Are you concerned about the XG7317 or the other models?
Where's the documented proof ?
- Thread starter Merkava_4
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Rand
no one would care, and the ones that do would question their test methodology, and if they were paid off.
they were... I SEEN IT! back behind the Chuck E. Cheese!
no one would care, and the ones that do would question their test methodology, and if they were paid off.
they were... I SEEN IT! back behind the Chuck E. Cheese!
Originally Posted By: Rand
no one would care, and the ones that do would question their test methodology, and if they were paid off.
... Agreed. Its much easier to just create flashy marketing to cover up actual product low-quality. Sad. .... Only enthusiasts would care, like the one-percenters.
no one would care, and the ones that do would question their test methodology, and if they were paid off.
... Agreed. Its much easier to just create flashy marketing to cover up actual product low-quality. Sad. .... Only enthusiasts would care, like the one-percenters.
Originally Posted By: Hermann
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?
Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns ?
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty !
Dude, get a grip on reality, it's just a oil filter
Well said.. I like to see oil fitlers cut open and I like to cut them open myself and post pics, and talk about it.. but this is like wooooooo
Bravo about its just a oil filter.....
If you wan to be super safe, get the OEM factory filter.
Then Im sure your covered
but then again, its just a oil filter.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?
Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns ?
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty !
Dude, get a grip on reality, it's just a oil filter
Well said.. I like to see oil fitlers cut open and I like to cut them open myself and post pics, and talk about it.. but this is like wooooooo
Bravo about its just a oil filter.....
If you wan to be super safe, get the OEM factory filter.
Then Im sure your covered
but then again, its just a oil filter.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?
100%? I wouldn't buy that, but that's nitpicking. The 99.9% or whatever, sure.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns?
I don't believe that either, regardless of what people answering the telephone have to say.
Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?
100%? I wouldn't buy that, but that's nitpicking. The 99.9% or whatever, sure.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns?
I don't believe that either, regardless of what people answering the telephone have to say.
I hardly think it's fair to use one of the bestotors of all time to bolster the rep of a filter...
Soonas I see less sludge, Ill give a fram ultra a try.
Till then, Ill continue to run my beautifully constructed poorly filtering Densos.
Soonas I see less sludge, Ill give a fram ultra a try.
Till then, Ill continue to run my beautifully constructed poorly filtering Densos.
For me I'd like to see some kind of standards for oil and air filters. Some manufacturers have a spec for engine oil and you can then go buy a bottle of oil that meets that spec. You can read it on the bottle. I'd like say for example Ford to say an oil or air filter must met spec X123. Spec X123 could be a Ford spec or an industry spec. Then you could find an oil filter or air filter that had that spec on the box and be done with it. I do as much of my own maintenance as I can manage and I'm willing to pay more for filters that I can trust to do the job. I believe that routing maintenance is insurance against a big expense or lose in resale value in the future and can become a safety issue, as well.
Hello,
FRAM publishes the 99%@20 microns claim right on the box and on its website. The FTC and FRAM's competitors would be all over them with legal claims if they didnt have testing to back it up. If you understand the advertising world, you would know it is a legal disaster to make claims you cannot back up with data. The FRAM claim actually states 99%@20 micron particle size using the ISO 4548-12 test protocol. If it was not true, WIX, Purolator and others would have FRAM in court in a new york second. If your interested in visiting the FRAM lab to see the testing first hand, I can arrange that.
FRAM publishes the 99%@20 microns claim right on the box and on its website. The FTC and FRAM's competitors would be all over them with legal claims if they didnt have testing to back it up. If you understand the advertising world, you would know it is a legal disaster to make claims you cannot back up with data. The FRAM claim actually states 99%@20 micron particle size using the ISO 4548-12 test protocol. If it was not true, WIX, Purolator and others would have FRAM in court in a new york second. If your interested in visiting the FRAM lab to see the testing first hand, I can arrange that.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?
Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns ?
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty !
You pose an interesting question.
These are the premium filters from these companies yet at face value one looks superior to the other but is it really?
How much filter do you really need? How efficient does it need to be in a single pass?
Is the XP lower restriction therefore providing better flow and subsequently less wear at cold start up?
How efficient is it on multiple passes? A lot of VW bugs ran for decades on a screen with no filter at all and didn't seem to suffer from it.
I don't know the answers but i think too much is being made of the numbers, how many microns is detrimental to the bearings?
Given the engine is broken in and has regular oil changes how much metal per trip is the engine shedding and how many times per trip does the oil pass through the filter?
As time goes on throughout the OCI and the oil is loading up is the XP actually increasing in efficiency while still allowing good flow?
What is the Ultra doing? Becoming more restrictive?
I don't think this is a troll question at all, you bring up a point that could be interesting.
Where's the documented proof that the FRAM Ultra is 100% efficient at 20 microns ?
Where's the documented proof that the WIX XP is 50% efficient at 20 microns ?
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty !
You pose an interesting question.
These are the premium filters from these companies yet at face value one looks superior to the other but is it really?
How much filter do you really need? How efficient does it need to be in a single pass?
Is the XP lower restriction therefore providing better flow and subsequently less wear at cold start up?
How efficient is it on multiple passes? A lot of VW bugs ran for decades on a screen with no filter at all and didn't seem to suffer from it.
I don't know the answers but i think too much is being made of the numbers, how many microns is detrimental to the bearings?
Given the engine is broken in and has regular oil changes how much metal per trip is the engine shedding and how many times per trip does the oil pass through the filter?
As time goes on throughout the OCI and the oil is loading up is the XP actually increasing in efficiency while still allowing good flow?
What is the Ultra doing? Becoming more restrictive?
I don't think this is a troll question at all, you bring up a point that could be interesting.
dnewton3
Staff member
Wix tech line sucks; I don't care who I offend when I state that. After MANY attemps to get credible info from them, both on the phone and via email, all you will get is a bunch of canned boilerplate answers that make little if any sense. So be it. That does not mean their products suck; just their service.
Wix has a claim out there for all to see. I find their claim likely to be a mistake, but even when I challenge them on this they give me nothing to work with.
Fram has a claim out there for all to see. I find their claim likely to be very credible and believeable; I see no reason this cannot be achieved.
Choose as you see fit, because this is probably the most you'll get from them.
But I'll go one further here ...
Where's the credible documented proof that any of this matters?
Where's the credible documented proof that using a "better" filter assures "better" protection to a degree that is discernable in wear data?
Where's the credible documented proof that using an oversize filter is "better" and is discernable in wear data?
Why are we rehashing a topic that is already a crime scene with no suspects?
The lack of data and proof never held back the typical BITOGer anyway; in the absence of real hard evidence, they will theorize and spread rhetoric just like any other site. Conversely, the presentation of real hard evidence will often be scorned and/or ingored, because it does not fit conveniently into their predisposed and biased view for a favorite filter/lube da jour.
Wix has a claim out there for all to see. I find their claim likely to be a mistake, but even when I challenge them on this they give me nothing to work with.
Fram has a claim out there for all to see. I find their claim likely to be very credible and believeable; I see no reason this cannot be achieved.
Choose as you see fit, because this is probably the most you'll get from them.
But I'll go one further here ...
Where's the credible documented proof that any of this matters?
Where's the credible documented proof that using a "better" filter assures "better" protection to a degree that is discernable in wear data?
Where's the credible documented proof that using an oversize filter is "better" and is discernable in wear data?
Why are we rehashing a topic that is already a crime scene with no suspects?
The lack of data and proof never held back the typical BITOGer anyway; in the absence of real hard evidence, they will theorize and spread rhetoric just like any other site. Conversely, the presentation of real hard evidence will often be scorned and/or ingored, because it does not fit conveniently into their predisposed and biased view for a favorite filter/lube da jour.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Where's the credible documented proof that any of this matters?
Where's the credible documented proof that using a "better" filter assures "better" protection to a degree that is discernable in wear data?
Here is the list of evidence (choose to believe or not) which makes one think a few extra bucks on a superior 4548-12 oil filter is worth it:
1. SAE Study http://papers.sae.org/881825/ also cited http://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbullet...gine%20wear.pdf
2. Observations of the engineering trend that more modern vehicles specify better filtering,... i.e, early engine designs (
3. Articles like http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29114/dirt-holding-capacity and others similar, point to how reducing grit inside an engine or machine helps reduce wear.
4. Seeing Free Abrasive Lapping, as a machining process, produce wear.
5. Accounts of 40,000 mile oil change intervals like http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3399277/Amsoil_0W-30_41K_OCI_w/bypass_ using a synthetic & better filtration.
6. Accounts of fleet benefits from 3-micron-level oil filtering ( i.e, http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read...er-in-fleet-ops and http://fleetowner.com/equipment/news/california-city-fleet-oil-filters-0701 to cite just a couple.
7. & Finally, I don't know of anyone who wants more particles running around inside their engines, certainly not these guys: http://longitudediscovery.com/TheGreatMobilHoax/index.htm
Conclusion: A few extra bucks is worth it, and no evidence suggests that less filtering is better. For example, MicroGard MGL57090 is $5, Fram ToughGuard TG8765 $10, not much diff in price, better ISO 4548-12 performance (80% vs. 99% @ 20m).
Where's the credible documented proof that any of this matters?
Where's the credible documented proof that using a "better" filter assures "better" protection to a degree that is discernable in wear data?
Here is the list of evidence (choose to believe or not) which makes one think a few extra bucks on a superior 4548-12 oil filter is worth it:
1. SAE Study http://papers.sae.org/881825/ also cited http://www.amsoil.com/techservicesbullet...gine%20wear.pdf
2. Observations of the engineering trend that more modern vehicles specify better filtering,... i.e, early engine designs (
3. Articles like http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29114/dirt-holding-capacity and others similar, point to how reducing grit inside an engine or machine helps reduce wear.
4. Seeing Free Abrasive Lapping, as a machining process, produce wear.
5. Accounts of 40,000 mile oil change intervals like http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3399277/Amsoil_0W-30_41K_OCI_w/bypass_ using a synthetic & better filtration.
6. Accounts of fleet benefits from 3-micron-level oil filtering ( i.e, http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read...er-in-fleet-ops and http://fleetowner.com/equipment/news/california-city-fleet-oil-filters-0701 to cite just a couple.
7. & Finally, I don't know of anyone who wants more particles running around inside their engines, certainly not these guys: http://longitudediscovery.com/TheGreatMobilHoax/index.htm
Conclusion: A few extra bucks is worth it, and no evidence suggests that less filtering is better. For example, MicroGard MGL57090 is $5, Fram ToughGuard TG8765 $10, not much diff in price, better ISO 4548-12 performance (80% vs. 99% @ 20m).
Last edited:
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.
One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.
Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.
One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.
Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.
One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.
Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.
Its a reasonable assertion, yet no proof. Why not err on the side of more filtration from a new filter that has a higher efficiency from the start, instead of waiting for gunk to build up later on a cheaper oil filter (that has less dirt holding ability anyway) in hopes of getting more smaller particles at a later time?
Remember ISO 4548-12 is multi-pass, so it does define filtering performance.
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.
One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.
Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.
Its a reasonable assertion, yet no proof. Why not err on the side of more filtration from a new filter that has a higher efficiency from the start, instead of waiting for gunk to build up later on a cheaper oil filter (that has less dirt holding ability anyway) in hopes of getting more smaller particles at a later time?
Remember ISO 4548-12 is multi-pass, so it does define filtering performance.
Well, it's just statistics based on the probability of filtering a particle at a given size. I'm really not sure how a filter manufacturer can advertise 100% efficiency (unless the particle is of some very large size) since I would think that for small particles there is always a chance it will find some pathway through the media.
Anyway, I have to confess it isn't like I put it into practice myself. I don't use the Toyota/Denso filters, I use M1 filters on my Toyotas. And Hengst on my BMW (for which I have no idea what the efficiency is). I have used Honda A01 on the Accord, but lately it has been Bosch.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: kschachn
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.
One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.
Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.
Its a reasonable assertion, yet no proof. Why not err on the side of more filtration from a new filter that has a higher efficiency from the start, instead of waiting for gunk to build up later on a cheaper oil filter (that has less dirt holding ability anyway) in hopes of getting more smaller particles at a later time?
Remember ISO 4548-12 is multi-pass, so it does define filtering performance.
Anyway, I have to confess it isn't like I put it into practice myself. I don't use the Toyota/Denso filters, I use M1 filters on my Toyotas. And Hengst on my BMW (for which I have no idea what the efficiency is). I have used Honda A01 on the Accord, but lately it has been Bosch.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: kschachn
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.
One gets the impression that over the lifetime of a filter the total number of particles in suspension could quite possibly be the same regardless of whether the filter is 50% or 95% efficient. A snapshot in time might show differences but maybe not, depending on the total number of particles.
Within reason a low efficiency filter will catch the same particles as a high efficiency one. It's not LESS filtering.
Its a reasonable assertion, yet no proof. Why not err on the side of more filtration from a new filter that has a higher efficiency from the start, instead of waiting for gunk to build up later on a cheaper oil filter (that has less dirt holding ability anyway) in hopes of getting more smaller particles at a later time?
Remember ISO 4548-12 is multi-pass, so it does define filtering performance.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.
From looking at the SEM (scanning electron microscope) images at the 1 minute 42 seconds point (skip to that point if wanted) in the BMW youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U53yl4zQFV0 those larger gaps will flow more particles a long time before some gunk builds up in there and it begins trapping smaller particles, plus it appears some push-through of dirt would happen sporadically with the larger pore sizes.
OK but once again, lower efficiency filters don't do less filtering. They stop the same particles as high efficiency filters and in the same number. The only difference is when.
From looking at the SEM (scanning electron microscope) images at the 1 minute 42 seconds point (skip to that point if wanted) in the BMW youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U53yl4zQFV0 those larger gaps will flow more particles a long time before some gunk builds up in there and it begins trapping smaller particles, plus it appears some push-through of dirt would happen sporadically with the larger pore sizes.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99%+ filtration efficiency2
Yep ... per flag note 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."
With all due respect and in the interest of complete politeness, that don't prove nothing to me.
Nadda, zilch, zippo.
What do you mean it proves nothing?
Do you think Fram is going to make up some kind of claim and advertise it? If they couldn't meet that claim other filter manufacturer's lawyers would be sending legal letters to Fram's legal department saying you better get that claim off your website or we will sue you.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
99%+ filtration efficiency2
Yep ... per flag note 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."
With all due respect and in the interest of complete politeness, that don't prove nothing to me.
Nadda, zilch, zippo.
What do you mean it proves nothing?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Well, it's just statistics based on the probability of filtering a particle at a given size.
... Those larger pore sizes in the cheaper filters will just keep passing particles for a very long time. ISO 4548-12 as a test sequence, does try to replicate the many-passes an engine sees.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I'm really not sure how a filter manufacturer can advertise 100% efficiency (unless the particle is of some very large size) since I would think that for small particles there is always a chance it will find some pathway through the media.
... Best I've seen is 99.6% for all particles 20 microns or greater, multi-pass of course. Most cellulose cheap oil filters are anywhere from 50% to 80%.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Anyway, I have to confess it isn't like I put it into practice myself. I don't use the Toyota/Denso filters, I use M1 filters on my Toyotas.
M1 filters are good, just overpriced a bit, I've used them. I found out they are made on the same production line as the equal Fram ToughGuard at 99%@20mic and cheaper at rockauto.com.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
And Hengst on my BMW (for which I have no idea what the efficiency is).
On my 07 BMW 530ix, I use Wix or NAPAgold, as they are 95%, and importantly have glass fibers blended in, a key for efficiency boost. The German filters don't appear to blend in glass fibers at all, yet they are likely fine (i.e, Mann HU816x or Mahle)
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I have used Honda A01 on the Accord, but lately it has been Bosch.
I've been avoiding Bosch since the Purolator tear-scandal, since they share production lines.
Well, it's just statistics based on the probability of filtering a particle at a given size.
... Those larger pore sizes in the cheaper filters will just keep passing particles for a very long time. ISO 4548-12 as a test sequence, does try to replicate the many-passes an engine sees.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I'm really not sure how a filter manufacturer can advertise 100% efficiency (unless the particle is of some very large size) since I would think that for small particles there is always a chance it will find some pathway through the media.
... Best I've seen is 99.6% for all particles 20 microns or greater, multi-pass of course. Most cellulose cheap oil filters are anywhere from 50% to 80%.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Anyway, I have to confess it isn't like I put it into practice myself. I don't use the Toyota/Denso filters, I use M1 filters on my Toyotas.
M1 filters are good, just overpriced a bit, I've used them. I found out they are made on the same production line as the equal Fram ToughGuard at 99%@20mic and cheaper at rockauto.com.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
And Hengst on my BMW (for which I have no idea what the efficiency is).
On my 07 BMW 530ix, I use Wix or NAPAgold, as they are 95%, and importantly have glass fibers blended in, a key for efficiency boost. The German filters don't appear to blend in glass fibers at all, yet they are likely fine (i.e, Mann HU816x or Mahle)
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I have used Honda A01 on the Accord, but lately it has been Bosch.
I've been avoiding Bosch since the Purolator tear-scandal, since they share production lines.
Similar to the way air filters get better at stopping smaller particles as dirt/fibers build up on the filter surface, it probably is true that oil filters, gradually approaching the clogging point, over some miles, would get more efficient. Problem I see is the continuous influx of silicon (other minerals too) thru the air intake, getting past the rings & into the oil where a new oil filter must immediately begin stopping those. A cheaper oil filter will take some time to build up gunk enough to really hold that smaller stuff.
Maybe motorKing, the oil filter expert from Fram, might be able to comment on how long it might take for a cheaper oil filter to begin to be more efficient, maybe how a used oil filter would perform on the 4548-12 test, and still have enough dirt holding capacity to be viable.
Maybe motorKing, the oil filter expert from Fram, might be able to comment on how long it might take for a cheaper oil filter to begin to be more efficient, maybe how a used oil filter would perform on the 4548-12 test, and still have enough dirt holding capacity to be viable.
- Status
Similar threads
