Oreilly's Promotion: $3 off K&N and Wix XP
- Thread starter MrGiggles
- Start date
- Status
Longer life (15K) for the XP, but lower efficiency, only rated 50% @ 20 microns. The Gold has higher initial efficiency, but no syn media, I personally like them, but 7500 or so would be my personal limit on a Gold. Not impressed with the (Korean?) made K&N at all.
Go with a regular Wix oil filter. The XP is really not worth the extra $$ for less effiency. And assuredly the k and n isn't remotely worth the extra cost. $10-13 bucks on sale a pop they are very overpriced. A Mobil one oil filter is a much better filter and buy than a k and n filter.
Two filters I'll never buy, the Wix XP is low efficiency and low capacity microglass while the K&N is overpriced cellulose media masquerading as a top of the line filter, only about 85% efficient at 20 microns.
Maybe one could somehow exchange one for a M1 or a Fram Ultra.
The XP is a good filter, I don't buy into this efficiency hype tossed around on this board, in theory it all sounds good but in real world on the engine it seems almost meaningless.
Wix is one of the most respected filter makers on the market yet some claim there is an issue with the design that causes internal leakage. Are we supposed to believe they knowingly put junk, bad design or defective pieces on the market and do nothing to correct it?
I don't know about others but I find that a bit hard to believe, I use them and the NAPA Gold and never had an issue. I cant say the same for the Fram Ultra which caused a noise issue on one engine.
Does all the oil go through the filter all the time? What happens when bypass pressure is reached, does unfiltered oil go through the engine? The filters bypass is much lower PSI rated than the oil pumps relief valve.
It would seem there are times in the engines operating cycle that unfiltered oil goes through the engine along with particles of every size.
Take a new or clean engine that is broken in and gets regular maintenance, how many particles are actually being dumped in the oil? Does it matter if you filter 50% of nothing or 99% of nothing?
Could it be that the supposed more efficient filter is more restrictive therefore allowing the filter to bypass more often?
If this is the case the fact it captured 99% but allows all the particles to go through the engine because of bypass could actually cause more wear. I can understand why marketing is suspect here.
IMO there is possibly a error in the Wix spec sheet, even the Wix cartridge filter has the same 20 micron spec at 50%.
http://parts.olathetoyota.com/tundra-oil-filter-comparison
SiverC6 post is one of the best i have seen on this.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
50% @ 20 microns is a high filtration standard.
It's sufficient to meet OEM standards and protect your engine.
Commercial filter manufacturers list higher filtration numbers on their boxes and in their sales materials to convince consumers they are getting something better.
It's called marketing.
Some of the posts in the oil filter forum are marketing too.
It's called direct marketing and it has been pretty effective.
You get a few employees and their friends to post here, put out a little propaganda, start a few witch hunts, and there you go.
It's changed a lot of opinions in a critical user group without investing much money.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3982910/3
Wix is one of the most respected filter makers on the market yet some claim there is an issue with the design that causes internal leakage. Are we supposed to believe they knowingly put junk, bad design or defective pieces on the market and do nothing to correct it?
I don't know about others but I find that a bit hard to believe, I use them and the NAPA Gold and never had an issue. I cant say the same for the Fram Ultra which caused a noise issue on one engine.
Does all the oil go through the filter all the time? What happens when bypass pressure is reached, does unfiltered oil go through the engine? The filters bypass is much lower PSI rated than the oil pumps relief valve.
It would seem there are times in the engines operating cycle that unfiltered oil goes through the engine along with particles of every size.
Take a new or clean engine that is broken in and gets regular maintenance, how many particles are actually being dumped in the oil? Does it matter if you filter 50% of nothing or 99% of nothing?
Could it be that the supposed more efficient filter is more restrictive therefore allowing the filter to bypass more often?
If this is the case the fact it captured 99% but allows all the particles to go through the engine because of bypass could actually cause more wear. I can understand why marketing is suspect here.
IMO there is possibly a error in the Wix spec sheet, even the Wix cartridge filter has the same 20 micron spec at 50%.
http://parts.olathetoyota.com/tundra-oil-filter-comparison
SiverC6 post is one of the best i have seen on this.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
50% @ 20 microns is a high filtration standard.
It's sufficient to meet OEM standards and protect your engine.
Commercial filter manufacturers list higher filtration numbers on their boxes and in their sales materials to convince consumers they are getting something better.
It's called marketing.
Some of the posts in the oil filter forum are marketing too.
It's called direct marketing and it has been pretty effective.
You get a few employees and their friends to post here, put out a little propaganda, start a few witch hunts, and there you go.
It's changed a lot of opinions in a critical user group without investing much money.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3982910/3
Originally Posted By: Trav
The XP is a good filter, I don't buy into this efficiency hype tossed around on this board, in theory it all sounds good but in real world on the engine it seems almost meaningless.
Why do companies like Fleedgaurd and others make high efficiency oil filters for big commercial vehicles and tout how their filters cut down engine wear if there wasn't some kind of goodness achieved with better efficiency? It it all just "hype" in that world too?
Originally Posted By: Trav
Wix is one of the most respected filter makers on the market yet some claim there is an issue with the design that causes internal leakage. Are we supposed to believe they knowingly put junk, bad design or defective pieces on the market and do nothing to correct it?
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Does all the oil go through the filter all the time? What happens when bypass pressure is reached, does unfiltered oil go through the engine? The filters bypass is much lower PSI rated than the oil pumps relief valve.
The oil pump relief valve and the filter bypass valve have nothing to do with each other. Tests done by Jim Allen here showed that filters rarely go into bypass unless you do something nuts like rev the engine up pretty high right away after starting it in below freezing weather. Or if the filter is really plugged up with debris which increases the delta-p to start with.
Originally Posted By: Trav
It would seem there are times in the engines operating cycle that unfiltered oil goes through the engine along with particles of every size. Take a new or clean engine that is broken in and gets regular maintenance, how many particles are actually being dumped in the oil? Does it matter if you filter 50% of nothing or 99% of nothing?
I'd rather filter 99% instead of 50% if I had the choice. Others may only like to filter out 50% of the crud ... that's cool if that makes them feel good.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Could it be that the supposed more efficient filter is more restrictive therefore allowing the filter to bypass more often? If this is the case the fact it captured 99% but allows all the particles to go through the engine because of bypass could actually cause more wear. I can understand why marketing is suspect here.
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive. If the filter is designed right, it can be very efficient and flow well. A full synthetic filter will flow even better. Flow vs Delt-P with 5W-30 at 200 deg F. When oil if fully hot, the delta-p across most filters will be pretty low, and in that case the restriction in the oiling system is only about 1/15th (7%) that of the engine itself.
Originally Posted By: Trav
IMO there is possibly a error in the Wix spec sheet, even the Wix cartridge filter has the same 20 micron spec at 50%.
Many members have called the WIX Tech Line and spoken directly with a guy there, and have verified the XP efficiency as advertised by WIX is correct. It's not a typo. You'd think after they got a 100 phone calls and emails about it, if it was a typo they would have figured it out by now.
The XP is a good filter, I don't buy into this efficiency hype tossed around on this board, in theory it all sounds good but in real world on the engine it seems almost meaningless.
Why do companies like Fleedgaurd and others make high efficiency oil filters for big commercial vehicles and tout how their filters cut down engine wear if there wasn't some kind of goodness achieved with better efficiency? It it all just "hype" in that world too?
Originally Posted By: Trav
Wix is one of the most respected filter makers on the market yet some claim there is an issue with the design that causes internal leakage. Are we supposed to believe they knowingly put junk, bad design or defective pieces on the market and do nothing to correct it?
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Does all the oil go through the filter all the time? What happens when bypass pressure is reached, does unfiltered oil go through the engine? The filters bypass is much lower PSI rated than the oil pumps relief valve.
The oil pump relief valve and the filter bypass valve have nothing to do with each other. Tests done by Jim Allen here showed that filters rarely go into bypass unless you do something nuts like rev the engine up pretty high right away after starting it in below freezing weather. Or if the filter is really plugged up with debris which increases the delta-p to start with.
Originally Posted By: Trav
It would seem there are times in the engines operating cycle that unfiltered oil goes through the engine along with particles of every size. Take a new or clean engine that is broken in and gets regular maintenance, how many particles are actually being dumped in the oil? Does it matter if you filter 50% of nothing or 99% of nothing?
I'd rather filter 99% instead of 50% if I had the choice. Others may only like to filter out 50% of the crud ... that's cool if that makes them feel good.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Could it be that the supposed more efficient filter is more restrictive therefore allowing the filter to bypass more often? If this is the case the fact it captured 99% but allows all the particles to go through the engine because of bypass could actually cause more wear. I can understand why marketing is suspect here.
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive. If the filter is designed right, it can be very efficient and flow well. A full synthetic filter will flow even better. Flow vs Delt-P with 5W-30 at 200 deg F. When oil if fully hot, the delta-p across most filters will be pretty low, and in that case the restriction in the oiling system is only about 1/15th (7%) that of the engine itself.
Originally Posted By: Trav
IMO there is possibly a error in the Wix spec sheet, even the Wix cartridge filter has the same 20 micron spec at 50%.
Many members have called the WIX Tech Line and spoken directly with a guy there, and have verified the XP efficiency as advertised by WIX is correct. It's not a typo. You'd think after they got a 100 phone calls and emails about it, if it was a typo they would have figured it out by now.
Originally Posted By: Trav
The XP is a good filter, I don't buy into this efficiency hype tossed around on this board, in theory it all sounds good but in real world on the engine it seems almost meaningless.
Wix is one of the most respected filter makers on the market yet some claim there is an issue with the design that causes internal leakage. Are we supposed to believe they knowingly put junk, bad design or defective pieces on the market and do nothing to correct it?
I don't know about others but I find that a bit hard to believe, I use them and the NAPA Gold and never had an issue. I cant say the same for the Fram Ultra which caused a noise issue on one engine.
Does all the oil go through the filter all the time? What happens when bypass pressure is reached, does unfiltered oil go through the engine? The filters bypass is much lower PSI rated than the oil pumps relief valve.
It would seem there are times in the engines operating cycle that unfiltered oil goes through the engine along with particles of every size.
Take a new or clean engine that is broken in and gets regular maintenance, how many particles are actually being dumped in the oil? Does it matter if you filter 50% of nothing or 99% of nothing?
Could it be that the supposed more efficient filter is more restrictive therefore allowing the filter to bypass more often?
If this is the case the fact it captured 99% but allows all the particles to go through the engine because of bypass could actually cause more wear. I can understand why marketing is suspect here.
IMO there is possibly a error in the Wix spec sheet, even the Wix cartridge filter has the same 20 micron spec at 50%.
http://parts.olathetoyota.com/tundra-oil-filter-comparison
SiverC6 post is one of the best i have seen on this.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
50% @ 20 microns is a high filtration standard.
It's sufficient to meet OEM standards and protect your engine.
Commercial filter manufacturers list higher filtration numbers on their boxes and in their sales materials to convince consumers they are getting something better.
It's called marketing.
Some of the posts in the oil filter forum are marketing too.
It's called direct marketing and it has been pretty effective.
You get a few employees and their friends to post here, put out a little propaganda, start a few witch hunts, and there you go.
It's changed a lot of opinions in a critical user group without investing much money.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3982910/3
+1
The XP is a good filter, I don't buy into this efficiency hype tossed around on this board, in theory it all sounds good but in real world on the engine it seems almost meaningless.
Wix is one of the most respected filter makers on the market yet some claim there is an issue with the design that causes internal leakage. Are we supposed to believe they knowingly put junk, bad design or defective pieces on the market and do nothing to correct it?
I don't know about others but I find that a bit hard to believe, I use them and the NAPA Gold and never had an issue. I cant say the same for the Fram Ultra which caused a noise issue on one engine.
Does all the oil go through the filter all the time? What happens when bypass pressure is reached, does unfiltered oil go through the engine? The filters bypass is much lower PSI rated than the oil pumps relief valve.
It would seem there are times in the engines operating cycle that unfiltered oil goes through the engine along with particles of every size.
Take a new or clean engine that is broken in and gets regular maintenance, how many particles are actually being dumped in the oil? Does it matter if you filter 50% of nothing or 99% of nothing?
Could it be that the supposed more efficient filter is more restrictive therefore allowing the filter to bypass more often?
If this is the case the fact it captured 99% but allows all the particles to go through the engine because of bypass could actually cause more wear. I can understand why marketing is suspect here.
IMO there is possibly a error in the Wix spec sheet, even the Wix cartridge filter has the same 20 micron spec at 50%.
http://parts.olathetoyota.com/tundra-oil-filter-comparison
SiverC6 post is one of the best i have seen on this.
Originally Posted By: SilverC6
50% @ 20 microns is a high filtration standard.
It's sufficient to meet OEM standards and protect your engine.
Commercial filter manufacturers list higher filtration numbers on their boxes and in their sales materials to convince consumers they are getting something better.
It's called marketing.
Some of the posts in the oil filter forum are marketing too.
It's called direct marketing and it has been pretty effective.
You get a few employees and their friends to post here, put out a little propaganda, start a few witch hunts, and there you go.
It's changed a lot of opinions in a critical user group without investing much money.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3982910/3
+1
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive
Well we all know that! How can it be restrictive when its got more holes in it than Swiss cheeze.
Edit:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Proof? Documentation? I thought not.
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive
Well we all know that! How can it be restrictive when its got more holes in it than Swiss cheeze.
Edit:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Proof? Documentation? I thought not.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive
Well we all know that! How can it be restrictive when its got more holes in it than Swiss cheeze.
Edit:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Proof? Documentation? I thought not.
+1
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive
Well we all know that! How can it be restrictive when its got more holes in it than Swiss cheeze.
Edit:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Proof? Documentation? I thought not.
+1
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive
Well we all know that! How can it be restrictive when its got more holes in it than Swiss cheeze.
Edit:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Proof? Documentation? I thought not.
That graph was back before they tore. Now the flow resistance is even less ... and with a big hole in the media maybe the efficiency is more along the lines of the XP.
You got documentation that says the XP is better than the advertised spec from WIX? You think it's a typo, but sadly it's not.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
It's been shown that even a "supposedly restrictive" PureOne isn't really that restrictive
Well we all know that! How can it be restrictive when its got more holes in it than Swiss cheeze.
Edit:
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Apparently, that was proven in another lab. Lies, conspiracy, false info ... guess people can decided for themselves.
Proof? Documentation? I thought not.
That graph was back before they tore. Now the flow resistance is even less ... and with a big hole in the media maybe the efficiency is more along the lines of the XP.
You got documentation that says the XP is better than the advertised spec from WIX? You think it's a typo, but sadly it's not.
No need to get worked up in a lather about it.
I would convert everyone to another product/filter/brand if I thought it was a good product, there's no games or funny business going on here just honest passion for quality.
I am partial to good stuff in general not just filters.
I am partial to good stuff in general not just filters.
The chances of actually being able to speak to someone that really knows at Wix I would guess are slim. Based on the companies reputation I believe they make a quality product unlike Purolator that wont even acknowledge there are tearing issues.
Your comments like the XP not filtering better than the Purolator with a tear in it kind of proves you don't have a clue about what your talking about, you sound like a disgruntled Perolator fan boy nothing more.
Your comments like the XP not filtering better than the Purolator with a tear in it kind of proves you don't have a clue about what your talking about, you sound like a disgruntled Perolator fan boy nothing more.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I would convert everyone to another product/filter/brand if I thought it was a good product, there's no games or funny business going on here just honest passion for quality.
I am partial to good stuff in general not just filters.
The Fram Ultra is good but its not everything its cracked up to be either. I had engine noise with one that promptly disappeared with a different filter using the same oil that was in the sump.
Purolaters have proven to be a less than stellar filter with the tearing issues yet the fan boys keep pushing them.
No one has shown any problems with the XP, not one issue with torn media, scored engine bearing shells, nothing. Yet becuse of a conversation with someone at Wix probably reading from a sheet it gets derided on BITOG as a less than high quality filter.
Someone posted a UOA from an engine running the XP that was just as good as those with the Fram or any other, if its so bad why aren't the wear metals elevated?
If rocks are going through the filter surely the bearings must be scored to blazes.
How large a particle is considered detrimental? Before answering take the size of a micron, the bearing clearance and oil film thickness into account.
I would convert everyone to another product/filter/brand if I thought it was a good product, there's no games or funny business going on here just honest passion for quality.
I am partial to good stuff in general not just filters.
The Fram Ultra is good but its not everything its cracked up to be either. I had engine noise with one that promptly disappeared with a different filter using the same oil that was in the sump.
Purolaters have proven to be a less than stellar filter with the tearing issues yet the fan boys keep pushing them.
No one has shown any problems with the XP, not one issue with torn media, scored engine bearing shells, nothing. Yet becuse of a conversation with someone at Wix probably reading from a sheet it gets derided on BITOG as a less than high quality filter.
Someone posted a UOA from an engine running the XP that was just as good as those with the Fram or any other, if its so bad why aren't the wear metals elevated?
If rocks are going through the filter surely the bearings must be scored to blazes.
How large a particle is considered detrimental? Before answering take the size of a micron, the bearing clearance and oil film thickness into account.
Originally Posted By: MrGiggles
With the promotion the XP is about the same price as the normal Wix. I was wondering if it was really a decent enough deal that I should grab a few.
I did and will continue to use them regardless of what fans of Fram and puroltors say on BITOG.
Until i pull some scored parts out of an engine that can be directly attributed to poor filtration I am unconvinced that the XP is anything other than a top shelf filter.
Look at it this way where is the proof, any proof at all that it is a bad or substandard filter in any way? All we have here is opinions. Wix has a stellar reputation for producing high quality filters.
Show a filter with torn media, pictures of scored bearing shells, picture of a bad ODBV, broken spring, anything but not call them and ask for yourself and i know a guy that did a test.
With the promotion the XP is about the same price as the normal Wix. I was wondering if it was really a decent enough deal that I should grab a few.
I did and will continue to use them regardless of what fans of Fram and puroltors say on BITOG.
Until i pull some scored parts out of an engine that can be directly attributed to poor filtration I am unconvinced that the XP is anything other than a top shelf filter.
Look at it this way where is the proof, any proof at all that it is a bad or substandard filter in any way? All we have here is opinions. Wix has a stellar reputation for producing high quality filters.
Show a filter with torn media, pictures of scored bearing shells, picture of a bad ODBV, broken spring, anything but not call them and ask for yourself and i know a guy that did a test.
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I would convert everyone to another product/filter/brand if I thought it was a good product, there's no games or funny business going on here just honest passion for quality.
I am partial to good stuff in general not just filters.
The Fram Ultra is good but its not everything its cracked up to be either. I had engine noise with one that promptly disappeared with a different filter using the same oil that was in the sump.
Purolaters have proven to be a less than stellar filter with the tearing issues yet the fan boys keep pushing them.
No one has shown any problems with the XP, not one issue with torn media, scored engine bearing shells, nothing. Yet becuse of a conversation with someone at Wix probably reading from a sheet it gets derided on BITOG as a less than high quality filter.
Someone posted a UOA from an engine running the XP that was just as good as those with the Fram or any other, if its so bad why aren't the wear metals elevated?
If rocks are going through the filter surely the bearings must be scored to blazes.
How large a particle is considered detrimental? Before answering take the size of a micron, the bearing clearance and oil film thickness into account.
Did Fram ever give you or anybody else a answer on all of the bad filters? Seems like Fram just gives people a couple of free replacement and hopes they stop talking about it.
Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I would convert everyone to another product/filter/brand if I thought it was a good product, there's no games or funny business going on here just honest passion for quality.
I am partial to good stuff in general not just filters.
The Fram Ultra is good but its not everything its cracked up to be either. I had engine noise with one that promptly disappeared with a different filter using the same oil that was in the sump.
Purolaters have proven to be a less than stellar filter with the tearing issues yet the fan boys keep pushing them.
No one has shown any problems with the XP, not one issue with torn media, scored engine bearing shells, nothing. Yet becuse of a conversation with someone at Wix probably reading from a sheet it gets derided on BITOG as a less than high quality filter.
Someone posted a UOA from an engine running the XP that was just as good as those with the Fram or any other, if its so bad why aren't the wear metals elevated?
If rocks are going through the filter surely the bearings must be scored to blazes.
How large a particle is considered detrimental? Before answering take the size of a micron, the bearing clearance and oil film thickness into account.
Did Fram ever give you or anybody else a answer on all of the bad filters? Seems like Fram just gives people a couple of free replacement and hopes they stop talking about it.
Originally Posted By: Trav
The chances of actually being able to speak to someone that really knows at Wix I would guess are slim. Based on the companies reputation I believe they make a quality product unlike Purolator that wont even acknowledge there are tearing issues.
If the guys working the WIX Tech Line don't know what they are talking about, then they shouldn't be answering the phone when people call to ask a simple question like "what's the efficiency, and to what spec was it tested to?".
Originally Posted By: Trav
Your comments like the XP not filtering better than the Purolator with a tear in it kind of proves you don't have a clue about what your talking about, you sound like a disgruntled Perolator fan boy nothing more.
LoL ... have you ever heard of sarcasm?
The chances of actually being able to speak to someone that really knows at Wix I would guess are slim. Based on the companies reputation I believe they make a quality product unlike Purolator that wont even acknowledge there are tearing issues.
If the guys working the WIX Tech Line don't know what they are talking about, then they shouldn't be answering the phone when people call to ask a simple question like "what's the efficiency, and to what spec was it tested to?".
Originally Posted By: Trav
Your comments like the XP not filtering better than the Purolator with a tear in it kind of proves you don't have a clue about what your talking about, you sound like a disgruntled Perolator fan boy nothing more.
LoL ... have you ever heard of sarcasm?
- Status
Similar threads
