Fram Ultra flow restrictive?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
137
Location
Tennessee, United States
I am wondering if the extreme efficiency of the fram ultra (99% @ 20, 94% @ 10, and I even heard someone say 80% @ 5 microns) would create a large pressure differential and cause it to bypass often. The bypass valve is extremely flimsy and easy to push because of the weak spring and plastic valve. This seems like the biggest weakness of the ultra. If it bypasses often, that 99%+ becomes 0% lol.

Also, wouldn't the Wix XP have the lowest pressure differential of nearly any filter? (with fiberglass media and 50% @ 20 micron efficiency). If so, you get the filtering efficiency of many OEM filters, but with excellent flow, and the toughest construction.
 
No, the media is microglass, so the flow is higher AND more efficient than cellulose. The fram rep has posted flow charts before for specific part numbers and they are pretty much good enough to use for race applications.
 
Does your car's oil pump put out over 15 GPM? If not, don't worry about it.
 
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
No, the media is microglass, so the flow is higher AND more efficient than cellulose. The fram rep has posted flow charts before for specific part numbers and they are pretty much good enough to use for race applications.


Yet a filter made specifically for racing uses a Synthetic-Polymer/Cellulose-Fiber blend media.

https://performanceparts.ford.com/part/CM-6731-FL1A


35.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
I am wondering if the extreme efficiency of the fram ultra (99% @ 20, 94% @ 10, and I even heard someone say 80% @ 5 microns) would create a large pressure differential and cause it to bypass often. The bypass valve is extremely flimsy and easy to push because of the weak spring and plastic valve. This seems like the biggest weakness of the ultra. If it bypasses often, that 99%+ becomes 0% lol.

Also, wouldn't the Wix XP have the lowest pressure differential of nearly any filter? (with fiberglass media and 50% @ 20 micron efficiency). If so, you get the filtering efficiency of many OEM filters, but with excellent flow, and the toughest construction.



1) oil filters RARELY go into bypass; read Jim Allen's trials please
2) oil filters flow well more than the oil pumps put out; show me any data to prove otherwise
3) the Wix/NG and Wix XP are rated at same flow volumes for equivalent applications; go check their website
4) what makes you think the BP valve is "extremely flimsy and easy to push because of the weak spring and plastic valve" (As opposed to the bazillions of others just like it in other brands?) What makes the plastic "flimsy" and the spring "weak"?


This thread is just a new version of the old (unfounded) complaint regarding the PureOne filters being "too restrictive"; a totally uneducated view that if it's efficient, it must also be too restrictive because one's brain cannot conceive that the product can be both efficient and flow well

Where do some of you get these ridiculous ideas, anyway?
crazy2.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
.......one's brain cannot conceive that the product can be both efficient and flow well

Where do some of you get these ridiculous ideas, anyway?
crazy2.gif




In a nutshell, what's been said about K&N air filters for years.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
.......one's brain cannot conceive that the product can be both efficient and flow well

Where do some of you get these ridiculous ideas, anyway?
crazy2.gif




In a nutshell, what's been said about K&N air filters for years.


Only UOA data posted here typically shows increased wear metals using K&N air filters.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Where do some of you get these ridiculous ideas, anyway?
crazy2.gif

Its OK to question if something with great efficiency has too high of a flow resistance. Thats not a stupid question.
Intuitively, you might think a filter is more restrictive the smaller the flow path porosity is.
Flow any liquid into a smaller pipe and you'll see the pressure drop go up, of course.

In this case, the Fram Ultra isn't too restrictive at all. It can hold more dirt than most other filters.
The physical reality of smaller, more consistently sized synthetic fibers is what makes the Ultra work.
oil-filter-synthetic-vs-cellulose.jpg
 
Originally Posted By: oil_film_movies
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Where do some of you get these ridiculous ideas, anyway?
crazy2.gif

Its OK to question if something with great efficiency has too high of a flow resistance. Thats not a stupid question.


Nah, we allow questions here. We just jump all over a newcomer who asks questions, as opposed to politely answering them like you just did. What were you thinking??
 
Originally Posted By: ZraHamilton
Also, wouldn't the Wix XP have the lowest pressure differential of nearly any filter? (with fiberglass media and 50% @ 20 micron efficiency). If so, you get the filtering efficiency of many OEM filters, but with excellent flow, and the toughest construction.

That is possible. No evidence it flows more.
Actually, pressure drop is rarely a problem with properly engineered oil filters anyway.
Any difference between brands would be small. Oil pumps are positive displacement, meaning they would consume a little more power in a more restrictive flow path, yet still deliver about the same mass flow rate anyway.
320px-Gear_pump_animation.gif


This could be important in a racing application where you don't want parasitic power losses in the oil pump at high RPMs when it counts. Data would be needed on oil filter restriction in that case.
 
Originally Posted By: Old Mustang Guy
I think it is a concern. That's one reason I like OE.
Synthetic media is not restrictive at all as compared to OEM cellulose. Do a search and you will see for yourself.
 
Who knows how much their oil pump puts out? I have never seen any flow specs for any engine, just psi parameters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top