I just looked and the much criticized Fram says that their ratings are based on the ISO 4548-12 standard, so I suppose we can compare them directly to Purolator. Of course there is some vagueness still, but they claim 97% for the Extended Guard, 99% for the Tough Guard, and 95% for the Extra Guard, at >20 microns. It's even for the same size filter as the Purolator. Purolator claims 99.9% efficiency above 20 microns. The XG8A is equivalent to the PL30001 or the FL1A in Motorcraft.
Wix efficiency
- Thread starter mechanicx
- Start date
- Status
I don't know what else to tell you guys. There is an industry standard, I listed it and it's what Purolator and others use. The Purolator is rated at 99.9% at 20 microns for most all P1s and the Wix is rated at 95% at 31 microns or 20 microns for the other filter mentioned here. The P1 has 13 grams of holding capacity. We have most of the info about efficiency, holding capacity and good flow ability from Purolator.
What we know of WIX is they use a paper media and aren't very efficient. It all seems pretty clear cut to me.
What we know of WIX is they use a paper media and aren't very efficient. It all seems pretty clear cut to me.
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
I just looked and the much criticized Fram says that their ratings are based on the ISO 4548-12 standard, so I suppose we can compare them directly to Purolator. Of course there is some vagueness still, but they claim 97% for the Extended Guard, 99% for the Tough Guard, and 95% for the Extra Guard, at >20 microns. It's even for the same size filter as the Purolator. Purolator claims 99.9% efficiency above 20 microns. The XG8A is equivalent to the PL30001 or the FL1A in Motorcraft.
Exactly. The problem with Fram is the >20 microns and not at 20 microns like Purolator. So what does >20 mean? It could mean 21 or 31 or whatever the next common micron test size is. Add in we know that Fram uses less media area and flimsy construction. and with the WIX you get Purolator type construction but Fram extra guard efficiency at P1 prizes.
This is all why most here have concluded the the Purolator classic and P1 are the best value and best filter.
I just looked and the much criticized Fram says that their ratings are based on the ISO 4548-12 standard, so I suppose we can compare them directly to Purolator. Of course there is some vagueness still, but they claim 97% for the Extended Guard, 99% for the Tough Guard, and 95% for the Extra Guard, at >20 microns. It's even for the same size filter as the Purolator. Purolator claims 99.9% efficiency above 20 microns. The XG8A is equivalent to the PL30001 or the FL1A in Motorcraft.
Exactly. The problem with Fram is the >20 microns and not at 20 microns like Purolator. So what does >20 mean? It could mean 21 or 31 or whatever the next common micron test size is. Add in we know that Fram uses less media area and flimsy construction. and with the WIX you get Purolator type construction but Fram extra guard efficiency at P1 prizes.
This is all why most here have concluded the the Purolator classic and P1 are the best value and best filter.
I would hope that Fram and Purolator are using the same measurement standard as they are both based on ISO 4548-12. Do we know that Wix uses that same standard for its testing? I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the Wix Web site.
For comparison, the Wix filter that matches the XG8A and the PL30001 is the 51515 with beta ratios of 2/20=13/23, translating to 50% efficiency at 20 microns and 95% at 23.
For comparison, the Wix filter that matches the XG8A and the PL30001 is the 51515 with beta ratios of 2/20=13/23, translating to 50% efficiency at 20 microns and 95% at 23.
Don't know the answer to what standard Wix is using or why, but I looked and Amsoil and Champion are also using the SAE J1858 or ISO 4548-12 standard. Amsoil uses it to make their claim of 98.7% efficient at 15 microns. So far the filters end up like this for efficiency:
1. Amsoil 98.7% at 15 microns
2. PureOne 99.9% at 20
3. Fram Tough Guard 99% at 20
4. Purolator Classic 97.5% at 20
5. Fram Extended Guard 97% at 20
6. Fram Extra Guard 95% at 20
7. Champ Ecore 94% at 20
8. Wix 50% at 20
1. Amsoil 98.7% at 15 microns
2. PureOne 99.9% at 20
3. Fram Tough Guard 99% at 20
4. Purolator Classic 97.5% at 20
5. Fram Extended Guard 97% at 20
6. Fram Extra Guard 95% at 20
7. Champ Ecore 94% at 20
8. Wix 50% at 20
Last edited:
You know... I don't really know where to go from here. I even threw out a blurb from the council that comes out with these test standards: "The micron rating does not properly or fully describe either the efficiency or contaminant-holding capacity of the filter media." And still we're reverting back to "Yeah but PureOne has a 99% efficieny rating." Right, I get that. It's on the box. But there's more to the picture.
At this point, I can only suggest you either email Wix with your concerns or just keep buying what you feel is the best value. Between these two vendors, your engine will not care either way. They both make quality filters.
At this point, I can only suggest you either email Wix with your concerns or just keep buying what you feel is the best value. Between these two vendors, your engine will not care either way. They both make quality filters.
Further to my previous post, Mobil 1 claims 99.2% efficiency using SAE J1858.
Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
8. Wix 50% at 20
Where are you getting that from?
Each Wix filter has it's own specific published multi-pass efficiency in the form of a beta ratio. They don't blanket every filter with an efficiency rating from their 'best tested filter model' like the rest of the manufacturers. I'm not sure where you're getting 50% at 20 microns, but there may be one with that. The Wix filter I just purchased is B2/20=6/19. That is 50% at 6 microns and 95% at 19 microns.
8. Wix 50% at 20
Where are you getting that from?
Each Wix filter has it's own specific published multi-pass efficiency in the form of a beta ratio. They don't blanket every filter with an efficiency rating from their 'best tested filter model' like the rest of the manufacturers. I'm not sure where you're getting 50% at 20 microns, but there may be one with that. The Wix filter I just purchased is B2/20=6/19. That is 50% at 6 microns and 95% at 19 microns.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
We are calculating beta ratio the same way just you are using 2/20 as the beta ratio at 15/31 microns, respectively. I am assuming 2/20 means beta 2 at 20 microns. You are assuming 2/20=15/31 mean beta 2 @ 15 microns and beta 20 @ 31 microns. That would make sense but WIX claims this filter is a 21 micron nominal filter, suggesting it is beta 2 at ~20 microns.
In WIX's case, 2/20=15/31 means:
50% efficient (Beta = 2) @ 15 microns
95% efficient (Beta = 20) @ 31 microns.
The 2 goes with the 15 (blue)
The 20 goes with the 31 (red)
We are calculating beta ratio the same way just you are using 2/20 as the beta ratio at 15/31 microns, respectively. I am assuming 2/20 means beta 2 at 20 microns. You are assuming 2/20=15/31 mean beta 2 @ 15 microns and beta 20 @ 31 microns. That would make sense but WIX claims this filter is a 21 micron nominal filter, suggesting it is beta 2 at ~20 microns.
In WIX's case, 2/20=15/31 means:
50% efficient (Beta = 2) @ 15 microns
95% efficient (Beta = 20) @ 31 microns.
The 2 goes with the 15 (blue)
The 20 goes with the 31 (red)
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
We are calculating beta ratio the same way just you are using 2/20 as the beta ratio at 15/31 microns, respectively. I am assuming 2/20 means beta 2 at 20 microns. You are assuming 2/20=15/31 mean beta 2 @ 15 microns and beta 20 @ 31 microns. That would make sense but WIX claims this filter is a 21 micron nominal filter, suggesting it is beta 2 at ~20 microns.
In WIX's case, 2/20=15/31 means:
50% efficient (Beta = 2) @ 15 microns
95% efficient (Beta = 20) @ 31 microns.
The 2 goes with the 15 (blue)
The 20 goes with the 31 (red)
I think that is right. That's still pretty mediocre efficiency. What doesn't make sense is WIX goes on to say the filter is a 21 micron nominal filter. Nominal is at 50% efficiency.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
We are calculating beta ratio the same way just you are using 2/20 as the beta ratio at 15/31 microns, respectively. I am assuming 2/20 means beta 2 at 20 microns. You are assuming 2/20=15/31 mean beta 2 @ 15 microns and beta 20 @ 31 microns. That would make sense but WIX claims this filter is a 21 micron nominal filter, suggesting it is beta 2 at ~20 microns.
In WIX's case, 2/20=15/31 means:
50% efficient (Beta = 2) @ 15 microns
95% efficient (Beta = 20) @ 31 microns.
The 2 goes with the 15 (blue)
The 20 goes with the 31 (red)
I think that is right. That's still pretty mediocre efficiency. What doesn't make sense is WIX goes on to say the filter is a 21 micron nominal filter. Nominal is at 50% efficiency.
Originally Posted By: Soobs
You know... I don't really know where to go from here. I even threw out a blurb from the council that comes out with these test standards: "The micron rating does not properly or fully describe either the efficiency or contaminant-holding capacity of the filter media." And still we're reverting back to "Yeah but PureOne has a 99% efficieny rating." Right, I get that. It's on the box. But there's more to the picture.
At this point, I can only suggest you either email Wix with your concerns or just keep buying what you feel is the best value. Between these two vendors, your engine will not care either way. They both make quality filters.
I know what the filter council says. You are taking them out of context. When we have the micron rating AND the beta ratio then we have the efficiency rating. Efficiency rating is what matter and that it is at the industry standard test. We have that with Purolator. No one said efficiency tells you the filter holding capacity but we know what it is with the P1, 13 grams. Why would I want to contact WIX? They already list their efficiency at 95% at 31 microns for the filter I was comparing?
You know... I don't really know where to go from here. I even threw out a blurb from the council that comes out with these test standards: "The micron rating does not properly or fully describe either the efficiency or contaminant-holding capacity of the filter media." And still we're reverting back to "Yeah but PureOne has a 99% efficieny rating." Right, I get that. It's on the box. But there's more to the picture.
At this point, I can only suggest you either email Wix with your concerns or just keep buying what you feel is the best value. Between these two vendors, your engine will not care either way. They both make quality filters.
I know what the filter council says. You are taking them out of context. When we have the micron rating AND the beta ratio then we have the efficiency rating. Efficiency rating is what matter and that it is at the industry standard test. We have that with Purolator. No one said efficiency tells you the filter holding capacity but we know what it is with the P1, 13 grams. Why would I want to contact WIX? They already list their efficiency at 95% at 31 microns for the filter I was comparing?
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Soobs
You know... I don't really know where to go from here. I even threw out a blurb from the council that comes out with these test standards: "The micron rating does not properly or fully describe either the efficiency or contaminant-holding capacity of the filter media." And still we're reverting back to "Yeah but PureOne has a 99% efficieny rating." Right, I get that. It's on the box. But there's more to the picture.
At this point, I can only suggest you either email Wix with your concerns or just keep buying what you feel is the best value. Between these two vendors, your engine will not care either way. They both make quality filters.
I know what the filter council says. You are taking them out of context. When we have the micron rating AND the beta ratio then we have the efficiency rating. Efficiency rating is what matter and that it is at the industry standard test. We have that with Purolator. No one said efficiency tells you the filter holding capacity but we know what it is with the P1, 13 grams. Why would I want to contact WIX? They already list their efficiency at 95% at 31 microns for the filter I was comparing?
And you have no idea what the PureOne efficiency really is because everything is based off their best testing filter. Just because the same media is used in each filter doesn't mean you would yield the same results. Wix uses the same filter media in each filter too, but they go a step ahead and publish the betas for each filter. Like I said, use what works for you. I use both.
Just as another sidenote though I never had a filter that was rated for anything more than 90% at 40 microns on my Subaru that went 440,000 miles. No engine problems and no more than 1/2 quart burn in 4000 mile OCIs. It could have kept going but some drunk smashed into me one night.
And I'm only suggesting you email Wix to answer your original question. What makes Wix worth $6-7 filter? Why shouldn't I just buy a PureOne? You can't answer these questions with the claims on the boxes.
Originally Posted By: Soobs
You know... I don't really know where to go from here. I even threw out a blurb from the council that comes out with these test standards: "The micron rating does not properly or fully describe either the efficiency or contaminant-holding capacity of the filter media." And still we're reverting back to "Yeah but PureOne has a 99% efficieny rating." Right, I get that. It's on the box. But there's more to the picture.
At this point, I can only suggest you either email Wix with your concerns or just keep buying what you feel is the best value. Between these two vendors, your engine will not care either way. They both make quality filters.
I know what the filter council says. You are taking them out of context. When we have the micron rating AND the beta ratio then we have the efficiency rating. Efficiency rating is what matter and that it is at the industry standard test. We have that with Purolator. No one said efficiency tells you the filter holding capacity but we know what it is with the P1, 13 grams. Why would I want to contact WIX? They already list their efficiency at 95% at 31 microns for the filter I was comparing?
And you have no idea what the PureOne efficiency really is because everything is based off their best testing filter. Just because the same media is used in each filter doesn't mean you would yield the same results. Wix uses the same filter media in each filter too, but they go a step ahead and publish the betas for each filter. Like I said, use what works for you. I use both.
Just as another sidenote though I never had a filter that was rated for anything more than 90% at 40 microns on my Subaru that went 440,000 miles. No engine problems and no more than 1/2 quart burn in 4000 mile OCIs. It could have kept going but some drunk smashed into me one night.
And I'm only suggesting you email Wix to answer your original question. What makes Wix worth $6-7 filter? Why shouldn't I just buy a PureOne? You can't answer these questions with the claims on the boxes.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
WIX construction is top shelf. Not too much to criticize there.
+1
WIX construction is top shelf. Not too much to criticize there.
+1
Well, in my case I don't think it matters if I used a P1 or Wix/Napa Gold. The P1 is a 14006 and it 99% at 40 microns. The Wix is 21 micron nominal.
I usually look at construction and I've stated many times here my belief that the Napa Gold 51042 is a heavier, better constructed can than the P1 counterpart (14006).
Considering the prices, I can get a P1 for roughly 5.30 and a NG for 7.29 without any deals. With a deal, obviously they're about the same cost: roughly $5 for a P1 and $4.50 for a NG.
I run both on my truck. I've got several on the shelf of both brands. Perhaps someone can shed the light on which one is "better" in my case?
Either way, I would be using an AC Delco had they not switched to an ecore. Go figure.
I usually look at construction and I've stated many times here my belief that the Napa Gold 51042 is a heavier, better constructed can than the P1 counterpart (14006).
Considering the prices, I can get a P1 for roughly 5.30 and a NG for 7.29 without any deals. With a deal, obviously they're about the same cost: roughly $5 for a P1 and $4.50 for a NG.
I run both on my truck. I've got several on the shelf of both brands. Perhaps someone can shed the light on which one is "better" in my case?
Either way, I would be using an AC Delco had they not switched to an ecore. Go figure.
Yep, I messed up on the Wix efficiency thing. The 51515, which matches the PL30001 size, with beta ratios of 2/20=13/23, means an efficiency of 50% at 13 microns and 95% at 23 microns. So here's that list again:
1. Amsoil 98.7% at 15 microns
2. PureOne 99.9% at 20
3. Mobil 1 99.2% (I think at 20)
4. Fram Tough Guard 99% at 20
5. Purolator Classic 97.5% at 20
6. Fram Extended Guard 97% at 20
7. Fram Extra Guard 95% at 20
8. Champ Ecore 94% at 20
9. Wix 95% at 23
1. Amsoil 98.7% at 15 microns
2. PureOne 99.9% at 20
3. Mobil 1 99.2% (I think at 20)
4. Fram Tough Guard 99% at 20
5. Purolator Classic 97.5% at 20
6. Fram Extended Guard 97% at 20
7. Fram Extra Guard 95% at 20
8. Champ Ecore 94% at 20
9. Wix 95% at 23
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I don't know what else to tell you guys. There is an industry standard, I listed it and it's what Purolator and others use. The Purolator is rated at 99.9% at 20 microns for most all P1s and the Wix is rated at 95% at 31 microns or 20 microns for the other filter mentioned here. The P1 has 13 grams of holding capacity. We have most of the info about efficiency, holding capacity and good flow ability from Purolator.
What we know of WIX is they use a paper media and aren't very efficient. It all seems pretty clear cut to me.
It would. You want to see what you're seeing
There's even ways to manipulate the protocol.
Wix just doesn't use efficiency as their marketing mainstay.
Wix doesn't have a big direct consumer market. NAPA Gold, somewhat. But outside of the midwest, I know of no chain that carries a WIX brand. Car Quest under their blue label and NAPA Gold.
No WIX at PB, AA, AZ, Wally's.
I don't know what else to tell you guys. There is an industry standard, I listed it and it's what Purolator and others use. The Purolator is rated at 99.9% at 20 microns for most all P1s and the Wix is rated at 95% at 31 microns or 20 microns for the other filter mentioned here. The P1 has 13 grams of holding capacity. We have most of the info about efficiency, holding capacity and good flow ability from Purolator.
What we know of WIX is they use a paper media and aren't very efficient. It all seems pretty clear cut to me.
It would. You want to see what you're seeing
There's even ways to manipulate the protocol.
Wix just doesn't use efficiency as their marketing mainstay.
Wix doesn't have a big direct consumer market. NAPA Gold, somewhat. But outside of the midwest, I know of no chain that carries a WIX brand. Car Quest under their blue label and NAPA Gold.
No WIX at PB, AA, AZ, Wally's.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
Well, in my case I don't think it matters if I used a P1 or Wix/Napa Gold. The P1 is a 14006 and it 99% at 40 microns. The Wix is 21 micron nominal.
The PL14006 is 99.9% @ 20 microns ... not 40 microns. Look at the spec on the box it came in. There are only 4 spin-on filters from Purolator that have the 40 micron rating - they are the 4 smallest spin-ons they make.
Well, in my case I don't think it matters if I used a P1 or Wix/Napa Gold. The P1 is a 14006 and it 99% at 40 microns. The Wix is 21 micron nominal.
The PL14006 is 99.9% @ 20 microns ... not 40 microns. Look at the spec on the box it came in. There are only 4 spin-on filters from Purolator that have the 40 micron rating - they are the 4 smallest spin-ons they make.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: bigmike
Well, in my case I don't think it matters if I used a P1 or Wix/Napa Gold. The P1 is a 14006 and it 99% at 40 microns. The Wix is 21 micron nominal.
The PL14006 is 99.9% @ 20 microns ... not 40 microns. Look at the spec on the box it came in. There are only 4 spin-on filters from Purolator that have the 40 micron rating - they are the 4 smallest spin-ons they make.
You're right. I got mixed up with my Honda's PL14610.
The Wix 51356 has a beta Ratio of 2/20=6/19. The PL14610 is 99% at 40 microns. So which one is "more efficient?"
This is where I think efficiency ratings get retarded.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
Well, in my case I don't think it matters if I used a P1 or Wix/Napa Gold. The P1 is a 14006 and it 99% at 40 microns. The Wix is 21 micron nominal.
The PL14006 is 99.9% @ 20 microns ... not 40 microns. Look at the spec on the box it came in. There are only 4 spin-on filters from Purolator that have the 40 micron rating - they are the 4 smallest spin-ons they make.
You're right. I got mixed up with my Honda's PL14610.
The Wix 51356 has a beta Ratio of 2/20=6/19. The PL14610 is 99% at 40 microns. So which one is "more efficient?"
This is where I think efficiency ratings get retarded.
I buy my Wix filters at O'Reilly Auto. I guess they don't have O'Reilly up there in PA but they're in most of the country.
FYI, most of the Wix filters at O'Reilly are behind the counter so you have to ask for them.
FYI, most of the Wix filters at O'Reilly are behind the counter so you have to ask for them.
- Status
Similar threads
