What makes Fram Ultra spin-on filters better?

[Dumc87]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I am pleased to see that BITOG is moving to a place where FRAM products can be discussed intelligently. A few year back, it was a shout fest about high prices, OCOD, tall (completely unsubstantiated) tales of engines getting fried because of filters. The truth is that the company has always produced good value, good performing filters at reasonable prices. The Ultra is way up there in filters and I have used it a few times on a 225000 mile car with 10k OCIs.


This site single handedly had me convinced FRAM was [censored].

One of my best buds has been working in auto shops for years though, and said he's never seen or heard of a single catastrophic failure due to FRAM filters in his tenure.

Kind of hard to argue with hard facts that FRAM being the main oil filter of choice at WalMart, open 24-7 full of DIY enthusiasts, continues to be sold would be hard to do if the filters detonated engines.

Sure, the cheap-o FRAM's may not be as fancy as the higher priced marquee stuff, but they seem to work. Maybe the issue is people using 15K oil with 3K oil filters, not seeing results they want.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: DrRoughneck
I keep reading that Fram Ultras are the bees knees.
Which attribute(s) make the Fram Ultra spin-on filter better than its competitors?


Let me pile on. FRAM Ultra has great efficiency (99%@20 microns). Huge capacity (new box released in March will show 20k change intervals). Silicone adbv, the only dual layer synthetic media filter in the market, all other brands with syn media are single layer. Pleated wire backed media, not plastic like others. Sure grip for easy install and removal. Can get them delivered through Amazon to your door. And, they are 9-10 bucks at retail while many filters without the same performance are priced much higher. There is no better filter than Ultra and that is a fact.

FG StrataPore is a syn dual layer but then the efficiency is lower.
Royal Purple & the Wix XP/NAPA PLatinum are 2 more examples. Don't see those on eBay for 6/$25 though (like Ultras)!


Looking at Royal Purple's and WIX's websites, they don't say their full synthetic media is dual layer. Yes, wire backed, but most likely single layer media like Motorking mentioned.

 

[mongo161]

Well, how thick are the dual layers compared to the single layered synthetic media?


Maybe the dual layers are paper thin and the single layer is 3x the width of the synthetic media of higher quality?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I am pleased to see that BITOG is moving to a place where FRAM products can be discussed intelligently. A few year back, it was a shout fest about high prices....

I still have a problem with the pricing, particularly for anything under the Ultra, but, up here, that can be said about most filters.

 

[spasm3]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I am pleased to see that BITOG is moving to a place where FRAM products can be discussed intelligently. A few year back, it was a shout fest about high prices, OCOD, tall (completely unsubstantiated) tales of engines getting fried because of filters. The truth is that the company has always produced good value, good performing filters at reasonable prices. The Ultra is way up there in filters and I have used it a few times on a 225000 mile car with 10k OCIs.



I agree. I used to not even consider any of frams filters, based on how the ocod was built. After seeing cutopen pics of virgin and used fram ultras a few years ago, i came to realize that the ultra really is a good filter. I run them now. Still will never run a orange can though.

 

[Shellguy]

Funny, i remember walking into an autoparts store just before carquest sold out their blue filters explaining to the owner they were fram made filters he had(by design) and he was so offended he said he was calling his supplier to verify!! He said he would never run "that junk" LOL . I bought a few filters and was on my way after trying to explain fram was good. Also from 2003 to 2009 my dad ran the ocod as its known for well over 100000 without issue. Sometimes just doing a oil change and keeping the filter on. 200000 miles later, car still rolls on. Some things have been blown out of proportion with fram over the yrs but either way they make great filters!

 

[Onug]

I'll chime in and admit BITOG has convinced me Fram's are good filters. I'm monitoring the Ultra's on my Amazon account and will grab a few when the price looks right.

 

[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.

 

[Ed_Flecko]

That's true...but I've yet to see any other manufacture post better numbers. Most don't even come close.

Ed

 

[BlindBaby]

Originally Posted By: Ed_Flecko
That's true...but I've yet to see any other manufacture post better numbers. Most don't even come close.

Ed


Wix

The above link is for the filter used on my Silverado. 2/20 = 6/20 (50% @ 6 microns; 95% @ 20 microns)
The Nominal Micron Rating is at 21 microns.

These are better numbers or at least at face-value. We don't know what the FU's ER is at 6 microns, we don't know at what micron size the FU hits the 99% filtration, we don't know the Nominal Micron Rating for the FU, nor do we know what the Wix's ER is at > 20 microns. It's the data that's not published by either company that really prohibits guys like us from making a true apples-to-apples comparison.

My opinion is, run any of them and sleep well at night AND just to be clear that I'm not bashing Fram, I have an XG-2 sitting in the office that will go onto my Expedition at the next oil change.

 

[Ed_Flecko]

I"m not sure. I'm hoping Motorking will chime in.

I was re-reading his comment earlier in this thread where he says, "FRAM Ultra has great efficiency (99%@20 microns)"

Ed

 

[goodtimes]

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.


I think the greater than is a more accurate description. Both at and greater than mean the same thing for oil filter purposes. The at comes from looking at a data point on a graph at 20 microns. No particle in the world is exactly 20 microns, it is always something more or less.

 

[WhizkidTN]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.


I think the greater than is a more accurate description. Both at and greater than mean the same thing for oil filter purposes. The at comes from looking at a data point on a graph at 20 microns. No particle in the world is exactly 20 microns, it is always something more or less.


So you are saying you believe the more accurate way to express it would be "99% efficiency >= 20 microns"?
In my reading, I would concur with that understanding.

 

[Motorking]

Originally Posted By: bullwinkle
Originally Posted By: daman
Originally Posted By: Motorking
Originally Posted By: DrRoughneck
I keep reading that Fram Ultras are the bees knees.
Which attribute(s) make the Fram Ultra spin-on filter better than its competitors?


Let me pile on. FRAM Ultra has great efficiency (99%@20 microns). Huge capacity (new box released in March will show 20k change intervals). Silicone adbv, the only dual layer synthetic media filter in the market, all other brands with syn media are single layer. Pleated wire backed media, not plastic like others. Sure grip for easy install and removal. Can get them delivered through Amazon to your door. And, they are 9-10 bucks at retail while many filters without the same performance are priced much higher. There is no better filter than Ultra and that is a fact.

FG StrataPore is a syn dual layer but then the efficiency is lower.
Royal Purple & the Wix XP/NAPA PLatinum are 2 more examples. Don't see those on eBay for 6/$25 though (like Ultras)!


Royal Purple and WIX XP/NAPA Platinum are not dual layer media and the efficiency is so low on the WIX made product it is not even published.

 

[Motorking]

wow, just working really hard to bash it are we not? 99%@ particles greater than 20 microns means that 99%+ or all particles 20.1 microns in size are caught. If you want efficiency for a particular XG filter in 5, 10, 15 and 20 microns particles sizes, I will gladly supply it. WIX XP performance doesn't come close and the price is higher.

 

[daman]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I am pleased to see that BITOG is moving to a place where FRAM products can be discussed intelligently. A few year back, it was a shout fest about high prices....

I still have a problem with the pricing, particularly for anything under the Ultra, but, up here, that can be said about most filters.

I'm a FRAM hater I always have been always will be, FRAM's Ultra is there only filter I have respect for.

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
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.


I think the greater than is a more accurate description. Both at and greater than mean the same thing for oil filter purposes. The at comes from looking at a data point on a graph at 20 microns. No particle in the world is exactly 20 microns, it is always something more or less.


So you are saying you believe the more accurate way to express it would be "99% efficiency >= 20 microns"?
In my reading, I would concur with that understanding.


Not really as the choice was only > or @. What I say is no particle in the universe exists that is 20 microns in diameter, so it is understood greater than includes the imaginary particle, plus any amount.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: daman
I'm a FRAM hater I always have been always will be, FRAM's Ultra is there only filter I have respect for.


At least you have sound, reasoned and technical basis, right?

 

[Ed_Flecko]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: daman
I'm a FRAM hater I always have been always will be, FRAM's Ultra is there only filter I have respect for.


At least you have sound, reasoned and technical basis, right?


Tradition.

Ed

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: Motorking
wow, just working really hard to bash it are we not? 99%@ particles greater than 20 microns means that 99%+ or all particles 20.1 microns in size are caught. If you want efficiency for a particular XG filter in 5, 10, 15 and 20 microns particles sizes, I will gladly supply it. WIX XP performance doesn't come close and the price is higher.


Have you guys tested the Toyota filter for efficiency? If so what is it? I would like the Fram Ultra efficiency numbers in those micro sizes for an xg4386 and a xg3387a.
I also would like to know why Delco specifies a pretty specific filter for the 2014 Chevy Volt, while you guys spec the very commonly used 3387a? Thanks