiency rating as being 99% @ 20 microns, but after reviewing Fram's data on their website, it states the following:

99%+ filtration efficiency(2)

(2) FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns.

The little > symbol changes this information from 99% efficiency @ 20 microns to 99% efficiency for particles greater than (>) 20 micron; big difference.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Not this again.
09.gif
Is 20.001 microns >20 microns? Is 20.001 microns close enough to say it's "@20 microns"?

Originally Posted By: BlindBaby
... we don't know at what micron size the FU hits the 99% filtration.


Sure we do ... it's @ 20 microns.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: BlindBaby
I have run the Fram Ultra, Wix, Hastings, Baldwin and MANY other filters with no trouble. That being said, I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but many here tout Fram's efficiency rating as being 99% @ 20 microns, but after reviewing Fram's data on their website, it states the following:

99%+ filtration efficiency(2)

(2) FRAM Group testing of average filter efficiency and dirt holding capacity using FRAM XG3387A, XG8A, and XG4967 and their leading economy filter model equivalents under ISO 4548-12 for particles > 20 microns.

The little > symbol changes this information from 99% efficiency @ 20 microns to 99% efficiency for particles greater than (>) 20 micron; big difference.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Not this again.
09.gif
Is 20.001 microns >20 microns? Is 20.001 microns close enough to say it's "@20 microns"?

Originally Posted By: BlindBaby
... we don't know at what micron size the FU hits the 99% filtration.


Sure we do ... it's @ 20 microns.


This is the first time I've had this discussion, so I guess it is this again!

Fram's web site says > than 20 or at least that is what I thought it meant.
 
Originally Posted By: BlindBaby
This is the first time I've had this discussion, so I guess it is this again!

Fram's web site says > than 20 or at least that is what I thought it meant.


You're not the only or first person to point out the >20 microns blurb on Fram's website. But it's been hashed over a dozen times that it essentially means "@20 microns and greater". Too bad Fram just doesn't use those words to prevent the confusion. When it's said that 20.001 microns is greater than 20 microns, then most people get it.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
... But it's been hashed over a dozen times that it essentially means "@20 microns and greater". Too bad Fram just doesn't use those words to prevent the confusion. When it's said that 20.001 microns is greater than 20 microns, then most people get it.
Evidently what they actually say is not what they mean, or want us to believe they mean. At face value, it's a lame statement. If 102 120-micron particles and one 21 micron particle reach the filter, and only the 21-micron one sneaks through the media, then it has successfully stopped over 99% of the total number of particles greater than 20 microns, as claimed. That makes no sense. What they're trying to say is that 99% of particles over 20 microns will be stopped even if they're all only slightly over 20, as in your 20.001 example. That's a big difference in meaning.
 
Last edited:
The way this is printed is a controversial issue with this filter.

The board here brushes it off pretty quick but it comes back.

It has been brought up by a competitor as well as something to look at.
 
FRAM has a very effective direct marketing campaign that works overtime on forums like this and retailer sites that offer the opportunity for feedback/reviews.

On BITOG, the discussion always devolves into one on media efficiency where FRAM claims superiority.

In practice, you'll find very little difference in your experience with a Wix XP and a similar FRAM Ultra.

An unbiased assessment of canister filters would find a Wix/NAPA Gold offering a lot of performance for the price.

And on a cheaper budget, Walmart Super Tech built by Wix handily dominates that market tier.
 
The @ or > mean the same thing when they are talking efficiency. All the particles larger than 20 are caught by some % number. The @ is technically wrong, as there are no 20 micron to the minus tenth power particles in existence. The particle would have to be within one angstrom of 20 microns in size, in spherical shape, and smoothness. There could be no crystalline structure or any change in temperature. All the test dust in the world doesn't contain even one such exactly 20 micron particle. @ is taken from the line AT 20 microns on the graph, including all sizes larger than 20. > means the same thing.
 
Originally Posted By: CR94
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
... But it's been hashed over a dozen times that it essentially means "@20 microns and greater". Too bad Fram just doesn't use those words to prevent the confusion. When it's said that 20.001 microns is greater than 20 microns, then most people get it.

Evidently what they actually say is not what they mean, or want us to believe they mean. At face value, it's a lame statement. If 102 120-micron particles and one 21 micron particle reach the filter, and only the 21-micron one sneaks through the media, then it has successfully stopped over 99% of the total number of particles greater than 20 microns, as claimed. That makes no sense. What they're trying to say is that 99% of particles over 20 microns will be stopped even if they're all only slightly over 20, as in your 20.001 example. That's a big difference in meaning.

Fram's efficiency statement is based on how the ISO 4548-12 test is conducted (as goodtimes said above), which uses test dust made up of a specific range of sized particles, and the dust volume has a pretty even distribution of the different specific dust particle sizes. So the typical guy who doesn't know how oil filers are tested might think it means something different.

So yes, the statement in red is what it means with respect to the ISO 4548-12 test, and that is basically saying "@20 microns and greater".

In the typical example of an "Efficiency vs Particle Size" graph below, using the Fram style efficiency statement it could be said that:

Cellulose Filter: 40% efficient for particles > 10 microns.
Blended Filter: 60% efficient for particles > 10 microns.
Synthetic Filter: 92% efficient for particles > 10 microns.

 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Sure we do ... it's @ 20 microns.

Yes, and we already know what > 20 microns means, as you stated. Of course, they "could" say > or = 20 microns. But, the average person out there doesn't know the proper mathematical definition of > anyhow, so > or = won't help matters.
 
Originally Posted By: SilverC6

An unbiased assessment of canister filters would find a Wix/NAPA Gold offering a lot of performance for the price.



What? Not even close. Compare one of those to the price of a fram ultra or M1 filter at walmart.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Sure we do ... it's @ 20 microns.

Yes, and we already know what > 20 microns means, as you stated. Of course, they "could" say > or = 20 microns. But, the average person out there doesn't know the proper mathematical definition of > anyhow, so > or = won't help matters.


Yep ... I think it would be easier for people to understand if they said something like: "xx% efficient per ISO 4548-12 for all particles 20 microns and greater in size".
 
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The way this is printed is a controversial issue with this filter.

The board here brushes it off pretty quick but it comes back.

It has been brought up by a competitor as well as something to look at.

Coming from someone who argues about "filters down to 2 microns" as the only data point for some other filter
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
The way this is printed is a controversial issue with this filter.

The board here brushes it off pretty quick but it comes back.

It has been brought up by a competitor as well as something to look at.

Coming from someone who argues about "filters down to 2 microns" as the only data point for some other filter


I dont recall "arguing" about anything. Simply pointing out what is stated.
 
Arguing in the sense that it means anything, as opposed to the Fram statement. The Fram terminology may be somewhat deficient but it is light-years ahead of the other one.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Is 20.0000000001 microns equal to 20.0000000000 microns? Or is it greater than?
It would be greater than. However it may or may not be greater than 20.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Is 20.0000000001 microns equal to 20.0000000000 microns? Or is it greater than?

Measuring a particle size to twelve significant figures would be a pretty neat trick.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Is 20.0000000001 microns equal to 20.0000000000 microns? Or is it greater than?

Measuring a particle size to twelve significant figures would be a pretty neat trick.
wink.gif



The mind has an unlimited resolution.
grin.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

xgmad
Need an oil filter
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
ZeeOSix
Z
What is your current favorite oil filter to use?
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
5K
Joeescape63
T
New Alternative to Fram Ultra (New design)?
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
8K
ZeeOSix
T
23 Nissan Frontier oil filter recommendations
Replies
16
Views
931
JTK
dezlpwr
Particle Count Comparisons! Fram Ultra vs K&P Reusable Stainless Mesh oil filter
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
5K
dezlpwr
Back
Top