Wix or Motorcraft?

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: walk23
Wix or Motorcraft, how did Purolators come into this thread ?


Purolator makes the Motorcraft filters.

 

[Virtuoso]

If the last known Motorcraft filter spec's are still current (and right), I'd go with the Wix every day.

Motorcraft: 80% of 20 micron particles

Wix: 95% of 20 micron particles

And with Wix you'd still have the thread-end bypass and silicon ADBV, if needed.



Somehow though, I can't imagine Purolator building a filter with those specs, as even the cheap private label filters they produce seem to be 94% at 20 micron.

 

[modularv8]

Originally Posted By: Virtuoso
If the last known Motorcraft filter spec's are still current (and right), I'd go with the Wix every day.

Motorcraft: 80% of 20 micron particles

Wix: 95% of 20 micron particles

And with Wix you'd still have the thread-end bypass and silicon ADBV, if needed.



Somehow though, I can't imagine Purolator building a filter with those specs, as even the cheap private label filters they produce seem to be 94% at 20 micron.


Motorcraft SPFE = 92% @ 20 microns. SPFE isn't a real world filtering performance measure (marketing). MPFE represents a better approximation to real world peformance. If you have a Ford, use the Motorcraft.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: modularv8

Motorcraft SPFE = 92% @ 20 microns. SPFE isn't a real world filtering performance measure (marketing). MPFE represents a better approximation to real world peformance.


Got a link showing such specs? - I can never find anything much on Motorcraft filters.

Motorcraft's oil filter performance specs have always seemed to be lacking and confusing. At one time all they said was "80% @ 20 micorns", which seems way behind any other average oil filter these days.

 

[modularv8]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: modularv8

Motorcraft SPFE = 92% @ 20 microns. SPFE isn't a real world filtering performance measure (marketing). MPFE represents a better approximation to real world peformance.


Got a link showing such specs? - I can never find anything much on Motorcraft filters.

Motorcraft's oil filter performance specs have always seemed to be lacking and confusing. At one time all they said was "80% @ 20 micorns", which seems way behind any other average oil filter these days.


No links, it is not a published spec. The SPFE quoted above is for the Motorcraft FL-820s and was given to me by Todd Vick, product engineering manager (OEM filter engineering) at Purolator. The media in the Motorcraft is not made by Purolator, so the 92% (test average) at 20 microns is from bench testing. The difference between 92% to 99% SPFE is insignificant compared to the filter's MPFE, more important is the location of the pressure relief valve. Ford engines that have the VCT system (5w20) have high oil flow rates (higher volume oil pumps) to actuate the VCT phasers. So it is important in these engines that they get good flow and the bypass be on the threaded end. Alot of thinking/design has gone into Motorcraft filters that is not readily apparent. BTW, all quoted filter SPFE are averages.

 

[river_rat]

Originally Posted By: kasedian
Heads - Wix.
Tails - Motorcraft.

+1

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: modularv8
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: modularv8

Motorcraft SPFE = 92% @ 20 microns. SPFE isn't a real world filtering performance measure (marketing). MPFE represents a better approximation to real world peformance.


Got a link showing such specs? - I can never find anything much on Motorcraft filters.

Motorcraft's oil filter performance specs have always seemed to be lacking and confusing. At one time all they said was "80% @ 20 micorns", which seems way behind any other average oil filter these days.


No links, it is not a published spec. The SPFE quoted above is for the Motorcraft FL-820s and was given to me by Todd Vick, product engineering manager (OEM filter engineering) at Purolator. The media in the Motorcraft is not made by Purolator, so the 92% (test average) at 20 microns is from bench testing. The difference between 92% to 99% SPFE is insignificant compared to the filter's MPFE ...


Thanks for the info. So is the Motorcraft spec of "80% @ 20 microns" the multi-pass efficiency (MPFE)?

 

[modularv8]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: modularv8
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: modularv8

Motorcraft SPFE = 92% @ 20 microns. SPFE isn't a real world filtering performance measure (marketing). MPFE represents a better approximation to real world peformance.


Got a link showing such specs? - I can never find anything much on Motorcraft filters.

Motorcraft's oil filter performance specs have always seemed to be lacking and confusing. At one time all they said was "80% @ 20 micorns", which seems way behind any other average oil filter these days.


No links, it is not a published spec. The SPFE quoted above is for the Motorcraft FL-820s and was given to me by Todd Vick, product engineering manager (OEM filter engineering) at Purolator. The media in the Motorcraft is not made by Purolator, so the 92% (test average) at 20 microns is from bench testing. The difference between 92% to 99% SPFE is insignificant compared to the filter's MPFE ...


Thanks for the info. So is the Motorcraft spec of "80% @ 20 microns" the multi-pass efficiency (MPFE)?


No. The "80% @ 20 microns" comes from a Motorcraft filter product information publication. The Motorcraft publication states that Ford doesn't specify what it is and Motorcraft appears to not know at least for the FL820s; however, Motorcraft does give specific values for other filters. However, the measured value for the multi-pass filter efficiency would be greater than the 92% SPFE. I have read alot of publications going back to the 1950's and it is evident that Ford has been very active in research and testing of many different types/designs of oil filters/media. Sometimes, Ford has gone against certain oil filter industry design trends. And it is interesting to read the old Motorcraft literature and automotive references from the 70's and 80's regarding Ford's filter media. I wish I had done some testing in those labs when I was at SWRI. In the end, unless you are just inquisitive, I wouldn't worry about it. If you own a Ford, running the Motorcraft filter is the best you can do for that engine.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: modularv8
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Thanks for the info. So is the Motorcraft spec of "80% @ 20 microns" the multi-pass efficiency (MPFE)?


No. The "80% @ 20 microns" comes from a Motorcraft filter product information publication. The Motorcraft publication states that Ford doesn't specify what it is and Motorcraft appears to not know at least for the FL820s; however, Motorcraft does give specific values for other filters. However, the measured value for the multi-pass filter efficiency would be greater than the 92% SPFE.


This is what I don't understand about why Ford/Motorcraft even advertises the "80% @ 20 micron" specification. When someone hears that filtering spec it just doesn't sound impressive. If the Motorcraft filters are really much better in filtering efficiency, then why doesn't Motorcraft advertise it as such? It's hard to believe that Motorcraft doesn't even know the real efficiency numbers.

Originally Posted By: modularv8
In the end, unless you are just inquisitive, I wouldn't worry about it. If you own a Ford, running the Motorcraft filter is the best you can do for that engine.


I've ran Motorcraft filters on non-Ford vehicles too. Always seem to be well constructed and no cold start noises, etc. Wish Motorcraft would just show what the actual efficiency was on their filters. I don't think they realize how bad "80% @ 20 microns" sounds when you have other filters like PureOne showing "99.9% @ 20 microns". I'm assuming Motorcraft is using the same ISO testing standards as the other major filter makers (?).

 

[Virtuoso]

I don't see what's so special about the Motorcraft.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I've ran Motorcraft filters on non-Ford vehicles too. Always seem to be well constructed and no cold start noises, etc. Wish Motorcraft would just show what the actual efficiency was on their filters. I don't think they realize how bad "80% @ 20 microns" sounds when you have other filters like PureOne showing "99.9% @ 20 microns". I'm assuming Motorcraft is using the same ISO testing standards as the other major filter makers (?).


I don't think you'll come across that 80% @ 20 microns specification very easily anymore. The Motorcraft website has been completely revamped and I couldn't find the specification anywhere anymore.

I know the spec sounds stupid, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense that virtually every Motorcraft filter's specification is actually 80% @ 20 microns. If you look at the Wix site, for example, specifications are very different for different filters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I've ran Motorcraft filters on non-Ford vehicles too. Always seem to be well constructed and no cold start noises, etc. Wish Motorcraft would just show what the actual efficiency was on their filters. I don't think they realize how bad "80% @ 20 microns" sounds when you have other filters like PureOne showing "99.9% @ 20 microns". I'm assuming Motorcraft is using the same ISO testing standards as the other major filter makers (?).


I don't think you'll come across that 80% @ 20 microns specification very easily anymore. The Motorcraft website has been completely revamped and I couldn't find the specification anywhere anymore.


I haven't looked lately, but sounds like Motorcraft got the message that the "80% @ 20 microns" looked bad. Not publishing any spec whatsoever is just as bad IMO. They should know what their oil filters are capable of due to lab testing. If so, why not advertise it unless it's garbage? I don't get Motorcraft in this respect.

 

[Garak]

I don't know. I kind of see why they may have done things the way they did, and the way they do now, not that I think either is the best way. Before, they were mainly geared at ensuring cross reference accuracy, so dimensions, thread sizes, and nominal specifications were most important.

They probably took a lot of grief over the 80% @ 20 microns business, and decided it wasn't necessary to list the specification at all. After all, the Motorcraft site isn't just a filter website, unlike the Wix site. Heck, it's hard enough to find efficiency specifications on a lot of the various brands in the Purolator/Bosch group, especially on the European side of things.

I've always wondered what the specifications were for my European Mann W719/5 filters. I don't think I'm going to find their efficiency, but that doesn't mean I should avoid them. We've been spoiled by Wix and their beta ratios.

 

[river_rat]

I would buy 92% @ 20 microns. I don't think they are only 80% efficient. At least the FL400A I examined. The media doesn't appear that different from a Purolator Classic.

Now NAPA ProSelect that was listed at about 80%-20 micron on the pdf file from Mobil 1, that I would believe. That media looks thin and porous under the microscope by far, by comparison.
I feel like the Motorcraft is a good filter. Good media, good construction, thread end bypass usually, and inexpensive readily available.
I prefer the Wix, but only slightly.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: river_rat
Good media, good construction, thread end bypass usually, and inexpensive readily available.
I prefer the Wix, but only slightly.


I use either almost interchangeably, with a slight preference for Wix based upon price. Our Walmarts have only Fram, so if I want a filter after hours, I can get Wix, and for anywhere from $0.50 to $2 cheaper than the Motorcraft. It also depends upon how far I want to drive. The Ford dealer is closer.

 

[river_rat]

MC is cheaper here. Typically about $4-5 vs $6-8 for Wix or NAPA Gold.

 

[RF Overlord]

Originally Posted By: modularv8
The media in the Motorcraft is not made by Purolator,
So you're saying that Ford supplies the media to Purolator, who just assembles the filter? Do you know who actually manufactures the media for Ford?
Quote:
If you own a Ford, running the Motorcraft filter is the best you can do for that engine.
Quote:
In the end, unless you are just inquisitive, I wouldn't worry about it.
I AM inquisitive, sometime to the point of annoying people, which is not my intent here. I just like knowing these kinds of things and it helps justify my belief that Motorcraft really IS the best choice for my Fords.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: modularv8
The "80% @ 20 microns" comes from a Motorcraft filter product information publication. The Motorcraft publication states that Ford doesn't specify what it is and Motorcraft appears to not know at least for the FL820s; however, Motorcraft does give specific values for other filters.


Can you give a few examples of what those specific filters and their efficiency ratings are?

Originally Posted By: modularv8
However, the measured value for the multi-pass filter efficiency would be greater than the 92% SPFE.


From the general research I've done, it seems the MPFE is typically a little lower than the SPFE.

 

[modularv8]

Quote:
I AM inquisitive, sometime to the point of annoying people, which is not my intent here. I just like knowing these kinds of things and it helps justify my belief that Motorcraft really IS the best choice for my Fords.


I believe it is from what I have seen and read. It is designed around the characteristics of each engine application. Although some would debate, I believe the location of the bypass valve does make a difference. Filters go into bypass more often (especially in winter) than people realize. Not all particles embed into the media and filter orientation is irrelevant. When the bypass opens in the dome end, the oil stream will draw "loose" accumulated contaminants back into the engine.

Quote:
Can you give a few examples of what those specific filters and their efficiency ratings are?


I was referring to the Motorcraft filter publication (2005) that alot folks cite for filter efficiencies.

Quote:
From the general research I've done, it seems the MPFE is typically a little lower than the SPFE.


The MPFE test gives the filter media multiple opportunities to capture particles in the recirculated stream, therefore it generates a higher efficiency rating. The 99.9% filter efficiency rating that Purolator advertises on their site for their PureOne oil filter is the result of a Multi-Pass Filter Efficiency test. Per their site, the 99.9% filtering efficiency is "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001"
ISO 4548-12 is a MPFE test.

"This part of ISO 4548 specifies a multi-pass filtration test with continuous contaminant injection and using the online particle counting method for evaluating the performance of full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines.

The test procedure determines the contaminant capacity of a filter, its particulate removal characteristics and differential pressure.

This test is intended for application to filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min and with an efficiency of less than 99 % at a particle size greater than 10 µm.

This test is intended for application to filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min and with an efficiency of less than 99 % at a particle size greater than 10 µm."

Source: Industry Standards and Regulations.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: modularv8

Quote:
From the general research I've done, it seems the MPFE is typically a little lower than the SPFE.


The MPFE test gives the filter media multiple opportunities to capture particles in the recirculated stream, therefore it generates a higher efficiency rating. The 99.9% filter efficiency rating that Purolator advertises on their site for their PureOne oil filter is the result of a Multi-Pass Filter Efficiency test. Per their site, the 99.9% filtering efficiency is "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 20 microns on PL30001"
ISO 4548-12 is a MPFE test.


What's in red above makes sense, but I've seen information where the MPFE number is less than the SPFE number. Don't know if they are wrong or right, or if maybe a different test standard was used at the time.

Is there a source that might show the SPFE and MPFE for the same filter for comparison?