I still think that even if you can find an occasional high performing WIX model and a lower performing P1 model, the P1 is almost always very close. With Purolator you get a synthetic media with the P1, good construction, it's usually lower cost and P1's are more available. So I just see P1 as the better filter value. In many cases the $3.50 Classic has higher efficiency than the equivalent WIX.
Wix efficiency
- Thread starter mechanicx
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: bigmike
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: bigmike
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Originally Posted By: bigmike
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: bigmike
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Nothing random or non-standard in their published results. They show the MPE micron rating for 50% and 95% efficiency on each filter; whereas, Purolator lists the efficiency from just one Classic & PureOne oil filter and slaps it on every box. Now, call me crazy, but that's no basis for comparison.
Also, just FYI, PureOne uses a synthetic/cellulose blend, not 100% synthetic media.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: bigmike
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Nothing random or non-standard in their published results. They show the MPE micron rating for 50% and 95% efficiency on each filter; whereas, Purolator lists the efficiency from just one Classic & PureOne oil filter and slaps it on every box. Now, call me crazy, but that's no basis for comparison.
Also, just FYI, PureOne uses a synthetic/cellulose blend, not 100% synthetic media.
The WIX have a paper media and low efficiency on most of their filters. I don't know how many ways you are going to argue they do not? Why would I pay ~2x as much for WIX with at best 95% efficiency at 31 microns when a Purolator Classic is 97.5% at 20 microns for half the price and a P1 for ~$1 less is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns. Wix needs to drop their price down or use a more efficient synthetic media.
To me a WIX is just an over-priced, heavier built Proselect or Proflow or whatever at an inflated price. They both are targeted at the aftermarket service industry primarily.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Beta 2 and 20 is not the standard. Well nominal rating being beta 2 is a standard, and so WIX numbers don't even agree with each other.
Beta 2 and 20 is WIX's "standard".
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Purolator P1 filters all have 99.9%, at an actual standard that can be compared, except for a small few and I'm sure Purolator will give you the efficiency on those.
ALL of Purolators Beta numbers are based on their 30001 filter. Their website and the filter box references: "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001."
The 30001 is a huge filter ... which will give them the best Beta measurement. In reality, each filter size will have a Beta worse than the 30001 filter. That is why Purolator's 4 smallest spin-ons drop down to the 99.9% and 97.5% @ 40 micron rating.
Beta 2 and 20 is WIX's "standard".
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Purolator P1 filters all have 99.9%, at an actual standard that can be compared, except for a small few and I'm sure Purolator will give you the efficiency on those.
ALL of Purolators Beta numbers are based on their 30001 filter. Their website and the filter box references: "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001."
The 30001 is a huge filter ... which will give them the best Beta measurement. In reality, each filter size will have a Beta worse than the 30001 filter. That is why Purolator's 4 smallest spin-ons drop down to the 99.9% and 97.5% @ 40 micron rating.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Beta 2 and 20 is not the standard. Well nominal rating being beta 2 is a standard, and so WIX numbers don't even agree with each other. Their listed numbers are not standard and don't even list the protocal and still fall way short in efficiency. Purolator P1 filters all have 99.9%, at an actual standard that can be compared, except for a small few and I'm sure Purolator will give you the efficiency on those.
What is this "standard" where every filter company is supposed to report at X efficiency and X microns? It doesn't exsist. Listing an efficiency at 99% at 20 microns has nothing to do with ISO 4548-12. ISO 4548-12 is how they test the filter. There is no standard for how the data of the test is presented.
I'm not trying to convince you, people here, or anyone else that Wix is a better filter. Everyone should be using what works well for them. I'm not defending Wix, just laying facts that I know and that aren't advertising gimmicks. I've said countless times they're both great filters and I use whichever is on sale.
PureOnes may have higher efficiency / micron in some models versus a Wix but there's no way of knowing what every model has because if they published that data their advertising campaign would fall apart. As far as I can tell the data isn't readily available. Ultimately, who cares? Both are worth their price tags. A Wix at full price is just $0.49 more than the PureOne for my Honda application. In my opinion Wix has a better constructed filter which is probably why they charge slightly more.
You want to continue to assume all PureOnes are better simply for the type of media they use. That's fine, I don't care if they do or do not. The filtration difference is unbelievably negligible. It has nothing to do with that fact they're both quality filters.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The WIX have a paper media and low efficiency on most of their filters. I don't know how many ways you are going to argue they do not?
When have I argued that Wix has had something else? I've only clarified this for you a few times. It's glass-enhanced paper media in Wix and a synthetic/cellulose blend in PureOne. This is common knowledge and easily found on both of their respective websites.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
To me a WIX is just an over-priced, heavier built Proselect or Proflow or whatever at an inflated price. They both are targeted at the aftermarket service industry primarily.
Well, now that you have your opinion can we move on?
What is this "standard" where every filter company is supposed to report at X efficiency and X microns? It doesn't exsist. Listing an efficiency at 99% at 20 microns has nothing to do with ISO 4548-12. ISO 4548-12 is how they test the filter. There is no standard for how the data of the test is presented.
I'm not trying to convince you, people here, or anyone else that Wix is a better filter. Everyone should be using what works well for them. I'm not defending Wix, just laying facts that I know and that aren't advertising gimmicks. I've said countless times they're both great filters and I use whichever is on sale.
PureOnes may have higher efficiency / micron in some models versus a Wix but there's no way of knowing what every model has because if they published that data their advertising campaign would fall apart. As far as I can tell the data isn't readily available. Ultimately, who cares? Both are worth their price tags. A Wix at full price is just $0.49 more than the PureOne for my Honda application. In my opinion Wix has a better constructed filter which is probably why they charge slightly more.
You want to continue to assume all PureOnes are better simply for the type of media they use. That's fine, I don't care if they do or do not. The filtration difference is unbelievably negligible. It has nothing to do with that fact they're both quality filters.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The WIX have a paper media and low efficiency on most of their filters. I don't know how many ways you are going to argue they do not?
When have I argued that Wix has had something else? I've only clarified this for you a few times. It's glass-enhanced paper media in Wix and a synthetic/cellulose blend in PureOne. This is common knowledge and easily found on both of their respective websites.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
To me a WIX is just an over-priced, heavier built Proselect or Proflow or whatever at an inflated price. They both are targeted at the aftermarket service industry primarily.
Well, now that you have your opinion can we move on?
Originally Posted By: Soobs
A Wix at full price is just $0.49 more than the PureOne for my Honda application. In my opinion Wix has a better constructed filter which is probably why they charge slightly more.
FYI ...
One thing to keep in mind about the WIX & NAPA Gold filters is that the base end bypass valve takes up some media length.
I have used a NAPA Gold 1356 on my V6 Altima, and have also used the Purolator 14610. Both are the same sized cans ... but the NAPA Gold had a filter media cartridge that was almost an inch shorter than the Purolator's.
A Wix at full price is just $0.49 more than the PureOne for my Honda application. In my opinion Wix has a better constructed filter which is probably why they charge slightly more.
FYI ...
One thing to keep in mind about the WIX & NAPA Gold filters is that the base end bypass valve takes up some media length.
I have used a NAPA Gold 1356 on my V6 Altima, and have also used the Purolator 14610. Both are the same sized cans ... but the NAPA Gold had a filter media cartridge that was almost an inch shorter than the Purolator's.
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Beta 2 and 20 is not the standard. Well nominal rating being beta 2 is a standard, and so WIX numbers don't even agree with each other.
Beta 2 and 20 is WIX's "standard".
That's my point though most other filter makers list the beta at 20 microns with the ISO test protocol, and WIX appears to not what to make direct comparisons
Quote:
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Purolator P1 filters all have 99.9%, at an actual standard that can be compared, except for a small few and I'm sure Purolator will give you the efficiency on those.
ALL of Purolators Beta numbers are based on their 30001 filter. Their website and the filter box references: "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001."
The 30001 is a huge filter ... which will give them the best Beta measurement. In reality, each filter size will have a Beta worse than the 30001 filter. That is why Purolator's 4 smallest spin-ons drop down to the 99.9% and 97.5% @ 40 micron rating.
All I know is P1 have the highest efficiency at the industry standard test at 20 microns for at least one filter and the rest of their filter are close. When I compare the same P1 to WIX the WIX has 95% efficiency at 31 microns. As far as I know even a Fram has efficiency as good or better than that and the P1 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns as far as I know.
Now if the trend is for smaller filters to have less efficiency, why is it WIX claims a higher efficiency for the smaller Honda filter with a built-in bypass than it does for the much larger PF47 equivalent without a bypass taking up media? It looks like to me WIX is just trying to meet the minimum standard for each filter's efficiency, while P1 is using the best media they have for all filters.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Beta 2 and 20 is WIX's "standard".
That's my point though most other filter makers list the beta at 20 microns with the ISO test protocol, and WIX appears to not what to make direct comparisons
Quote:
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Purolator P1 filters all have 99.9%, at an actual standard that can be compared, except for a small few and I'm sure Purolator will give you the efficiency on those.
ALL of Purolators Beta numbers are based on their 30001 filter. Their website and the filter box references: "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001."
The 30001 is a huge filter ... which will give them the best Beta measurement. In reality, each filter size will have a Beta worse than the 30001 filter. That is why Purolator's 4 smallest spin-ons drop down to the 99.9% and 97.5% @ 40 micron rating.
All I know is P1 have the highest efficiency at the industry standard test at 20 microns for at least one filter and the rest of their filter are close. When I compare the same P1 to WIX the WIX has 95% efficiency at 31 microns. As far as I know even a Fram has efficiency as good or better than that and the P1 is 99.9% efficient at 20 microns as far as I know.
Now if the trend is for smaller filters to have less efficiency, why is it WIX claims a higher efficiency for the smaller Honda filter with a built-in bypass than it does for the much larger PF47 equivalent without a bypass taking up media? It looks like to me WIX is just trying to meet the minimum standard for each filter's efficiency, while P1 is using the best media they have for all filters.
The "standard" is to report efficiency at 20 microns with the ISO proticol which everyone else is doing but WIX is not. Beta 2 is the "standard" for nominal rating yet WIX's nominal rating and beta 2 do not agree. The other "standard" is to report absolute efficiency which is at 98.5% iirc. You can say this isn't the standard but that's what everyone else goes by, except WIX.
When WIX doesn't report the same way as other filters and their efficiency isn't that great anyway, of course I'm going to question their filters' efficiency at the price they are. I've spent at least 10 post replying to all the ways you have defended WIX's efficiency rating and cast aspersions on Purolator's and I guess every other filter brands. Then you act like I'm the one beating a dead horse.
When WIX doesn't report the same way as other filters and their efficiency isn't that great anyway, of course I'm going to question their filters' efficiency at the price they are. I've spent at least 10 post replying to all the ways you have defended WIX's efficiency rating and cast aspersions on Purolator's and I guess every other filter brands. Then you act like I'm the one beating a dead horse.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Now if the trend is for smaller filters to have less efficiency, why is it WIX claims a higher efficiency for the smaller Honda filter with a built-in bypass than it does for the much larger PF47 equivalent without a bypass taking up media?
Good question. That example above may be be an odd-ball in the bunch. I think if you look at the small and large version of filters that will work on the same vehicle, it seems the larger filter has a better Beta.
Can you post the WIX numbers for the two filters you are referring to?
For example ... these are ones I could use on my V6 Altima. The longer verison (51356 has a better Beta, especially at 50%, Beta = 2).
WIX 51365
Height: 2.577
Outer Diameter Top: 2.685
Beta Ratio: 2/20=15/22
WIX 51356 (long version of the 51365)
Height: 3.402
Outer Diameter Top: 2.685
Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/19
Now if the trend is for smaller filters to have less efficiency, why is it WIX claims a higher efficiency for the smaller Honda filter with a built-in bypass than it does for the much larger PF47 equivalent without a bypass taking up media?
Good question. That example above may be be an odd-ball in the bunch. I think if you look at the small and large version of filters that will work on the same vehicle, it seems the larger filter has a better Beta.
Can you post the WIX numbers for the two filters you are referring to?
For example ... these are ones I could use on my V6 Altima. The longer verison (51356 has a better Beta, especially at 50%, Beta = 2).
WIX 51365
Height: 2.577
Outer Diameter Top: 2.685
Beta Ratio: 2/20=15/22
WIX 51356 (long version of the 51365)
Height: 3.402
Outer Diameter Top: 2.685
Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/19
Yeah the WIX seems to follow the bigger filter is more efficient trend in these filters compared and then the dinky Accord filter has much higher efficiency:
WIX 51036 PF52 equivalent: 2/20=12/26
WIX 51040 PF47 equivalent: 2/20=15/31
So it appears that two identical filter except with one having the llonger media is more efficient. The efficiency is nothing to great.
Then the late-model Accord filter, dinky and with a bypass:
WIX 51356: 2/20=6/19
Much better than the the two other bigger filters but still about average efficiency for a typical filter.
WIX 51036 PF52 equivalent: 2/20=12/26
WIX 51040 PF47 equivalent: 2/20=15/31
So it appears that two identical filter except with one having the llonger media is more efficient. The efficiency is nothing to great.
Then the late-model Accord filter, dinky and with a bypass:
WIX 51356: 2/20=6/19
Much better than the the two other bigger filters but still about average efficiency for a typical filter.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I'm detecting "geezer rant" here.
Quote:
The "standard" is to report efficiency at 20 microns with the ISO proticol which everyone else is doing but WIX is not.
Do you have some link to some ISO spec that says that 20um is some "standard"? I think that Puro just chose that number since it looks good to say 99.xx%
Quote:
Beta 2 is the "standard" for nominal rating yet WIX's nominal rating and beta 2 do not agree. The other "standard" is to report absolute efficiency which is at 98.5% iirc. You can say this isn't the standard but that's what everyone else goes by, except WIX.
NOMINAL is a SINGLE PASS TEST. Beta 2 is a MULTIPASS TEST.
You've some how constructed in your mind's eye that these are issues of merit against buying a Wix. It's nonsense other than you finding value in Purolator's marketing that they're better.
Love your Purolator. They're great filters. Wix are outstanding filters too. There's nothing to discount that.
Quote:
The "standard" is to report efficiency at 20 microns with the ISO proticol which everyone else is doing but WIX is not.
Do you have some link to some ISO spec that says that 20um is some "standard"? I think that Puro just chose that number since it looks good to say 99.xx%
Quote:
Beta 2 is the "standard" for nominal rating yet WIX's nominal rating and beta 2 do not agree. The other "standard" is to report absolute efficiency which is at 98.5% iirc. You can say this isn't the standard but that's what everyone else goes by, except WIX.
NOMINAL is a SINGLE PASS TEST. Beta 2 is a MULTIPASS TEST.
You've some how constructed in your mind's eye that these are issues of merit against buying a Wix. It's nonsense other than you finding value in Purolator's marketing that they're better.
Love your Purolator. They're great filters. Wix are outstanding filters too. There's nothing to discount that.
I found interesting that the PL14610 P1 equivalent to WIX is taller:
WIX 51356 (long version of the 51365)
Height: 3.402
Outer Diameter Top: 2.685
Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/19
P1 PL14610 (Purolator's version of the WIX 51356)
Height: 3.52
O.D.: 2.69
Plus the P1's bypass doesn't take up filter media.
Well one thing about a shorter filter starting out slightly less efficient is that it probably clogs up quicker and increase efficiency lol.
WIX 51356 (long version of the 51365)
Height: 3.402
Outer Diameter Top: 2.685
Beta Ratio: 2/20=6/19
P1 PL14610 (Purolator's version of the WIX 51356)
Height: 3.52
O.D.: 2.69
Plus the P1's bypass doesn't take up filter media.
Well one thing about a shorter filter starting out slightly less efficient is that it probably clogs up quicker and increase efficiency lol.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Yeah the WIX seems to follow the bigger filter is more efficient trend in these filters compared and then the dinky Accord filter has much higher efficiency:
WIX 51036 PF52 equivalent: 2/20=12/26
WIX 51040 PF47 equivalent: 2/20=15/31
So it appears that two identical filter except with one having the llonger media is more efficient. The efficiency is nothing to great.
Then the late-model Accord filter, dinky and with a bypass:
WIX 51356: 2/20=6/19
Much better than the the two other bigger filters but still about average efficiency for a typical filter.
For my Jeep, the 57060 is the smaller filter with a rating of 2/75=8/22
The larger filter that fits is 51372 and has a rating of 2/20=12/25
Both have the same nominal of 21um
Yeah the WIX seems to follow the bigger filter is more efficient trend in these filters compared and then the dinky Accord filter has much higher efficiency:
WIX 51036 PF52 equivalent: 2/20=12/26
WIX 51040 PF47 equivalent: 2/20=15/31
So it appears that two identical filter except with one having the llonger media is more efficient. The efficiency is nothing to great.
Then the late-model Accord filter, dinky and with a bypass:
WIX 51356: 2/20=6/19
Much better than the the two other bigger filters but still about average efficiency for a typical filter.
For my Jeep, the 57060 is the smaller filter with a rating of 2/75=8/22
The larger filter that fits is 51372 and has a rating of 2/20=12/25
Both have the same nominal of 21um
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'm detecting "geezer rant" here.
Funny, I don't look or feel like a geezer
.
Quote:
Quote:
The "standard" is to report efficiency at 20 microns with the ISO proticol which everyone else is doing but WIX is not.
Do you have some link to some ISO spec that says that 20um is some "standard"? I think that Puro just chose that number since it looks good to say 99.xx%
I never said it was the ISO standard to report at 20 microns. It's what Purolator, Fram and Champion report at, so basically most everyone but WIX.
Quote:
Quote:
Beta 2 is the "standard" for nominal rating yet WIX's nominal rating and beta 2 do not agree. The other "standard" is to report absolute efficiency which is at 98.5% iirc. You can say this isn't the standard but that's what everyone else goes by, except WIX.
NOMINAL is a SINGLE PASS TEST. Beta 2 is a MULTIPASS TEST.
Do you have some link to back that up? Kind of like what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Beta 2 is 50% efficiency. Whether they used single pass or multipass test who knows since they don't even list the protocol used. Both single and multi-pass can be used. WIX lists all their filters as 21 nominal even though their filter efficiencies differ so it's all meaningless to begin with.
Quote:
You've some how constructed in your mind's eye that these are issues of merit against buying a Wix. It's nonsense other than you finding value in Purolator's marketing that they're better.
Love your Purolator. They're great filters. Wix are outstanding filters too. There's nothing to discount that.
That's just your view that doesn't seem supported with WIX's own numbers or any other numbers. Based on the numbers we have WIX filters for the most part have lower efficiency than most any other filter.
I never said WIX were bad filters just that they appear to have low efficiency and a high price. First you try defending ecore's issue and now WIX efficiency. I don't see why?
I'm detecting "geezer rant" here.
Funny, I don't look or feel like a geezer
Quote:
Quote:
The "standard" is to report efficiency at 20 microns with the ISO proticol which everyone else is doing but WIX is not.
Do you have some link to some ISO spec that says that 20um is some "standard"? I think that Puro just chose that number since it looks good to say 99.xx%
I never said it was the ISO standard to report at 20 microns. It's what Purolator, Fram and Champion report at, so basically most everyone but WIX.
Quote:
Quote:
Beta 2 is the "standard" for nominal rating yet WIX's nominal rating and beta 2 do not agree. The other "standard" is to report absolute efficiency which is at 98.5% iirc. You can say this isn't the standard but that's what everyone else goes by, except WIX.
NOMINAL is a SINGLE PASS TEST. Beta 2 is a MULTIPASS TEST.
Do you have some link to back that up? Kind of like what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Beta 2 is 50% efficiency. Whether they used single pass or multipass test who knows since they don't even list the protocol used. Both single and multi-pass can be used. WIX lists all their filters as 21 nominal even though their filter efficiencies differ so it's all meaningless to begin with.
Quote:
You've some how constructed in your mind's eye that these are issues of merit against buying a Wix. It's nonsense other than you finding value in Purolator's marketing that they're better.
Love your Purolator. They're great filters. Wix are outstanding filters too. There's nothing to discount that.
That's just your view that doesn't seem supported with WIX's own numbers or any other numbers. Based on the numbers we have WIX filters for the most part have lower efficiency than most any other filter.
I never said WIX were bad filters just that they appear to have low efficiency and a high price. First you try defending ecore's issue and now WIX efficiency. I don't see why?
Originally Posted By: Hitzy
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Yeah the WIX seems to follow the bigger filter is more efficient trend in these filters compared and then the dinky Accord filter has much higher efficiency:
WIX 51036 PF52 equivalent: 2/20=12/26
WIX 51040 PF47 equivalent: 2/20=15/31
So it appears that two identical filter except with one having the llonger media is more efficient. The efficiency is nothing to great.
Then the late-model Accord filter, dinky and with a bypass:
WIX 51356: 2/20=6/19
Much better than the the two other bigger filters but still about average efficiency for a typical filter.
For my Jeep, the 57060 is the smaller filter with a rating of 2/75=8/22
The larger filter that fits is 51372 and has a rating of 2/20=12/25
Both have the same nominal of 21um
I didn't see your post earlier. They are really close but it looks like this is another example that goes against the trend of larger is more efficient.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Yeah the WIX seems to follow the bigger filter is more efficient trend in these filters compared and then the dinky Accord filter has much higher efficiency:
WIX 51036 PF52 equivalent: 2/20=12/26
WIX 51040 PF47 equivalent: 2/20=15/31
So it appears that two identical filter except with one having the llonger media is more efficient. The efficiency is nothing to great.
Then the late-model Accord filter, dinky and with a bypass:
WIX 51356: 2/20=6/19
Much better than the the two other bigger filters but still about average efficiency for a typical filter.
For my Jeep, the 57060 is the smaller filter with a rating of 2/75=8/22
The larger filter that fits is 51372 and has a rating of 2/20=12/25
Both have the same nominal of 21um
I didn't see your post earlier. They are really close but it looks like this is another example that goes against the trend of larger is more efficient.
Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: bigmike
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Nothing random or non-standard in their published results. They show the MPE micron rating for 50% and 95% efficiency on each filter; whereas, Purolator lists the efficiency from just one Classic & PureOne oil filter and slaps it on every box. Now, call me crazy, but that's no basis for comparison.
Also, just FYI, PureOne uses a synthetic/cellulose blend, not 100% synthetic media.
I find that interesting also, everyone seems to think every filter will be the same becsause they use information from one filter. I wonder how other filters truly are. Also I found it interesting when they starting putting dirt holding capacity on the box of the PureOne boxes and now the new Bosch Distanceplus has 12 grams as the lowest of the filters they compared it to which is close to the holding capacity of the PureOne.
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: bigmike
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?"
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Nothing random or non-standard in their published results. They show the MPE micron rating for 50% and 95% efficiency on each filter; whereas, Purolator lists the efficiency from just one Classic & PureOne oil filter and slaps it on every box. Now, call me crazy, but that's no basis for comparison.
Also, just FYI, PureOne uses a synthetic/cellulose blend, not 100% synthetic media.
I find that interesting also, everyone seems to think every filter will be the same becsause they use information from one filter. I wonder how other filters truly are. Also I found it interesting when they starting putting dirt holding capacity on the box of the PureOne boxes and now the new Bosch Distanceplus has 12 grams as the lowest of the filters they compared it to which is close to the holding capacity of the PureOne.
Originally Posted By: postjeeprcr
Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Nothing random or non-standard in their published results. They show the MPE micron rating for 50% and 95% efficiency on each filter; whereas, Purolator lists the efficiency from just one Classic & PureOne oil filter and slaps it on every box. Now, call me crazy, but that's no basis for comparison.
Also, just FYI, PureOne uses a synthetic/cellulose blend, not 100% synthetic media.
I find that interesting also, everyone seems to think every filter will be the same becsause they use information from one filter. I wonder how other filters truly are. Also I found it interesting when they starting putting dirt holding capacity on the box of the PureOne boxes and now the new Bosch Distanceplus has 12 grams as the lowest of the filters they compared it to which is close to the holding capacity of the PureOne.
The 12 grams of holding capacity seems to be the standard. But if P1s are more efficient, and I think they are, it stands to reason having the same holding capacity that they would clog quicker. I don't think they would go into bypass over the manufactures OCI, even if that is 10K miles, but I don't know. They definitely don't seem to be a extended OCI filter.
Originally Posted By: Soobs
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Hard to say ... 95% @ 19 microns vs. 99.9% @ 40 microns.
Anybody's guess without a real apples-to-apples measurement.
IMO, it would be nice if the standard numbers all manufactures used was the % efficiency at 20 microns. That's all you'd really need to make a quick comparison between any filter.
I agree. What is up with WIX uysing random betas and for random micron sizes? Some people see it as a good thing. I see it as WIX not wanting to list performance at the standardize test for comparisons.
Nothing random or non-standard in their published results. They show the MPE micron rating for 50% and 95% efficiency on each filter; whereas, Purolator lists the efficiency from just one Classic & PureOne oil filter and slaps it on every box. Now, call me crazy, but that's no basis for comparison.
Also, just FYI, PureOne uses a synthetic/cellulose blend, not 100% synthetic media.
I find that interesting also, everyone seems to think every filter will be the same becsause they use information from one filter. I wonder how other filters truly are. Also I found it interesting when they starting putting dirt holding capacity on the box of the PureOne boxes and now the new Bosch Distanceplus has 12 grams as the lowest of the filters they compared it to which is close to the holding capacity of the PureOne.
The 12 grams of holding capacity seems to be the standard. But if P1s are more efficient, and I think they are, it stands to reason having the same holding capacity that they would clog quicker. I don't think they would go into bypass over the manufactures OCI, even if that is 10K miles, but I don't know. They definitely don't seem to be a extended OCI filter.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Quote:
That's just your view that doesn't seem supported with WIX's own numbers or any other numbers. Based on the numbers we have WIX filters for the most part have lower efficiency than most any other filter.
It assumes that the lower efficiency has significance in engine longevity. I'm not so convinced it does. I don't think Wix is either and choose to go on their sound construction and not play a "top this" game against a filter company that they're not in the same market with.
..but as I've said before, PureOne is a great filter.
Quote:
I never said it was the ISO standard to report at 20 microns. It's what Purolator, Fram and Champion report at, so basically most everyone but WIX.
..and all of those filters are market at consumer grade chains and dept stores. Wix, except for one chain in the midwest, has no direct consumer outlet..at least none of substance. All of those filters, in one combo or another, are competing for the same shelf space. The places where Wix® is marketed (NAPA, Car Quest), they're typically competing with "Wix made" products (ProSelect = etc.) .
Quote:
Do you have some link to back that up?
I believe it was discussed some time ago with Pete C. I could be mistaken, but as for links, I think it's in the same one presented here.
Note that the term Beta2 ..while equated to 50% ..is NOT referred to as NOMINAL ..and that NOMINAL is considered the "average". The two are DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT IN WHAT THEY ARE REFERRING TO..
http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-5R3.pdf
So, BETA2 DOES = 50% it DOES NOT MEAN NOMINAL.
That's just your view that doesn't seem supported with WIX's own numbers or any other numbers. Based on the numbers we have WIX filters for the most part have lower efficiency than most any other filter.
It assumes that the lower efficiency has significance in engine longevity. I'm not so convinced it does. I don't think Wix is either and choose to go on their sound construction and not play a "top this" game against a filter company that they're not in the same market with.
..but as I've said before, PureOne is a great filter.
Quote:
I never said it was the ISO standard to report at 20 microns. It's what Purolator, Fram and Champion report at, so basically most everyone but WIX.
..and all of those filters are market at consumer grade chains and dept stores. Wix, except for one chain in the midwest, has no direct consumer outlet..at least none of substance. All of those filters, in one combo or another, are competing for the same shelf space. The places where Wix® is marketed (NAPA, Car Quest), they're typically competing with "Wix made" products (ProSelect = etc.) .
Quote:
Do you have some link to back that up?
I believe it was discussed some time ago with Pete C. I could be mistaken, but as for links, I think it's in the same one presented here.
Note that the term Beta2 ..while equated to 50% ..is NOT referred to as NOMINAL ..and that NOMINAL is considered the "average". The two are DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT IN WHAT THEY ARE REFERRING TO..
http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-5R3.pdf
So, BETA2 DOES = 50% it DOES NOT MEAN NOMINAL.
- Status
Similar threads
