Will a filter that's 50% at 20 microns harm an engine or substantially reduce its life?
Toyota doesn't seem to think so.
Toyota doesn't seem to think so.
Laws of Phisics -- Fram Ultra
- Thread starter Phishin
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
Positive displacement pump shifts oil every revolution of the engine.
That much oil passes through the filter.
Not exactly. Part of the oil pump assembly is the pressure control valve which diverts part of the pump output back to the sump when the pressure set point is reached.
The essential point of a filter is the number of holes in it of the correct size. More holes means more flow. As that diagram shows, the spacing between the holes is for strength of the media, but if the strength can be attained and allow for more holes, we have more flow. Fram?--who know?--is it true or just hype?
Positive displacement pump shifts oil every revolution of the engine.
That much oil passes through the filter.
Not exactly. Part of the oil pump assembly is the pressure control valve which diverts part of the pump output back to the sump when the pressure set point is reached.
The essential point of a filter is the number of holes in it of the correct size. More holes means more flow. As that diagram shows, the spacing between the holes is for strength of the media, but if the strength can be attained and allow for more holes, we have more flow. Fram?--who know?--is it true or just hype?
Phisics? Is this like Fizzicks? I don't see anti rust overspray on the Wix pictured, but then I don't see any anti rust at all, and boy the flow must be bad with those small holes. If they want to sell American made Wix in China they better anti rust coat them for the trip.
Originally Posted By: circuitsmith
Will a filter that's 50% at 20 microns harm an engine or substantially reduce its life?
Toyota doesn't seem to think so.
In the real world (sans all advertising claims) that question can only be answered theoretically because of all the other variables that contribute to that life. It has to be answered against the following because as they change, the degree of effectiveness of a filter in regards to overall engine wear changes along with it. (All things being equal)
The major determining factor is the actual running clearance at temp of the clearance in the journal bearing. (Assuming proper roundness, finish, asperities and all that are equal) This clearance is directly related to the MOFT. (Minimum oil film thickness)
If the particle is smaller than that clearance then it will flow through providing the MOFP (pressure) is adequate. (Then it becomes a question of is the particle able to be pulverized by the metallurgy without incurring galling, spalling or finish change and if the flow prevents bedding or accumulation but that’s not on the filter)
Plus, in line with the service life of any given filter, the efficiency drops as the filter does its job because of the reduction of flow due to contamination triggers some bypass.
Will a filter that's 50% at 20 microns harm an engine or substantially reduce its life?
Toyota doesn't seem to think so.
In the real world (sans all advertising claims) that question can only be answered theoretically because of all the other variables that contribute to that life. It has to be answered against the following because as they change, the degree of effectiveness of a filter in regards to overall engine wear changes along with it. (All things being equal)
The major determining factor is the actual running clearance at temp of the clearance in the journal bearing. (Assuming proper roundness, finish, asperities and all that are equal) This clearance is directly related to the MOFT. (Minimum oil film thickness)
If the particle is smaller than that clearance then it will flow through providing the MOFP (pressure) is adequate. (Then it becomes a question of is the particle able to be pulverized by the metallurgy without incurring galling, spalling or finish change and if the flow prevents bedding or accumulation but that’s not on the filter)
Plus, in line with the service life of any given filter, the efficiency drops as the filter does its job because of the reduction of flow due to contamination triggers some bypass.
Jim Allen did a bunch of testing with a custom differential pressure setup and his data agreed with filter manufacturers that say bypass events are infrequent and rare. The best chance you have to bypass is when it's very cold unless you gun the engine before the oil is warm.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2975410
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3197094
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2975410
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3197094
i dont think so either.
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Oh, brother! Are you serious? Others are supposed to take that seriously and accept that? Wait! They do! LOL! I know, you could tell me who but then you'd have to kill me, right? LOL! Is this "someone" this guy?:
[img:center]
[/img]
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
[img:center]
[/img] Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Not directed at you because you seem to be presenting information by proxy but….
Me personally, I would love to know what exactly this right equipment, resources and experimentation entailed and exactly what the control parameters were and how it was conducted by this “person”.
The reason I say that is because I sometimes encounter machine specific circumstances when upgrading to precision lubrication designs where filter effectiveness goes to critical mass especially when the modification takes an OEM design say from hydrodynamic to elastohydrodynamic or hydrostatic configurations. As a result I work with many filter manufacturers engineering departments to custom design and test the filter pack to deliver almost perfectly clean fluid far beyond anything the average person would ever even consider- much less need.
This test you speak of may not be entirely correct. The reason you don’t see much publicized on this is because it’s a quality of any filter media that everybody in the industry of filtration knows and it has to be there partly because of physics, partly by design, partly by cost constraints and partly because of potential liability for damage. (Both to the machine and the company image)
Everybody knows and accepts the industry standard of the DP filter/housing test and that somewhere there is a valve that allows bypass when conditions such as viscosity shock, pressure shock or other actions opens it. By that definition and those standards, relief events are truly situational and exceptionally infrequent.
There’s another side to that coin that they don’t want to discuss because of the complexity of the issue and the fact it can scare some people who don’t fully understand it. That’s the bypass due to design and construction.
(Bypass being defined as untrapped particles going through the filter regardless of path)
That’s where the pre and post beta ratio testing comes in. (which is not without its own issues but that’s beyond the scope of this post) Most filters are advertised on the absolute rating then efficiency comes from a beta test. Then there is some carefully worded legal department approved marketing claims to create various impressions to the public.
The weakness of beta testing (on an assembled filter) is that it is a raw number count that is not isolating or considering things like total element size, surges, installation or operating angles, thermal shocking or representative of a filters saturation level. It also doesn’t touch on a filters progressive stability relative to its rating throughout its service life in any given application.
Imagine the “perfect” filter at X micron. In “theory” this filter would trap every particle at X or above. Here’s a problem. That filter would lose flow capacity from the second it was run until it collapsed depending on the amount of contamination in the fluid and other mechanisms. In addition to the surface area reducing as saturation increases other factors such as thermal expansion/contraction and accumulations of varnish and stuff also contribute to the changes.
This is going to lead to not only an incremental DP change and flow reduction but incrementally starve the load side. The degree of severity depends on the machine and its operating envelope, not the filter.
Without high dollar precision online equipment (which would have to measure pressure, flow and particle count) these incremental changes would be undetectable. (It will be happening long before the DP triggers the bypass)
All manufacturers know this and none will ever design or market a filter for any application without this bypass (weepage) built in to a degree (or by agreement with the OEM of the machine or housing to have a fail-safe elsewhere to protect the machine) because they do know that all end users introduce an infinite number of variables which can lead to premature failure. They are not going to take that risk.
They also know that all science aside if a failure occurs and is traced back to the filter (individual or class action) then it progresses to litigation that their liability rests in the hand or 6 or 12 people who don’t understand the science involved, don’t want to be there in the first place, probably have a predisposed emotional attachment with the “victim” versus the big corporation scenario and subject to believing the “best story” presented by an attorney and totally disregard all the difficult to read scientific data.
In summary, all filters bypass to a degree in normal operation due to a number of factors (weeping at the bypass valve because it is not designed to be a true check valve, the flexion of the media, force of the fluid and other stuff) and the published ratings are not a true 1:1 indicator of any specific part but the filter overall and even then only to an extent.
So knowing and doing all of the above (not even considering all the six sigma and other quality testing we have done) I am immediately suspect of any home brewed claim that a major top tier manufacturer for any given product would have some “design flaw” of this degree you allege that was not discovered during the FEED/prototyping/Product Commissioning process then further remain undiscovered throughout hundreds of thousands of QA/QC checks during the manufacturing process and subsequent performance tests.
If that isn’t enough then I find it statistically astronomical that all the OEMs that this product may work on (since you are addressing this alleged defect in terms of the entire product line, not an isolated application specific event) have not discovered and reported this to the component OEM.
I would then find it laughably impossible that the component OEM would ignore this because if true could cause irreparable damage to the brand. (Not even addressing any possible 3rd party which may have been commissioned to forensically investigate this because of a failure event)
The burden of proof for such a preposterous claim is wholly and solely on the shoulders of this “cigarette smoking man” who “knows” things that he has “proven” in the secret Illuminati lab nested in the green section of Area 51 but cannot speak for fear that “they” will kidnap him and subject him to endless hours of watching Gilligan’s Island until he can deduce if Bob Denver ever really did hook up with Tina Louise.
So, ask deep throat to at least show the test methods, conclusions, parameters and falsification methods used to produce his findings. If any danger is present I’ll call some friends in low places that can come and neuralize “them”.
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Not directed at you because you seem to be presenting information by proxy but….
Me personally, I would love to know what exactly this right equipment, resources and experimentation entailed and exactly what the control parameters were and how it was conducted by this “person”.
The reason I say that is because I sometimes encounter machine specific circumstances when upgrading to precision lubrication designs where filter effectiveness goes to critical mass especially when the modification takes an OEM design say from hydrodynamic to elastohydrodynamic or hydrostatic configurations. As a result I work with many filter manufacturers engineering departments to custom design and test the filter pack to deliver almost perfectly clean fluid far beyond anything the average person would ever even consider- much less need.
This test you speak of may not be entirely correct. The reason you don’t see much publicized on this is because it’s a quality of any filter media that everybody in the industry of filtration knows and it has to be there partly because of physics, partly by design, partly by cost constraints and partly because of potential liability for damage. (Both to the machine and the company image)
Everybody knows and accepts the industry standard of the DP filter/housing test and that somewhere there is a valve that allows bypass when conditions such as viscosity shock, pressure shock or other actions opens it. By that definition and those standards, relief events are truly situational and exceptionally infrequent.
There’s another side to that coin that they don’t want to discuss because of the complexity of the issue and the fact it can scare some people who don’t fully understand it. That’s the bypass due to design and construction.
(Bypass being defined as untrapped particles going through the filter regardless of path)
That’s where the pre and post beta ratio testing comes in. (which is not without its own issues but that’s beyond the scope of this post) Most filters are advertised on the absolute rating then efficiency comes from a beta test. Then there is some carefully worded legal department approved marketing claims to create various impressions to the public.
The weakness of beta testing (on an assembled filter) is that it is a raw number count that is not isolating or considering things like total element size, surges, installation or operating angles, thermal shocking or representative of a filters saturation level. It also doesn’t touch on a filters progressive stability relative to its rating throughout its service life in any given application.
Imagine the “perfect” filter at X micron. In “theory” this filter would trap every particle at X or above. Here’s a problem. That filter would lose flow capacity from the second it was run until it collapsed depending on the amount of contamination in the fluid and other mechanisms. In addition to the surface area reducing as saturation increases other factors such as thermal expansion/contraction and accumulations of varnish and stuff also contribute to the changes.
This is going to lead to not only an incremental DP change and flow reduction but incrementally starve the load side. The degree of severity depends on the machine and its operating envelope, not the filter.
Without high dollar precision online equipment (which would have to measure pressure, flow and particle count) these incremental changes would be undetectable. (It will be happening long before the DP triggers the bypass)
All manufacturers know this and none will ever design or market a filter for any application without this bypass (weepage) built in to a degree (or by agreement with the OEM of the machine or housing to have a fail-safe elsewhere to protect the machine) because they do know that all end users introduce an infinite number of variables which can lead to premature failure. They are not going to take that risk.
They also know that all science aside if a failure occurs and is traced back to the filter (individual or class action) then it progresses to litigation that their liability rests in the hand or 6 or 12 people who don’t understand the science involved, don’t want to be there in the first place, probably have a predisposed emotional attachment with the “victim” versus the big corporation scenario and subject to believing the “best story” presented by an attorney and totally disregard all the difficult to read scientific data.
In summary, all filters bypass to a degree in normal operation due to a number of factors (weeping at the bypass valve because it is not designed to be a true check valve, the flexion of the media, force of the fluid and other stuff) and the published ratings are not a true 1:1 indicator of any specific part but the filter overall and even then only to an extent.
So knowing and doing all of the above (not even considering all the six sigma and other quality testing we have done) I am immediately suspect of any home brewed claim that a major top tier manufacturer for any given product would have some “design flaw” of this degree you allege that was not discovered during the FEED/prototyping/Product Commissioning process then further remain undiscovered throughout hundreds of thousands of QA/QC checks during the manufacturing process and subsequent performance tests.
If that isn’t enough then I find it statistically astronomical that all the OEMs that this product may work on (since you are addressing this alleged defect in terms of the entire product line, not an isolated application specific event) have not discovered and reported this to the component OEM.
I would then find it laughably impossible that the component OEM would ignore this because if true could cause irreparable damage to the brand. (Not even addressing any possible 3rd party which may have been commissioned to forensically investigate this because of a failure event)
The burden of proof for such a preposterous claim is wholly and solely on the shoulders of this “cigarette smoking man” who “knows” things that he has “proven” in the secret Illuminati lab nested in the green section of Area 51 but cannot speak for fear that “they” will kidnap him and subject him to endless hours of watching Gilligan’s Island until he can deduce if Bob Denver ever really did hook up with Tina Louise.
So, ask deep throat to at least show the test methods, conclusions, parameters and falsification methods used to produce his findings. If any danger is present I’ll call some friends in low places that can come and neuralize “them”.
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
The weakness of beta testing (on an assembled filter) is that it is a raw number count that is not isolating or considering things like total element size, surges, installation or operating angles, thermal shocking or representative of a filters saturation level. It also doesn’t touch on a filters progressive stability relative to its rating throughout its service life in any given application.
ISO55000, what do you think of 4548-12 testing? I've always thought it was a good multi-pass test. Fram and many other manufacturers use and quote it. (Wish everybody did for complete comparison purposes.)
The weakness of beta testing (on an assembled filter) is that it is a raw number count that is not isolating or considering things like total element size, surges, installation or operating angles, thermal shocking or representative of a filters saturation level. It also doesn’t touch on a filters progressive stability relative to its rating throughout its service life in any given application.
ISO55000, what do you think of 4548-12 testing? I've always thought it was a good multi-pass test. Fram and many other manufacturers use and quote it. (Wish everybody did for complete comparison purposes.)
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
The weakness of beta testing (on an assembled filter) is that it is a raw number count that is not isolating or considering things like total element size, surges, installation or operating angles, thermal shocking or representative of a filters saturation level. It also doesn’t touch on a filters progressive stability relative to its rating throughout its service life in any given application.
ISO55000, what do you think of 4548-12 testing? I've always thought it was a good multi-pass test. Fram and many other manufacturers use and quote it. (Wish everybody did for complete comparison purposes.)
I’ll have to get back with you on that because I will have to go to the database and view it. Give me a day or so. I’ll also compare it to 16889 and 4572 to see if there are any significant differences.
Please remember, I do virtually zero work in the automotive sector so I never have cause to reference standards for that industry and as a result have no working familiarity with them.
That said I do know ISO and was on one of the hundreds of teams submitting data during the development of ISO 55000 which is built from the British PAS 55 so I feel very comfortable telling you that if ISO adopted it as a standard then its very well applicable and vetted for whatever the application is.
I would imagine that every manufacturer who builds for the automotive industry would reference it and if they themselves were ISO certified it would be a mandatory requirement.
I also know from experience that with the products that stick their toes simultaneously in the automotive and industrial puddles than in general the industrial standard is substantially higher and more precise than the automotive counterpart. That’s not an indicator of superior performance always when marketers use claims such as “industrial grade” but rather because industrial requirements and harsh environments require higher performance standards. That’s not even addressing the fact that a car engine and its requirements do not match the design and construction of industrial equipment so there are parameters that do not cross pollenate so to speak.
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
The weakness of beta testing (on an assembled filter) is that it is a raw number count that is not isolating or considering things like total element size, surges, installation or operating angles, thermal shocking or representative of a filters saturation level. It also doesn’t touch on a filters progressive stability relative to its rating throughout its service life in any given application.
ISO55000, what do you think of 4548-12 testing? I've always thought it was a good multi-pass test. Fram and many other manufacturers use and quote it. (Wish everybody did for complete comparison purposes.)
I’ll have to get back with you on that because I will have to go to the database and view it. Give me a day or so. I’ll also compare it to 16889 and 4572 to see if there are any significant differences.
Please remember, I do virtually zero work in the automotive sector so I never have cause to reference standards for that industry and as a result have no working familiarity with them.
That said I do know ISO and was on one of the hundreds of teams submitting data during the development of ISO 55000 which is built from the British PAS 55 so I feel very comfortable telling you that if ISO adopted it as a standard then its very well applicable and vetted for whatever the application is.
I would imagine that every manufacturer who builds for the automotive industry would reference it and if they themselves were ISO certified it would be a mandatory requirement.
I also know from experience that with the products that stick their toes simultaneously in the automotive and industrial puddles than in general the industrial standard is substantially higher and more precise than the automotive counterpart. That’s not an indicator of superior performance always when marketers use claims such as “industrial grade” but rather because industrial requirements and harsh environments require higher performance standards. That’s not even addressing the fact that a car engine and its requirements do not match the design and construction of industrial equipment so there are parameters that do not cross pollenate so to speak.
the 4548-12 does seem to be the popular standardized testing often mentioned for oil filters. I know it uses various particle sizes to try to compare filters across types and brands in a semi-realistic way.
Originally Posted By: fredfactory
the 4548-12 does seem to be the popular standardized testing often mentioned for oil filters. I know it uses various particle sizes to try to compare filters across types and brands in a semi-realistic way.
Without even reading it yet I’m sure it will serve as an excellent baseline standard to establish a manufacturers bragging rights. I would change your usage of “semi-realistic” to “under controlled laboratory conditions’ and set it in stone.
I think the root of some of the hate and discontent spewed from all the “less filling-tastes great” discussions is because when lay people use these standards for backyard comparisons and don’t have a good fundamental knowledge of the testing process in general combined with what a test specifically measures (and equally important- what it doesn’t) leads to a lot of false expectations and innocently misinterpreted results.
Add human emotion to that blender then the fur starts flying.
the 4548-12 does seem to be the popular standardized testing often mentioned for oil filters. I know it uses various particle sizes to try to compare filters across types and brands in a semi-realistic way.
Without even reading it yet I’m sure it will serve as an excellent baseline standard to establish a manufacturers bragging rights. I would change your usage of “semi-realistic” to “under controlled laboratory conditions’ and set it in stone.
I think the root of some of the hate and discontent spewed from all the “less filling-tastes great” discussions is because when lay people use these standards for backyard comparisons and don’t have a good fundamental knowledge of the testing process in general combined with what a test specifically measures (and equally important- what it doesn’t) leads to a lot of false expectations and innocently misinterpreted results.
Add human emotion to that blender then the fur starts flying.
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Oh, brother! Are you serious? Others are supposed to take that seriously and accept that? Wait! They do! LOL! I know, you could tell me who but then you'd have to kill me, right? LOL!
It's possible he might wear a get-up like that once and awhile. LOL
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Not directed at you because you seem to be presenting information by proxy but….
Me personally, I would love to know what exactly this right equipment, resources and experimentation entailed and exactly what the control parameters were and how it was conducted by this “person”.
Yes, by proxy ... so the right equipment would be what's used to do ISO 4548-12 test equipment and the ability to test, dissect and experiment with any filter they chose to.
Oh, brother! Are you serious? Others are supposed to take that seriously and accept that? Wait! They do! LOL! I know, you could tell me who but then you'd have to kill me, right? LOL!
It's possible he might wear a get-up like that once and awhile. LOL
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Why so cryptic? Who is this "someone" This information is not on the WIX or Fram websites. Can you please link these tests. I read this forum often have not seen them.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Someone did prove it ... someone with expensive test equipment to verify what might be going on with the WIX XP. If the XP is capable of being more efficient, then WIX needs to figure out and fix their design flaw to get better efficiency test results.
Let's just say someone with the all the right equipment and resources did some "experimentation" on the WIX XP and found out the media is more capable than what WIX says, so the conclusion was that maybe they leak and let dirty oil past the media which causes the low 50% @ 20 micron efficiency rating.
Not directed at you because you seem to be presenting information by proxy but….
Me personally, I would love to know what exactly this right equipment, resources and experimentation entailed and exactly what the control parameters were and how it was conducted by this “person”.
Yes, by proxy ... so the right equipment would be what's used to do ISO 4548-12 test equipment and the ability to test, dissect and experiment with any filter they chose to.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Yea, but it's G2 classified. He could tell us but would have to kill everyone that read it. I'm sure this "person" has access to millions of dollars in equipment (or a hacksaw) in a windowless basement in the Pentagon. Wait! Did I just describe 'Memphis?
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Me personally, I would love to know what exactly this right equipment, resources and experimentation entailed and exactly what the control parameters were and how it was conducted by this “person”.
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Me personally, I would love to know what exactly this right equipment, resources and experimentation entailed and exactly what the control parameters were and how it was conducted by this “person”.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Z06, I hate busting on you. Generally I enjoy reading your posts on filters. You and that crybaby 'Memphis pose as THE authority on filters (especially the Ultra) on BITOG and I really wouldn't even challenge that. But this efficiency garbage you spew about the XP is pure nonsense. I'm not asking for "proof" or "facts" that everyone demands on this forum, just a source. Then I can look it up myself. What do you provide? Childish backpedaling.
I got an e-mail in to WIX. I'll post their reply when I get one.
I still got that XP filter I will cut if you can point out these design flaws you mention.
I got an e-mail in to WIX. I'll post their reply when I get one.
I still got that XP filter I will cut if you can point out these design flaws you mention.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
I guess you missed the part where I said I have an e-mail to WIX. Reading, it's fundamental.
Z06 and that sissy regurgitate XP efficiency ratings for the XP darn near everyday. I didn't think it was too much to ask for a source. I would like to call the source. If the source is WIX, so be it. But that "someone" obviously isn't WIX but a top secret spy we can't know about.
Do you understand now?
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
^^^^what are you talking about? Just call and ask them. They will tell you what the efficiency is. This isn't rocket science.
Z06 and that sissy regurgitate XP efficiency ratings for the XP darn near everyday. I didn't think it was too much to ask for a source. I would like to call the source. If the source is WIX, so be it. But that "someone" obviously isn't WIX but a top secret spy we can't know about.
Do you understand now?
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
^^^^what are you talking about? Just call and ask them. They will tell you what the efficiency is. This isn't rocket science.
I actually have a new style Ultra, and a NAPA Platinum (Wix XP clone) for the Ram in my sig-if anybody wants them to run a test on to see how big the efficiency difference is, they can have them. I realized the Fleetguard Stratapore Venturi was better than both of them anyhow. Heck, I even have a Royal Purple that could go through the test too! I just don't have the equipment (or room) to do a good enough test on them.
ZeeOSix [B said:
Thank you
Since you brought this claim then it defaults to you to be the spokesman and the burden rests totally on claimant. (One of those speak now or forever hold your peace things)
I really want to follow this claim to the end if not for educational purposes for entertainment. So when I use the term “you” it is by context referring to the source claimant so no emotions come into play.
I guarantee you my questions will be directed, defined, relevant, and my commentary objective. No names, accusations, baiting or personal attacks. There will also be no leading questions or tricks or ambushes- if the meaning and purpose of a question is unclear I will be happy to define it prior to you addressing it.
so the right equipment would be what's used to do ISO 4548-12 test equipment and the ability to test, dissect and experiment with any filter they chose to.
Here are a few directly relevant legitimate questions to your statement above that will help establish credibility of the claim understanding that failure to address any parameter that can invalidate the claim proper defaults to automatic dismissal on the grounds that the claimant has no proper standing or fundamental basis to support the validity of it. Even in the event it is actually true because nothing can be accepted as factual until it has been rigorously vetted for falsification. (Those are the same standards I and everybody in this business has to adhere and be held to- nothing new or unique there)
Can we be told what the nomenclature of this equipment is and if this is an actual laboratory containing certified and calibrated equipment?
Additionally, is the claimant qualified and certified to be the testing agent?
Is the test performed exactly to 4548 or is it a hybrid? If a hybrid what is the DOE and baseline criteria for the test and test sample baselines?
If the test was to 4548, how did it compare to OEM test data? As a follow on, how does the test directly correlate to and address the claim of there being a “design flaw to get better efficiency results”? (your words)
Does the claimant have any bias, prejudice, vested interest or other influencing agent that could affect impartiality?
Did the claimant conduct each portion of the test personally or was any parameter farmed out or performed outside of his presence?
Was the test supervised and post reviewed? (This is for error proofing because it’s easy to get so involved you make simple accidental careless mistakes on the front end and don’t catch them on the back end. My engineers do a 3 event review with all disciplines and even a legal review before we allow it to be released.)
What was the sample size of product used for this test? (Testing 1 filter, a batch, random etc.)
What elimination method was used to define and differentiate between a true “design flaw” as opposed to a random manufacturing defect that QA/QC didn’t catch before it went out the door?
How was this potential flaw qualified and quantified against the published performance criteria of the sample filters?
Also, in reference to the above, were the lot numbers captured for traceability?
Also, in reference to the above, what inspections and/or tests were conducted on the testing sample filters to ensure they were in fact fit for service and not expired, damages or altered in any way prior to the test proper?
Was this same test administered to or cross compared with like filters in the same exact class?
Was every test and step documented for independent review?
That’s enough for a good beginning.
Thank you in a advance for your cooperation because if the claimant balks at any of the above his claim is not only automatically DOA it is dismissed with prejudice (can never be brought again) and since you obviously accept it as accurate to whatever degree you do then your promotion of it is equally dismissed forever with no possibility for secondary reconsideration.
From the redneck side- we kuntry folk know real well that the difference between talking trash and telling it like it is rests in the capabilities and qualifications of the one doing the talking and we know better to write a check with our mouth that we are not prepared to cash with our…..buttocks.
From the professional side- In many cases when we publish a finding there will be one party that loves us and one that hates us. By default we also we may be required to defend and prove our findings against a well prepared and highly qualified team of attorneys and like experts. We also attach liability through performance bonds and professional insurance so if we commit a grievous error or commit negligence we can be subject to suit as well.
With all due respect, I have no issue whatsoever holding you and your claimant’s claims to the same standards we are and will give no leeway or quarter whatsoever on the adherence to them with total transparency. That’s the only way to separate fact from fiction.
The arena is now rented, the crowd is screaming and the challenger has been announced- it’s time for your claimant to get in the Octagon and defend his claim and yes the title changes hands on a count out, DQ or no show with no possibility of a rematch clause.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
